http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_el_pr/obama_social_security

Do the math.  Only a  " small" amount?   Not really.  For somebody earning let's say 300K a year (which really is not an exhorbitant income in today's world), they currently pay what everyone pays who has a 6 figure income, namely 6324.00 a year.

Under your presidential candidate's plan, that person would (if the plan goes through), then have to pay 18,600.00.  Hmmm that's 12,276.00 EXTRA TAX per year (in the case of the 300K earner, that's uh...DOUBLE).   That, I think is called SOCIALISM.  What is the justification for disproportionate taxing of the rich to expand programs, and in the case of Social Security, a program that is going to go bankrupt anyways and ironically not provide for the sector that is supporting it the most, namely young working people and young families (the majority of whom support Obama).   And, it is an attack upon the rich to fund the less rich.  I don't equate wealth with greed, as many people do, and if somebody's hard work or entrepreneurship made it so they could earn more, why should they be penalized?   Why?

I, personally am opposed to this idea.  If we are going to increase the amount of money needed for SS then, what is fair is to apply the tax across the board, thereby eliminating the "donut hole", and everyone pays the 6.2%.   That would hurt me , because I make over 102K, but I'll put my money where my mouth is, and I am opposed to penalizing the wealthy.  All his proposal will do, is continue the current break for people earning greater than 102,000 up to 250,000.  Those folks will be happy, and people earning less won't care. But does that make it fair?  By the same token, I don't think the wealthy deserve tax breaks/cuts, but should they really have to pay more to the SS plan?