<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Chart Of The&nbsp;Day]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<img alt="Socialsecuritycap" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00d83451c45669e20134850ec9bc970c " src="http://andrewsullivan.readymadeweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/6a00d83451c45669e20134850ec9bc970c-550wi.png" style="width: 515px;" /> <br /> </p><p>Dylan Matthews <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_could_r.html">balances</a> Social Security by lifting the contribution cap: </p><blockquote><p> Currently, wages over a certain yearly total (<a href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html">$106,800</a> this year) are exempted from Social Security payroll taxes. Medicare&#39;s payroll tax has no such cap. This has raised the question of how raising the cap could extend Social Security&#39;s solvency....Congressional Research Service <a href="http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf">looked at this question</a> in 2008 by evaluating three different proposals. The first would raise the cap so that 90 percent of wages are taxed (CRS estimates this would mean a cap of $171,600 in 2006) and pay higher benefits to those affected; the second would eliminate the cap and pay higher benefits; and the third would eliminate the cap for taxes but would not increase benefits...]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/6a00d83451c45669e20134850ec9bc970c-550wi.png?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[313]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>