> AFAIK there was no change in benefit values even though > the rate went from 15% to 13% (approx). That change was done as temporary "stimulus". Are you sugg

> AFAIK there was no change in benefit values even though > the rate went from 15% to 13% (approx). That change was done as temporary "stimulus". Are you suggesting that we engage in permanent "anti-stimulus"? (FWIW, I think that the drop was dumb.) More to the point, that change wasn't the opposite of raising the cap as the reduction applied to everyone's contributions so it isn't directly relevant to a cap discussion. You need more facts and arguments, IMHO. As for your $600 threshold for 1099 argument, the analogous argument is that the earnings contribution cap should be indexed to inflation. (It may be going up a bit faster than inflation.) It is index, you're either arguing for the status quo or more. Which is it? And, you didn't address my argument about the hows and whys of the cap. Instead, you went off in a different direction. Fair enough - I'll play along. > I'd prefer some degree of 'means' testing Why is your vague scheme better than the two ways that SS benefits are means-tested today? (There may be more than two - I'm fairly ignorant of SS.) I should say that I'm starting to change my position on SS. When I was younger, I didn't see why younger folks should subsidize older ones. Now that I'm older, I'm beginning to see the wisdom of such policies. SS has been cash-flow negative for a couple of years. While I applaud your efforts to keep the money flowing until I get mine back, do you really think that the next generation is going to do the same for you?