4 ms·

Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden

Additionally, removing the cap on FICA contributions would likely push Social Security back into long-term solvency, but that would be far too much of a burden on the top 1% of wage earners so it’ll never happen.

scarface_74 1y ago
To be precise, social security maxes out at around the income of the 93 percentile of income https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.
- kgermino 1y ago
  It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement. But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    In that case it’s no longer about social security it’s just a 12.4% marginal tax increase (employer + employee).
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security. No? Why would it mean that?
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay. > Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out? Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        So you want to raise the marginal tax rate by 12.4% (employee + employer) without the person getting any benefit? > Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this. And educated children, police, roads, etc benefit society and we were all at one point kids who could take advantage of public education, I don’t even have a problem paying more in taxes for universal healthcare that will reduce my + employer expenses on my healthcare. But paying an extra 12.4% for what was suppose to be a retirement account that I don’t get any benefit from and reduces the amount I can save toward my own retirement is a bridge too far. Since 2018, I’ve been slightly above the increasing social security maximum. So it’s not that I’m one of the 1%.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        Pet peeve/nit, but social security is not a retirement account. Our taxes are a way of funding current retirees' (and other SS recipients') benefits, not a way of funding our own individual future benefits. The fact that paying more in increases our future benefit doesn't make it a retirement account.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        It very much is. The more you put in the more you get out. From a financial accounting standpoint, the money you put in goes in a “trust fund” that is constantly borrowed against. It was never suppose to be that way. Social Security taxes is not allocated for current retirees. It just goes in the general budget.

scarface_74 1y ago

To be precise, social security maxes out at around the income of the 93 percentile of income https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.

kgermino 1y ago
It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement. But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
- scarface_74 1y ago
  In that case it’s no longer about social security it’s just a 12.4% marginal tax increase (employer + employee).
ceejayoz 1y ago
> But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security. No? Why would it mean that?
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay. > Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out? Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      So you want to raise the marginal tax rate by 12.4% (employee + employer) without the person getting any benefit? > Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this. And educated children, police, roads, etc benefit society and we were all at one point kids who could take advantage of public education, I don’t even have a problem paying more in taxes for universal healthcare that will reduce my + employer expenses on my healthcare. But paying an extra 12.4% for what was suppose to be a retirement account that I don’t get any benefit from and reduces the amount I can save toward my own retirement is a bridge too far. Since 2018, I’ve been slightly above the increasing social security maximum. So it’s not that I’m one of the 1%.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        Pet peeve/nit, but social security is not a retirement account. Our taxes are a way of funding current retirees' (and other SS recipients') benefits, not a way of funding our own individual future benefits. The fact that paying more in increases our future benefit doesn't make it a retirement account.
        scarface_74 1y ago
        It very much is. The more you put in the more you get out. From a financial accounting standpoint, the money you put in goes in a “trust fund” that is constantly borrowed against. It was never suppose to be that way. Social Security taxes is not allocated for current retirees. It just goes in the general budget.