Michael, I kind of agree with you and disagree with you. I'll give you my reason (just thinking out loud here; let me know what you think--- others, too).
Social Security was envisioned by Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and the people's movement she took her positions from, thinking that Social Security would be a constantly evolving program continuing to make life better for people--- and it has done this to a great extent but it really hasn't "blossomed" in comparison to an increase in wealth created.
Hence, I agree that removing the "cap" on Social Security is needed--- no matter what else is done--- because it is another way to "tax the rich" as part of wealth redistribution which would really provide greater funds to expand the programs offered by Social Security rather than "stabilize" (or increase) Social Security's actual "pension payouts," which I think needs to be accomplished through:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
In fact, Social Security payouts should have been tied to real cost of living factors long ago not these phony "increases" that only assure pensioners become poor. In fact, the elderly are now being used as a huge pool of cheap labor to depress wages on a nationwide basis.
If there was full employment, this full employment itself would be a lever pushing wages constantly up resulting in very substantial increases in Social Security payroll taxes... the more wealth created by workers returned to workers in turn not only stabilizes the Social Security fund but enables larger payouts and program expansion.
Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are moving in the direct opposite direction on all fronts when it comes to Social Security because they want to push workers back into the workforce until the day they die as a huge pool of very cheap labor... after all, if you are already getting a Social Security check plus you have to work, this miserly Social Security check is actually subsidizing the wages for some casino management, Wal-mart, McDonalds or the local convenience store/gas station.
The attack on Social Security is intended to create a massive vicious cycle designed to put in motion what is always Wall Street's PRIMARY agenda--- pushing wages down.
Follow the cycle through with the elderly being forced back into the workforce and this delays entry into the workforce of young workers--- thereby creating another huge pool of impoverished workers "hungry"for employment no matter how low the wages no matter how many jobs they have to work or how many hours they have to work every week.
We already see how this is playing out.
I can assure you that if you walk into any Wal-mart and go up to any "associate" they will tell you Wal-mart restricts their hours to far less than forty hours and their pay is far less than a living wage so they are working a second or even third job with each of those jobs fewer hours with less pay.
I know people working at Wal-mart who work other jobs for a total up to 16 and even 19 hours a day and they still qualify for Food Stamps! If they qualify for Food Stamps what are these people and the employers paying into the Social Security fund?
At the same time as workers are being impoverished (not receiving the wealth they are producing), we have a small minority amassing this tremendous wealth stolen from labor.
To my way of thinking, if the picture I have provided is correct, then these three steps are crucial to saving Social Security:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
Removing the "cap" would only be "icing on the cake" providing for expanded programs but do very little to keeping the Social Security system solvent but improve and expand the benefits.
I seriously doubt that removing the "cap" on Social Security can significantly aid in stabilizing the Social Security system or significantly increase benefits--- even if the "cap" were removed at say $50,000.00 with a steeply progressive increase on the highest incomes because their simply aren't enough people to tax at these levels.
The other thing that many people suggest is that the wealthy should not be entitled to Social Security to begin with; but, then this is no longer a "universal" social program and we all know what would happen if the reactionaries started running with this approach.
There is every indication that U6 unemployment at around 15% is the "new normal" and acceptable level of unemployment in this country by Wall Street, organized labor and the government--- even the AFL-CIO leadership is apparently willing to accept this as the "new normal" since all of their recommended "job creation programs" are aimed at "stabilizing" unemployment at 15% and Richard Trumka has signed a letter of agreement with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in supporting Obama's "job creation program" that accepts 15% unemployment.
I seriously doubt--- although I have not seen any calculations--- that Social Security can survive another three decades with unemployment at 15% no matter if you remove its "cap."
Social Security was envisioned by Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and the people's movement she took her positions from, thinking that Social Security would be a constantly evolving program continuing to make life better for people--- and it has done this to a great extent but it really hasn't "blossomed" in comparison to an increase in wealth created.
Hence, I agree that removing the "cap" on Social Security is needed--- no matter what else is done--- because it is another way to "tax the rich" as part of wealth redistribution which would really provide greater funds to expand the programs offered by Social Security rather than "stabilize" (or increase) Social Security's actual "pension payouts," which I think needs to be accomplished through:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
In fact, Social Security payouts should have been tied to real cost of living factors long ago not these phony "increases" that only assure pensioners become poor. In fact, the elderly are now being used as a huge pool of cheap labor to depress wages on a nationwide basis.
If there was full employment, this full employment itself would be a lever pushing wages constantly up resulting in very substantial increases in Social Security payroll taxes... the more wealth created by workers returned to workers in turn not only stabilizes the Social Security fund but enables larger payouts and program expansion.
Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are moving in the direct opposite direction on all fronts when it comes to Social Security because they want to push workers back into the workforce until the day they die as a huge pool of very cheap labor... after all, if you are already getting a Social Security check plus you have to work, this miserly Social Security check is actually subsidizing the wages for some casino management, Wal-mart, McDonalds or the local convenience store/gas station.
The attack on Social Security is intended to create a massive vicious cycle designed to put in motion what is always Wall Street's PRIMARY agenda--- pushing wages down.
Follow the cycle through with the elderly being forced back into the workforce and this delays entry into the workforce of young workers--- thereby creating another huge pool of impoverished workers "hungry"for employment no matter how low the wages no matter how many jobs they have to work or how many hours they have to work every week.
We already see how this is playing out.
I can assure you that if you walk into any Wal-mart and go up to any "associate" they will tell you Wal-mart restricts their hours to far less than forty hours and their pay is far less than a living wage so they are working a second or even third job with each of those jobs fewer hours with less pay.
I know people working at Wal-mart who work other jobs for a total up to 16 and even 19 hours a day and they still qualify for Food Stamps! If they qualify for Food Stamps what are these people and the employers paying into the Social Security fund?
At the same time as workers are being impoverished (not receiving the wealth they are producing), we have a small minority amassing this tremendous wealth stolen from labor.
To my way of thinking, if the picture I have provided is correct, then these three steps are crucial to saving Social Security:
1. Full employment;
2. A substantial upwards push in wages (more pay; more Social Security tax); and
3. Tying the minimum wage to a real living wage based upon real cost of living factors.
Removing the "cap" would only be "icing on the cake" providing for expanded programs but do very little to keeping the Social Security system solvent but improve and expand the benefits.
I seriously doubt that removing the "cap" on Social Security can significantly aid in stabilizing the Social Security system or significantly increase benefits--- even if the "cap" were removed at say $50,000.00 with a steeply progressive increase on the highest incomes because their simply aren't enough people to tax at these levels.
The other thing that many people suggest is that the wealthy should not be entitled to Social Security to begin with; but, then this is no longer a "universal" social program and we all know what would happen if the reactionaries started running with this approach.
There is every indication that U6 unemployment at around 15% is the "new normal" and acceptable level of unemployment in this country by Wall Street, organized labor and the government--- even the AFL-CIO leadership is apparently willing to accept this as the "new normal" since all of their recommended "job creation programs" are aimed at "stabilizing" unemployment at 15% and Richard Trumka has signed a letter of agreement with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in supporting Obama's "job creation program" that accepts 15% unemployment.
I seriously doubt--- although I have not seen any calculations--- that Social Security can survive another three decades with unemployment at 15% no matter if you remove its "cap."