Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Graduates jobs: More work with AI but what else?
    • Is the Jeep Grand Cherokee Worth Buying? A Real-World Test
    • Polls begin closing in midterms set to roil Trump presidency
    • Where have there been technical issues so far during US midterm elections? | US Midterm Elections 2026 News
    • Jason Kelce’s comments raise concern over Saints’ direction
    • Contributor: Pete Hegseth must answer for his record and face the consequences
    • Billionaire tax: What to know about California’s Prop 40
    • Market Talk – November 3, 2026
    Prime US News
    • Home
    • World News
    • Latest News
    • US News
    • Sports
    • Politics
    • Opinions
    • More
      • Tech News
      • Trending News
      • World Economy
    Prime US News
    Home»Opinions»A regressive rate tax could fill the Social Security reserve gap
    Opinions

    A regressive rate tax could fill the Social Security reserve gap

    Team_Prime US NewsBy Team_Prime US NewsJune 13, 2026No Comments1 Min Read
    Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Reddit Telegram Email
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


    To the editor: For wage earners, the Social Safety tax is currently 6.2% for each worker and employer for the primary $184,500 of annual wages, falling to zero on all wages past that (self-employed people pay 12.4% of the primary $184,500 of internet earnings).

    A generally prompt treatment for the projected reserve fund depletion is to easily lengthen or eradicate the taxable wage cap, which is at present yearly adjusted upward for inflation (“The Social Security crisis should be dominating the Senate campaign,” June 12). What by no means appears to be thought of is adjusting the tax fee. I might assume that going from a hard and fast fee to a regressive fee would procure extra income and will truly scale back the tax for many wage earners (necessary for political acceptance).

    It may look one thing like this: 6% tax on employer and worker on the primary $200,000 earned; 5% on the subsequent $100,000; adopted by 4% to three% to 2% on $100,000 increments to ultimately 1% for earnings over $600,000 yearly. Whereas this may not procure the identical income as merely eliminating the wage cap, it might be rather more palatable politically.

    Bob Fey, Orange



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleTrump’s name must be removed from Kennedy Center by noon Saturday, judge says
    Next Article The ‘NBA blocks champions’ quiz
    Team_Prime US News
    • Website

    Related Posts

    Opinions

    Contributor: Pete Hegseth must answer for his record and face the consequences

    November 4, 2026
    Opinions

    Letters to the Editor: Culver City and L.A. County led the way in curbing oil production

    November 3, 2026
    Opinions

    Dolores Huerta wasn’t perfect, but she was always dedicated

    November 3, 2026
    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Most Popular

    Wuhan Virology Lab Continues Gain-of-Function Research On Coronaviruses

    May 7, 2025

    Bessent: I AM THE HOUSE NOW

    September 21, 2026

    Contributor: A Republican governor would bring productive tension to Sacramento

    October 28, 2026
    Our Picks

    Graduates jobs: More work with AI but what else?

    November 4, 2026

    Is the Jeep Grand Cherokee Worth Buying? A Real-World Test

    November 4, 2026

    Polls begin closing in midterms set to roil Trump presidency

    November 4, 2026
    Categories
    • Latest News
    • Opinions
    • Politics
    • Sports
    • Tech News
    • Trending News
    • US News
    • World Economy
    • World News
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms and Conditions
    • About us
    • Contact us
    Copyright © 2024 Primeusnews.com All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.