Poll: Americans say raise taxes to save Social Security

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Aug. 30, 2012 9:49 p.m.

    re: one old man

    Agreed. Life never turns out how anyone would like it.

    re: killpack

    So; you agree that the large scale version of 3 card monte perpetrated by Wall St & DC is a travesty.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Aug. 30, 2012 9:45 p.m.

    to metamora & xscribe;

    Can't or won't?

    @ RedShirt

    Where does Countrymom say or even imply she is waiting for a 3rd party to help?

    What is it w/ conservatives, bad reading comprehension, & the need to get on their high horse?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Aug. 29, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    one old man, I don't know. Maybe people aren't demanding help; maybe they are asking nicely. Someone is still FORCIBLY taking the money of struggling Americans, in the form of taxes, to pay for the needs of those who are 'asking nicely.' It's wrong to take money, by force, on pain of imprisonment, from people who are struggling to pay their own bills and give it to another group, struggling or not.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Aug. 29, 2012 7:50 a.m.

    Save the money yourself, and build some self worth.
    Don't be lazy, have some guts.

  • Built2Last Provo, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    My resistance to increasing tax revenues for anything has little to do with my ability to pay the extra taxes, although I feel I'm paying more than my fair share now. It is an issue of trust as to what those additional taxes would provide. As a businessman, it shocks and amazes me how fiscally irresponsible the government is with tax revenue. Why in the world would I want to send more of my hard earned money to Washington just to be squandered? Washington has lost all credibility when it comes to money management.

    Until the government can show some degree of restraint and show some respect for the money they are already collecting and use it in a responsible way, I will continue to push for tax reduction and spending cuts.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 8:42 a.m.

    Killpack wrote, "Certainly they are as deserving, if not more so, than the foolish elderly who forgot to save for retirement?"

    Are you including in your indictment those Americans who DID try to save only to have their savings wiped out by the shenanigans of Wall Street bankers?

    Are you including in your indictment those Americans who DID try to save only to have their savings wiped out by a sudden health crisis that their insurance company refused to cover?

    Are you including in your indictment those Americans who DID try to save only to have their savings wiped out by a job loss or by an employer who suddenly disappeared and took the promised pensions of their workers with them?

    You claim people are DEMANDING help. Are you sure? Or could that be just one more example of conservative hyperbole?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2012 5:47 a.m.

    one old man, I don't know about RedShirt, but if I ever find myself out of money, I sure hope I would have more self-respect than to DEMAND help. I would certainly plead for it and gratefully accept it, if necessary. However, I certainly would NOT demand it, from the coffers of the federal government, who forcibly takes that money, on pain of imprisonment, from so many others who are struggling to get by. Yes, I will disparage anyone who does that. Everyone has bad luck. But are we seriously supposed to take money, by force, from individuals who are having a hard enough time themselves and give it to everyone who is down on their luck? If that is the case, there are millions of women and children starving in Africa. Why doesn't the money go to them? Certainly they are as deserving, if not more so, than the foolish elderly who forgot to save for retirement?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 9:24 p.m.

    RedShirt -- your comments reflect a certain selfish cruelty. Although I wish ill to no one, it would somehow seem fitting if someday you find yourself -- through no fault of your own -- in the same kind of situation as the people you so frequently disparage here.

    Not everyone who depends upon assistance is a leech. And not everyone put themselves deliberately in that situation.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 27, 2012 6:45 p.m.

    I am against raising taxes to save SS. The next generations are going to be taxed enough to pay down our debt. Means test and increase the retirement age. I am saving for retirement with the assumption that social security won't be available. I want to have a comfortable but why should Redshirt subsidize me living a "Modern Maturity" lifestyle?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    To "county mom" while your parents are living in poverty, who's fault is it that they are in this situation? Didn't they save for their retirement? Why should I have to ensure that your parents are able to retire? Since when did retirement become a right?

    With all the care your parents need, why have you and your siblings not picked up the slack and taken your parents into your home to care for them? Why are you waiting for somebody else to do what you are not willing to do?

  • sally Kearns, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    I am not in favor of increasing any taxes for medicare. On top of medicare is medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, VA for both husband and wife for those who served at least one day in a war, and medical VA assistance just to name a few that I know of. Our family has assisted four elderly parents in the last years of their lives. Just finding information for help is difficult. The internet now has more information available. Many families are organized to share assistance of elderly care. In our situation, we had no help from extended family for part of the care. Depending on how ill/disabled they are it is at least part time to full time. Many families are dependent on two incomes so it is difficult to care for the elderly. Unfortunately, I have observed families who depend too much on neighbors and church people to help so that they can maintain their lifestyle, rather than share weeks/days/hours for care. With an increase in elderly care, who will take care of them?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    "..."Raising taxes, especially on the people that provide the jobs for us, is not an option because what you do there, you discourage promoting jobs," said James Taylor, a 68-year-old retiree from Golden, Miss....".

    Lower the effective tax rates to zero, for the job creators, so they will not create jobs even faster than they are not creating jobs now.


  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    Someonewhodoesn'tcareforanyoneelse - I DID prepare. Then when President Cheney and his little buddy plunged the nation into economic misery, my employer went away and with the job went my pension plan. On top of that, my 401 tanked.

    Now I'm living on less than half of what I expected to have upon retirement. SS is a lifesaver for me and countless other Americans.

    You claim to care. For only yourself?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    "53 percent of adults said they would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for future generations, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll."

    This poll is stupid, though I would expect nothing less from the AP. Ask loaded and ambiguous questions to get the answers you want. Why can't they just ask a plain, simple question for once? Like, do you seriously want to pay more social security and medicare taxes, even thou you already pay almost 8%, even if you make minimum wage. I bet a poll with such a straightforward question would have very different results.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    Amazing that some in the article "trust Mr. Obama to protect the middle class" when he is the man that has insisted on taking money (reduced employment taxes) from social security in a failed attempt to improve the economy, and taken money from Medicare to support the very poor Affordable Care Act. The man has done more to threaten the future of both seniors and the young than any man in the history of the country.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Aug. 27, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    @Metamoracoug: To answer your question, Yes, I believe we are, as we have been running vehicles on fossil fuels for 100-plus years now and can't seem to come up with a good alternative.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Aug. 27, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    Country mom: I understand your plight.

    Still, it was only two generations ago that people DID work until they died. How is it that our expectations have so radically changed? How is it that we expect to work 60 years and then get 20 off for good behavior?

    What disturbs me most, however, is that we have become so blinded that we can see no alternative but to tax more. Are we as a society so brain dead that we cannot find alternative solutions?

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 27, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    The first step should be to tax every dollar of income not just the first $110,000. I would think the republicans would propose this, because with income taxes they are really concerned about those who don't pay any taxes. Remember how unfair it is for a rich person to pay a higher percentage in income taxes, but it seems to be ok to have a rich person pay a lower percentage of their income for social security tax. That seems kind of hypocritical. I am sure however I am just participating in more class warfare.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    KJB1, I am with you on this one.
    If we do not do something we will all have to work until we are dead. Social security is not enough to live on now. If we continue to take from it for other programs and to fund crap there will be nothing left.
    The elderly now do not have enough to pay thier utilities let alone for food and medications. Example Dad and Mom, whom I am caring for, get $1,464 a month in social security. $750 goes to a medicare suplimental plan. They are both in poor health, most elderly are, and need lots of care. Medication donut hole ,certain meds are not covered or have a copay, $400 a month. Utilities; water, electricity, phone, trash removal, internet= $500. I have to make up the differance and pay for their food and home. I hope you all have children willing to help or take care of you.
    By the way their social security has gone down $200 a month thanks to the present administration.
    Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

  • someonewhocares Murray, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 6:11 a.m.

    I assume that most of the people that want increased taxes to save social security have done a poor job of putting aside personal funds for retirement. I'm getting tired of these folks whining about not having enough money when they did nothing to prepare for retirement!

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Aug. 27, 2012 6:06 a.m.

    Hi Shaun,

    Don't look now, but even European leftists have been increasing the retirement age in their respective countries. As President Obama has consistently modeled his policy after theirs, I have little doubt that an increase in the retirement age will be a part of his plan.

    That is, of course, if President Obama ever decides to announce a plan. Until then, we're faced with either Romney's plan or a $134 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years (source: Huffington Post).

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 5:58 a.m.

    Amazing. What looks like a well researched article (lots of figures) ignores the fact that Social Security taxes have been dramatically reduced in recent years, and no one has apparently spoken against it in our Congress. How about restore the taxes to their former level?

    The article does show that a majority favor making the program solvent. There are enough funds to keep the system going for three decades, the funds, totally supplied by future Social Security recipients, being held in Treasury bonds which have always been honored. I trust bond holders are not contemplating donating their investment to our government big spenders.

    To increase the retirement age modestly, say to 68, as longevity increases, as has been done in the past makes sense too and, possibly, removing the cap.

    If any fairminded people want to end the system it should not be done at the expense of those who have paid into it for a working lifetime. It can be phased out for future generations if that is what future generations want; apparently it isn't what the majority of this category desire however.

    By all means end the freeloading of any falsely claiming disability - and prosecute.

  • unhappygrammy Nashua, NH
    Aug. 27, 2012 5:13 a.m.

    Save Social Security by stopping ALL Title IV funding. Where do you think all the money is coming from placing children in foster care instead of with family member's? Where do you think ALL that incentive money is coming from, rewarded to the states for each and every stolen child, placed in foster care and adopted out? It's coming from YOUR Social Security money that YOU paid in to the system. Title IV must END!

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 27, 2012 3:49 a.m.

    Very clever confessional scam to feed their aggressive and criminal theft of SSA cash by using IOU's.

    Congress has run out of money and are now using every scam they can to target SSA trust accounts registered to every individual who works, has a SSN, and pays SSA retirement.

    This is not an FDR ponzi scheme and was intended as a meager retirement, not a supplement to investment schemes. People are not being told why SSA exist, and that is crucial to know the reason. Before the 1929 market crash most americans were scammed much like they are today that stocks will double, triple their money with cash invested. Sound familiar yet? 401k/etc?

    After the crash and many Americans that cashed out their savings for stocks ended up losing it all with nothing and instant abject poverty erupted. The FDR plan, a solid cash SSA trust retirement, meager is better than gambling.

    People with jobs will have the same affect as raising taxes and age limits. Our outsourced economy and foreign labor has forced our population (88 million) into retirement, a job will bring them out of retirement and paying SSA funds. Raising taxes is not necessary.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Aug. 27, 2012 1:50 a.m.

    Social Security monies are not set aside and saved for retirees; instead they go into the general fund and are spent just like any other tax dollar. The federal government only keeps a clerical accounting of the money which has been paid into the system. The government then issues the Social Security Trust Fund an IOU in the form of a federal bond.

    Retirees are only paid if they reach retirement age. If they do die, their spouse receives a $255.00 death benefit (big whoop). If they don't have a surviving spouse, their estate receives nothing. It's a nice scam that allows the federal government to borrow money from the Social Security Trust Fund and spend it on whatever it wants.

    I would only allow them to tax beyond the $102,000 threshold if they place a pad lock on the funds, so that the extra monies generated can only be used to pay retirees.

    Fool us once ... shame on you. Fool us twice ... shame on us.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 27, 2012 1:13 a.m.

    Save it, but I'd like to see it means tested. I don't see the need to be making anyone's $150,000 RV payment for them.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 26, 2012 11:21 p.m.

    I hope that 26 year old electrician likes the idea of retiring at the age of seventy. I hope his body can handle 44 more years of installing 4 inch rigid conduit and climbing up and down ladders. Because that is what he is going to get if he votes for Romney and republicans.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Aug. 26, 2012 11:21 p.m.

    Out of money, my eye. All we have to is remove the cap that only allows the first $102,000 of income to be taxed for Social Security and it automatically becomes solvent for the next century without reducing benefits a cent. It's easy and it's fair, but conservatives will scream about "class warfare", so small chance of it happening anytime soon...

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 26, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    More nonsense from the Associated Press folks.

    It does show that an alarming number of Americans simply do not understand the seriousness of the situation, or the basic math involved with FDR's gigantic Ponzi scheme.

    When started, SS was intended as a supplement, not a replacement for private planning for retirement, or to relieve family members of their moral obligation to care for their relatives. Now it is seen as a "freebie" and it has been expanded to a widely abused "disability program" providing lifetime payments to some truly disabled people and many, many freeloaders.

    When started there was a ratio of something like 6 workers paying SS FICA taxes for every recipient. Pretty soon there will be three recipients for every working person paying social security taxes. On top of the huge tax increases which will be needed to pay off our obscene debt to China for Obama's spending (and that of all his predecessors combined which is equally big.)

    SS will have to have benefits cut, start later, disability payments restricted or eliminated, and many other spending program will have to be cut. We are out of money, and cannot spend that way anymore.