Latest News

How The Social Security 2100 Act Could Finance a Tax Cut

Andrew Biggs writing in National Review takes issue with the payroll tax hikes in the Social Security 2100 Act which appears poised to soon pass the House.  The Act seeks to make Social Security solvent by increasing payroll taxes and taxing high earners more heavily.  But the Act would actually make Social Security’s funding less progressive, because those payroll-tax increases would replace an even more progressive source of funding (federal income taxes) than the one the program now relies on.  Biggs acknowledges conservatives have been largely silent on Social Security reform but believes there is an opening for them to argue for income tax cuts should they choose to go along with payroll tax increases.  Read his full piece here.

The Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) believes Social Security must be preserved and modernized.  This can be achieved by making modest changes in cost of living adjustments and the retirement age, with no additional taxes on workers.  AMAC advocates for a bipartisan compromise, “The Social Security Guarantee Act,” taking selected portions of bills introduced by former Rep. Johnson (R-TX) and current Rep. Larson (D-CT) and merging them with the Association’s own well researched ideas.  One component is Social Security PLUS, a new, voluntary plan that would allow all earners to have more income available at retirement.  This component is intended to appeal especially to younger workers.  AMAC is resolute in its mission that Social Security be preserved and modernized and has gotten the attention of lawmakers in DC, meeting with a great many congressional offices and their staffs over the past several years.  Read AMAC’s plan here.



Notice: The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; cannot guarantee the duration of the link’s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or

What's Your Opinion?

We welcome your comments. Join the discussion and let your voice be heard. All fields are required

Website by Geiger Computers