Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Oval Office octagon: How Trump turned combat sports into a political weapon | Donald Trump News
    • Cavaliers guard James Harden arrested in Houston
    • Letters to the Editor: Closing Locke High based on test scores alone would be a mistake
    • FBI searches office of Ohio group that supports voter registration efforts
    • Thousands turn out for anti-racism rally after Belfast unrest
    • Workers remove Trump’s name from Kennedy Center after court ruling | Donald Trump News
    • The ‘NBA blocks champions’ quiz
    • A regressive rate tax could fill the Social Security reserve gap
    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

    Letters to the Editor: Closing Locke High based on test scores alone would be a mistake

    June 13, 2026
    Opinions

    Elon Musk’s rocket launches are a nuisance for this California town

    June 13, 2026
    Opinions

    Column: The Social Security crisis should be dominating the Senate campaign

    June 13, 2026
    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Most Popular

    Trump says reciprocal tariffs will target all countries

    March 31, 2025

    UK’s embattled Starmer vows to see out five-year term

    January 4, 2026

    Here’s the hard question about homes that burned on PCH

    February 5, 2025
    Our Picks

    Oval Office octagon: How Trump turned combat sports into a political weapon | Donald Trump News

    June 13, 2026

    Cavaliers guard James Harden arrested in Houston

    June 13, 2026

    Letters to the Editor: Closing Locke High based on test scores alone would be a mistake

    June 13, 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.