Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
Email this Story

Feb 16, 5:51 PM (ET)

By LAURA MECKLER


PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - President Bush is not ruling out raising taxes on people who earn more than $90,000 as a way to help fix Social Security's finances.

At the same time, he renewed his pitch Wednesday for Congress to approve an overhaul that would include Social Security private accounts for many workers. He told 2,000 people in an airport terminal that rich and poor alike should have a chance to invest in the stock market.

"Investors aren't just Wall Street people, as far as I'm concerned," Bush told the crowd invited by the state's all-GOP congressional delegation. "I think every citizen, every citizen has got the capacity to manage his or her own money."

He gave only passing mention to options for fixing the program's long-term financial woes, but told reporters for regional newspapers on Tuesday that he isn't ruling out making more wages subject to Social Security taxes.

Asked directly, Bush said he would not bar raising the $90,000 cap, although he does not want to see the payroll tax rate go up.

"The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate. And all the other issues go on the table," Bush said in the interview, according to an account in Wednesday's New Haven (Conn.) Register.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said raising the cap on Social Security taxes is just one option among many being advocated.

"Just because he said it was an option doesn't mean he embraced it," Duffy added.

Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages. That ceiling rises each year with inflation - last year it was $87,100. The Social Security tax rate is now 12.4 percent of pay, split between workers and employers.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other lawmakers have argued that Bush's plan for personal accounts, which will cost more than $1 trillion up front, would be more attractive to Democrats if it is financed by raising taxes on the wealthy.

If Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years, though the system would again face trouble after that, according to one economic analysis.

In New Hampshire, Bush vowed to continue to travel the country, convincing Americans the system needs fixing. He hopes they will, in turn, persuade their congressional delegation to act.

"I'm going to talk to the American people over and over and over again until the members of Congress recognize we have a problem," Bush said.

It's a case he must continue to make, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. Asked about the mood of Senate Republicans toward the issue, he said Tuesday: "Every member would like to see Social Security go away, but it isn't going to go away because the president won't let it go away."

With his quick visit here, Bush has now hosted Social Security-focused forums in eight states since his Feb. 2 State of the Union address.

New Hampshire is home to a pair of GOP senators who already strongly support Bush's ideas, but in neighboring Maine, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe has come out against personal accounts and GOP Sen. Susan Collins has urged caution. Portsmouth borders Maine and local news coverage of the Bush event was likely to reach their constituents in the southern, populous part of Maine.

What a fucking flip-flopper!

"Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages."

"If Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years"

Anbody care to explain this arbitrary cap on payroll taxes?

Stinkin' welfare state!

If you make $90,000, you have enough money to fund a lobbyist.

What are you talking about? He's always said that all options are on the table. Did you not listen to the state of the union address? He couldn't have been more clearer.

Your response is hyterical and just shows that, no matter what, those that are anti-Bush are so to the core. If Bush would have come out and said that he was absolutely against taxing anything above $90,000, everyone would have cried that he's only out to satisfy the rich. Now he comes out and said that it's an option and you still criticize him for being a flip-flopper. Give me a break.

Speak for yourself. I've been in arguments on this before on this board (I think with Tsunami, as a matter of fact). Did you ever consider that someone making $90,000 a year may not see a 100% return on that money. Do you consider student loans, insurance, bills, family, illnesses, etc.?

By the way, they arrive at the arbitrary $90,000 the same way they arbitrarily set the cutoffs for tax brackets. However, it's more tied to the lessened amounts that anyone making over that amount will actually recoup in SS.

I suffer through months of the right lambasting Kerry for thinking critically about the decisions and statements he made about Iraq, fucking mocking him for having difficulty making a hugely convoluted issue black and white, and now Mr. Anti-Tax decides he's going to be OK with taxes and I can't call him a flip-flopper? Whatever. Suck it up.

How fittingly (and conveniently) nonresponsive. It's one thing to criticize an opponent when he or she flip flops positions that effectly contradict your ideology, yet it's quite another to criticize just for the hell of it, which you are obviously doing here. Considering you represent the party that supposedly champions the rights of the oppressed, poor and working class, I find it comical that you criticize Bush for actually being open to a large tenet of your party's platform -- more and higher taxes on the "wealthy." Then again, I think you just admitted that you're calling Bush a flip-flopper just because it's convenient, not because because it's actually based on substance. Pardon me for calling you out.

By the way, the difference with Kerry's flip-flop is that he did so for political convenience and capital, and nothing more. Hence, the old addage, "Say anything to get elected." Then again, it didn't help that Kerry actually voted for the war and agreed with Bush to a large degree throughout the campaign.

Throwing more money at a broken system is not the answer.

You determined complete political platform based on 2 one-sentence jokes and whole-heartedly attacked it. I think someone is self-conscious about their party platform.

Did I take an opportunistic poke at Bush? Yeah, I admit that. Are you saying that politicians with liberal beliefs haven't had representatives of the Right do the same thing?

Of course not. It happens all the time. But usually when I make a jab its done based on more than pure convenience.

By the way, I don't know what party you represent, but I assume, given your comments, that you're not a big Bush fan.

from the joint economic committee's site:



keep in mind, though, that right after WWII, the non-payroll tax rates were outrageous, up to 85% or some shit. i'm no expert, but the increases are not arbitrary.

This is somewhat close to my backup plan, which is to convert a percentage of the income tax to those above $90,000 to a payroll tax. It wouldn't result in a tax increase--just a transfer of where the tax go.

Can you explain please?

I'm going to use hypothetical numbers here.

Let's say the payroll tax is at 12% applies to everyone but the highest tax bracket, where the cutoff is at $90,000. That highest tax bracket currently pays 35%. What I would propose is to cut that bracket down to 23% and then apply the 12% payroll tax to all income.

Now, that's a very simplistic example, and I would imagine that would raise more money than would be necessary, in which case I would then cut the payroll tax percentage as proper.

Interesting idea.

Very true Chris!

Much has changed since then though.

And to clarify, and I am the messenger for this post, the President said that this was one of the options. It is not a done deal yet.

Yeah, I'm a little bit left of Ghandi. That's why I generally take random pokes and try to avoid a lot of debates. I know no one in this world will ever agree with me.

... That and I don't stand much of a chance in a SS debate. I don't have a CLUE about my own pension or taxes.

Given that we're already running a deficit, where would you propose cuts be made to compensate for the decrease in federal revenues?