FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Social Security’s Dual-Income Trap

U.S. workers have paid a reduced Social Security tax rate of 4.2 percent for the past year and a half, down from the ordinary rate of 6.2 percent. For most Americans, this has meant some welcome tax relief. But one group is still paying more than its fair share.

Families with two breadwinners can end up paying more than twice as much in Social Security taxes as families with just one income.

At current Social Security tax rates, a married couple in which each partner independently earns $100,000 pays a total of $8,400 in employee Social Security taxes. A single breadwinner earning $200,000 pays just $4,624. A single breadwinner earning $200 million or $200 billion pays the same $4,624.

The reason is that Social Security taxes are paid only on the first $110,100 of each individual’s wages.

Because of the complexities of Social Security tax rates and the fact that Social Security taxes are based on individual earnings instead of total family income, dual-income couples pay more in Social Security taxes than anybody else.

As a result, a typical New Jersey married couple in which an actuary (average annual salary $100,050) is married to a database administrator ($82,750) pays 66 percent more in Social Security tax than either New York’s bachelor mayor Michael Bloomberg or the unmarried shortstop Derek Jeter.

A married Iowa optometrist ($104,370) and radiation therapist ($82,190) together pay 69 percent more than a single Chicago commodities trader or actor George Clooney, who got divorced in 1993 and says he’ll never get married again.

Now, no one is going to starve on combined family incomes like these. But there’s a big difference between a family where a single breadwinner makes $200,000 or more a year and a family where two working parents scrape together $200,000 a year on their combined incomes.

Individuals earning more than $110,100 in wage income should pay the same Social Security taxes at the same 4.2-percent rate as everyone else. This isn’t just fair. It’s also fiscally prudent.

When Congress lowered the individual Social Security tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, it didn’t balance this with sufficient taxes or cuts to replace the lost revenue. Applying the reduced 4.2-percent tax rate to all wage income would more than make up for the lost revenue.

To make the Social Security system solvent forever, Congress could simply apply the reduced 4.2-percent individual Social Security tax to all income instead of just wage income. Currently, investment income isn’t subject to Social Security tax at all.

We shouldn’t penalize dual-income families to subsidize highly compensated individuals. Washington should close the dual-income trap by levying Social Security taxes on all wage income.

Better yet, apply the 4.2-percent Social Security flat tax to all income. With everyone paying their fair share, we can afford to make the reduced 4.2-percent Social Security tax rate permanent — and at the same time ensure that Social Security will be there for our children and grandchildren as well.

Salvatore Babones is a senior lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). He is the author of the forthcoming book, Benchmarking America. He can be reached through his website.

This column was distributed by OtherWords.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail