Pages

Sunday, March 01, 2020

Comcast, via CNBC delivers a surprise. An op-ed authored by Nina Turner.

Opening up to reality? Link. Excerpt:

Today, billionaires pay the same amount of money into Social Security as someone who makes $132,900 a year. Sanders' legislation lifts that cap, and applies the payroll tax to all income over $250,000. The new revenue generated by that change would not only make Social Security solvent for the next 50 years, it also would allow us to expand benefits across the board, and increase cost-of-living adjustments to keep pace with inflation.

When President Franklin Roosevelt signed the original bill creating Social Security in 1935, he called it "a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."

Eighty-five years later, we must now fortify that economic structure: we must defeat Trump and elect Bernie Sanders -- whose record makes clear he will build on Roosevelt's historic achievement.

As a byproduct of the Sanders plan, clearly, Michael Bloomberg would, for a change, pay a fair share into the Social Security program. Michael Bloomberg does not want that, and such a plan is NOT in any pre-packaged Bloomberg advertisement talking points or media releases. CNBC reports:

To pay for benefit increases, most proposals generally call for raising the payroll tax or the wage base. The Social Security tax is currently 6.2%, or 7.65% with Medicare, which is paid by both employees and their employers. Currently, only earnings up to $137,700 are subject to those Social Security levies.

Bloomberg's plan does not stipulate whether he would increase those thresholds.

So - Bloomberg is ducking that "raise the cap" issue to where his position on the question has no answer expressly given into the public domain? What reason do you suppose there is for that?