3 ms·
That’s because social security isn’t a “tax” - it’s funding pensions, and you pay into it now to get a pension later, which is capped at maximum payout, which i
by seibelj 6y ago
That’s because social security isn’t a “tax” - it’s funding pensions, and you pay into it now to get a pension later, which is capped at maximum payout, which is why you don’t have to pay above a salary amount because above which you won’t increase your income in retirement.
However to reform social security so it can actually be maintained, I agree we should increase the limits or remove them entirely. But keep in mind social security is not seen as a tax - it’s a retirement pension. If we are going to change it so that rich people pay more and get less, we should also reform Medicare so that rich people pay for their own healthcare in retirement. Tons of old age programs give handouts to the rich - that’s not what they are for.
- Godel_unicode 6y agoThey are absolutely not pensions, and you are not paying into it now to fund payment later. It's a tax. You pay it now to cover those taking it now, and the social contract says future generations will do the same. This is a very important distinction, so I'll repeat it. Social security in the United States is not a pension, it's just a government program. We're told it will continue, but that's only because the current government says it will. A future government could just decide to stop payments, and there would be no recourse because it's not a pension. If you live in the United States, please plan accordingly.
- lowlevellimbo 6y agoYou're right that it's not a pension, it's a tax, and the more one contributes the less they see in returned benefit. > A future government could just decide to stop payments A future government could just decide to go to war with Canada and the recourse for citizens would be the same.