4 ms·
There aren’t many billionaires, and SS taxable income is capped; $128k this year. So a billionaire receiving SS is rightly entitled to receive what he contribu
by madengr 8y ago
There aren’t many billionaires, and SS taxable income is capped; $128k this year. So a billionaire receiving SS is rightly entitled to receive what he contributed.
You can strip SS from the 1% and it will make no difference. You can do the same for the 10% and it will make little difference. The 10% payed FAR more in than they will receive.
- Retric 8y agoSo, you agree SS is not a safty net? PS: Social Security is hardly fair. That cap is by far the largest benifit for billionaires from social security’s design. People in the 10% pay a vastly higher percentage of their income to support others. A fair system would be something like X% up to a cap that you get back and y% that you don’t with everyone paying their share of the y%. But that starts to look like a safty net. On top of that married couples get a larger benifit with a single large income vs two incomes of half that size.
- madengr 8y agoAgree, SS is not a safety net. Neither is Medicare. What I should have made more clear is that stripping the 1% of SS benefits will provide no increase to the 99%. SS is supposed to be the third leg in the retirement stool, with pensions and individual investments the other two. SS is a very short leg, nearing insolvency. Pensions are a thing of the past. That leaves a pogo stick of individual savings. If you don’t want to be eating Alpo in old age, you need to be investing 20% of your income, and hope you can ride that pogo stick until death.