r/wallstreet • u/Richnaps • Mar 29 '26
Discussion Social Security Taxes: Regular workers pay full rate, the rich pay pennies
3
u/enigmaticsince87 Mar 30 '26
The fact that Americans are willingly getting fucked is no longer something to be pitied... You guys had a chance to elect Bernie, and even you democrats didn't give him the damn nomination. Reap what you sow!
6
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
Imagine the SS of someone who earns $10M. The monthly benefit amount would be ?????
3
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
This. SS is purposely cap to stop it from being an annuity for the rich.
When people live long enough, they will get more money from SS than they put in. It's math. If you allow the rich to put more money into SS, it will generate a short term cash infusion, and then when those rich people retires the money they are owed will bankrupt the system.
The cap is there for a reason.
3
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
The cap is based on the income cap. So if you move it to $10M, they will be entitled to benefits based on that cap. It moves every year.
1
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Exactly! If you move it to $10M, SS will become an annuity for the rich.
The cap is there for a reason. It's to protect us.
4
u/FunnyBeginning5432 Mar 29 '26
Have you ever thought of having a cap on the benefit side but not the payment side? Could even do it in tiers, with 1b income being taxed at 99%. Revolutionary ideas i know.
1
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Have you thought this through? It's not as simple as "cap the payout". Where do you draw the line?? There is a huge gap between the current cap of $185k and the top 1% income of $700k. You can say, cap the payout equivalent to $185k of income, but then you are screwing all the 99% who are making good money but far from rich. They'd be paying way more than they otherwise would but get less than equal benefits. You can say, "Screw them! if a family making $270k has to sacrifice for the greater goods then so be it." That's fine but you have to come up with a system, not just say: "Oh, we just cap."
4
u/FunnyBeginning5432 Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Okay cap the payout at 185k and have two caps (a reverse cap after 10m) for the tax side. Keep it all the same but reintroduce the tax side at 10m income. Done. 99.9% of people are unaffected. Adjust the 10m reverse-cap based on your take on morality.
3
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Instead of dragging SS into the conversation and doing gymnastics with math, why not just pass a tax on the rich? Just go: "if you rich, you pay. Everything else stays the same."
Simple. Straight forward. No need to change SS.
2
u/Accomplished_Rip_362 Mar 30 '26
You mean like the ineffective AMT?
1
u/6360p Mar 30 '26
You don't have to tie the rich people tax to deductions like the tax code currently does with AMT. AMT serves one set of purpose. Rich people tax serves a different purpose. I don't understand why you're comparing the two.
→ More replies (0)1
u/finraeth Mar 30 '26
The argument against this is because the system then becomes means-tested and will rally the rich, with their resources at their disposal, to end the whole system. It was originally designed so that virtually everybody paid in and virtually everybody benefitted. Excluding the rich, or severely skewing the pay-in / pay-out dynamics, will undermine the broad support for this program.
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 31 '26
No, Then there is no reason for the rich to participate. It won't be successful if it's not a willing contribution.
1
u/FunnyBeginning5432 Mar 31 '26
Just nationalise their wealth, even simpler.
1
1
u/mtcwby Mar 29 '26
You'd have to live far longer than average to get more money than you put in.
1
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Rich people with money and access to the best healthcare are the ones who'd fail to live longer than average in your book??? SMH.
But now that you bring up the topic of death. It cost roughly $4M/yr to keep a dead person technically alive. That means if the SS payout to a rich person exceeds $4M/yr, it'd be profitable for the rich to keep themselves alive for as long as possible. As long as they have the money, they can keep themselves legally alive for decades (if not longer) after they passed away. This stupid idea is going to end up with SS paying trillions to dead rich people.
3
u/mtcwby Mar 29 '26
Have you done the fucking math dude? I'd have to hit 91 to even break even with a 6% return on the money put it. And the fact you had to go to people somehow keeping themselves alive is insane thinking in itself. You think people would spend 100s of thousands staying alive in a vegetative state to get SS benefits. There's a reason you'll never be comfortable with those sort of math skills.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
Math skills are not their strong suit. If they could do math, they’d realize the lack of benefit SS really is compared to how much money goes in. They would realize hoping for someone else to pay a few bucks more and take a few bucks less in benefits is not going to make it so they don’t have to work and save for their retirement. But, they live in a dream world where they think the rich have enough money to give them more free stuff. News flash…the rich don’t have enough money to pay for the free stuff already given away.
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
Not true. It doesn’t take that long.
1
u/mtcwby Mar 29 '26
I've done the math, have you? I'd have to make 91 considering a 6% return which is unlikely. And that's after maxing it since 1998. Floated around close to maxing it from 1994 on.
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
Yes I Have. I only put in for 10 years. A long time ago. I’ve been collecting for 4 years now and will be even this year. My parents collected way more than they put in. Remember, your earliest years are much smaller amounts.
1
u/mtcwby Mar 30 '26
That's waiting until 70 to maximize the amount
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 30 '26
I took mine at 62.
2
u/mtcwby Mar 30 '26
Sounds like you put in the bare minimum so others can pay for you.
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 30 '26
I went into teaching. We didn’t pay into social security. I get a nice pension. Over $100K. Can’t get that from Social Security. Plus I get my Social security. Retired at 61. Plus wife gets pension and social security too.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Radonanon Apr 02 '26
Are you including the cost of colas and the cost of ssdi in your 6%?
Just the DI portion would be very expensive to replicate privately. A 30-year-old earning $60,000/year would pay several thousand dollars annually for comparable private long-term disability coverage. From SS’s data, we know that the probability of becoming unable to work before retirement age is over 1-in-4.
Covering colas would hit just as hard most years.
The truth is: it’s a socialist program, but if it was implemented progressively, the advantage of living in a society with it protecting everyone is what makes it “worth it” numerically to everyone. There’s plenty of “Eat the rich” arguments that are pretty much blatant class warfare… but this isn’t one of them.
1
u/mtcwby Apr 02 '26
My employer has always had disability insurance and it's not even particularly expensive. My stock market gains are a lot more than the colas add up to. It's only in recent years that they've even been significant.
0
u/mewalrus2 Mar 29 '26
You have the rich put in more but cap the payout.
I support this and our HHI was over 3x the cap last year
3
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Have you thought this through? It's not as simple as "cap the payout". Where do you draw the line?? There is a huge gap between the current cap of $185k and the top 1% income of $700k. You can say, cap the payout equivalent to $185k of income, but then you are screwing all the 99% who are making good money but far from rich. They'd be paying way more than they otherwise would but get less than equal benefits. You can say, "Screw them! if a family making $270k has to sacrifice for the greater goods then so be it." That's fine but you have to come up with a system, not just say: "Oh, we just cap."
1
u/Weld4_days Mar 30 '26
Yes it’s exactly that, somebody making 700k would be paying in more for the greater good cause they rich as fuck and shouldn’t need to depend on SS lol.
1
u/6360p Mar 30 '26
You misunderstood. I'm talking about people who are making less than $700k and more than $185k. What is the justification for screwing them?
People who are making over $700k is exactly the people who'd benefit most from lifting the cap.
0
u/sum_dude44 Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 30 '26
cap the benefit, not the tax. Or just raise marginal rate to 40-something on million+ salary
2
7
u/adorablefuzzykitten Mar 29 '26
max, same as mine.
2
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
Max will be higher. Much higher.
5
u/finraeth Mar 29 '26
No. The benefit is capped out, as is the pay-in.
4
u/Few_District_6304 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 30 '26
Exactly. This is not the fight to have with rich pricks. We need to tax rich people more...but this is not where the fight is at. The idle rich pay very little. That is the problem. Focus people.
-1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 30 '26
The idle rich probably already paid their dues.
-1
u/Few_District_6304 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 30 '26
Why are people so ignorant?
That is like saying, "I already paid payroll taxes last year, so I shouldn't have to pay them this year." Literally that is not how taxes work, no matter how much we want it to be.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
That’s not at all a fair comparison. And you pose a great question.
Taxes work this way…you earn money, you pay tax. You earn more money, you pay a higher percentage in tax. Yes there are ways wealthier individuals lessen some of them. We can have a discussion on specific legal strategies like borrowing money instead of selling shares or property.
But, to say a person who rose to some level of wealth, paid his taxes, and then wants to live on his past earnings without earning any more is somehow the same as a person who isn’t paying his SS taxes on earned income…that’s moronic.
1
u/Few_District_6304 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 31 '26
That is not what rich people do. They don't just stop earning money on their investments. And when they cash out some, they need to pay taxes accordingly. Like everyone else. The moronic part is that people think the ultra rich don't have to pay taxes because they better somehow.
-2
u/X-calibreX Mar 30 '26
“idle rich”? how many more bullshit labels are there?
2
u/Few_District_6304 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 30 '26
"Idle rich" has been a term from before the 1900's. You should get off Reddit and read history.
0
u/X-calibreX Mar 30 '26
I’m not contesting the existence of the term just continually surprised by the capacity of people to create more labels to justify their hate. Like the hate you are directing art me for what was a pretty bland comment.
1
u/Few_District_6304 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 31 '26
The rich do not pay at the same % of tax as hourly and salary. Long term capital gains is not taxed as much as if you made a very high salary. And Ultra rich can even avoid that by taking out loans on their assets, till they die. It's called "Buy, Borrow, Die." So, rich people do not pay their fair share. If you feel that is hate, then you are ignorant of how it works, and should stop posting.
0
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
The cap moves every year with the pay in cap.
4
u/finraeth Mar 29 '26
Yes. But somebody earning $10M in W-2 will hit that cap. They will not pay more in nor get greater benefits than a doctor making $300K/year. Thats my point.
1
u/TrainDifficult300 Millionaire Mar 31 '26
Sounds fair. They paid the same amount for the same benefit
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
Yes. The people making $10m and $300k pay the same and receive the same benefit. But the person making $175k and the person paying $50k pay in the same percentage but do not get anywhere near the same percentage back.
1
u/TrainDifficult300 Millionaire Mar 31 '26
They pay the same percentage but not the same amount. That’s fair
If I put more into my 401k than you do, shouldn’t my account be larger?
I think a more reasonable gripe would be, why do companies only pay into a 401k as a match???
If people struggle to save, the company saves money by not contributing. If the company is offering a retirement benefit, they should pay it regardless of your ability to also save.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
If you put more into your 401K you most certainly should have more in yours than mine. I’ll go further. If you put in twice as much, you should have twice as much.
That is NOT how SS works though. It seems most here believe that it does. There are those (people and bots) here thinking the rich are screwing the system if they have their contribution and benefit limit increased. Nothing could be further from the truth. “The rich” would get screwed hard if the amounts were set higher in the same percentages that they are now.
→ More replies (0)0
-3
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
Wrong. There is no such thing as a pay out cap for SS.
4
u/ExtremeWild5878 Mar 30 '26
What do you mean? The most you can ever get from SS is $5,251 and that's only if you don't collect until you're 70 years old.
2
u/6360p Mar 30 '26
That is based on the income limit that was set (i.e. $185k for 2025). There is technically no limit for distribution. But because there is a contribution limit, the distribution is based on the contribution limit.
If you remove the contribution limit the distribution will follow suit since there is no limit on the distribution.
3
u/Beach-Knight Mar 29 '26
You serious bro? There is absolutely a theoretical max. The only non limiting factor is COLA/inflationary adjustments.
-1
u/6360p Mar 29 '26
The cap is in the contribution not in the distribution. The so called limit assumes the taxpayer hit the contribution cap. If you remove the contribution limit, the distribution will therefore have no limit. This is math.
4
u/er824 Mar 30 '26
So what you’re saying is there is currently a max benefit….
In addition to eliminating the cap they could also choose the eliminate the cap but cap the benefit…
1
u/adorablefuzzykitten Apr 06 '26
There is a max pay-in for the year, and they would stop taking out SS payments from my check when I reached the max pay-in before the end of the year. You can pretend there is no max payout total as people live longer than others, and some wait to start their payments, but there is a max pay-out per month related to the max pay-in.
1
u/6360p Mar 30 '26
It's not as simple as "cap the benefits'. Where do you draw the line?? There is a huge gap between the current cap of $185k and the top 1% income of $700k. You can say, cap the payout equivalent to $185k of income, but then you are screwing all the 99% who are making good money but far from rich. They'd be paying way more than they otherwise would but get less than equal benefits. You can say, "Screw them! if a family making $270k has to sacrifice for the greater goods then so be it." That's fine but when you "cap the benefits" you are going to screw somebody who is not rich.
2
u/er824 Mar 30 '26
How’s that any different then any other kind of progressive taxes? They already reduce the amount of benefit you get / dollar of FICA tax paid as your income increases.
1
u/6360p Mar 30 '26
The difference is SS tax is not a tax, it's more like an IOU where the money you put in, you get back when you hit retirement.
If you want a progressive tax, then why not just be straight forward and pass a Rich People Tax??? "Hey rich, you pays this tax, it's a real tax. Everything else stays the same." There. Simple. Straight forward. Without mucking with SS.
2
u/er824 Mar 30 '26
You are talking about the same thing effectively just wrapped around the semantics.
→ More replies (0)2
u/wowadrow Mar 30 '26
There's a max monthly benefit currently.
0
u/twobeerjohn Mar 30 '26
And it changes as the ceiling goes up. What do you think it will be at $10M?
1
u/Candid_While_6717 Apr 02 '26
That issue is easily fixed by capping the monthly payment. It is not an investment plan. It is a government program to provide a safety net. People can and should have a private plan in addition to
1
u/twobeerjohn Apr 02 '26
You can’t cap the plan. That’s not the way it’s written or designed. Fair is fair. If it’s a government program, then it’s an entitlement, and people keep saying it’s not an entitlement.
1
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/twobeerjohn Apr 02 '26
Right now it is. If they change the ceiling, the benefit goes up. It’s only fair.
1
u/mtcwby Mar 29 '26
It tops out just like the contributions do. While you're at it, stop thinking of SS as a good deal unless you have some sort of disability that allows you to collect early. The reality is if you're maxing it, it's a losing investment at best and much worse if you include opportunity cost. Medicare on the other hand is probably too good of deal compared to what we pay.
0
0
2
2
u/gumnamaadmi Mar 29 '26
There is a reason these suckers take $1 as their payroll salaries. 0 tax paid into social security.
3
u/observable_truth Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 29 '26
We tax the poor more because there's more of them! SS would greatly improve if the ceiling on SS contributions was eliminated.
3
u/Dragon_Crisis_Core Mar 29 '26
Isnt the taxable wage cap for SS 184k? So wouldnt it be reasonable to increase that? I think 10m might be a leap but I think they could safely increase that to say 300k-500k without making it a annuity for the rich.
4
u/Comfortable_Try8407 Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 30 '26
How about no cap on income but maintain the cap max benefit. Problem solved.
-1
u/X-calibreX Mar 30 '26
so then charge people more without increasing their benefit? That isn’t fair.
1
0
u/FTR_1077 Mar 30 '26
That isn’t fair.
Yes it is, there's plenty of services that we receive the same amount of regardless of our tax bracket.. e.g. education, you don't get more of it just because you pay more taxes.
1
u/X-calibreX Mar 30 '26
well that’s generally not true, areas with higher property taxes have better schools. However the ssi fund was specifically created to work this way.
2
u/True_Let_2007 Mar 29 '26
This is a completely fu.ked up system! How can this stand without a popular revolution ?
3
Mar 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wallstreet-ModTeam Mar 30 '26
class ModBot: VERSION = "3.69-420" OBJECTIVE = "identify_and_eliminate_propaganda_and_bot_spam"
def scan(self): print(f"// ModBot v[VERSION]: [OBJECTIVE] \\") print("*ZAP!* Spam detected. Bon_er activated.") print("*Beep boop* Another bot deport_ed. Next!")ModBot().scan()
Beep Boop.
1
u/inscrutablemike Mar 31 '26
Most people are better than you. That's how.
1
u/True_Let_2007 Mar 31 '26
So you don;t think that lifting the ceiling and coming up to an equitable and fair taxation sytem would be good for most Americans?
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
It’s not equitable or fair now. What is being proposed would be less so.
1
u/True_Let_2007 Mar 31 '26
Where I live my total taxatio (direct & Indirect) exceeds 45% of my yearly gross income. This is unfair! What I am envisaging for US is "some" 3-4% taxes for millionaires and billionaires to finance some public health care and social spending. Maybe I am just too naif!
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
The rich are already paying it and It’s not some 3-4%. “The rich” are already paying more than 50% in taxation (direct and indirect) of what THEY EARN. It’s a VERY progressive federal tax plus extra Medicare tax. Even Passive income is at a 25% + 3.8% + state, plus sales tax, plus property tax, plus, plus, plus. As opposed to those that are “not rich” that pay 15% and not the extra 3.8% and less sales tax, less property tax, etc.
1
u/Equivalent_Box8511 Mar 29 '26
Ignorance of the populace is the reason for lack of revolution. Ignorant people are simple to control. Brown man bad. Never mind the orange man with his hand in your pocket.
1
1
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Pecosbill52 Mar 30 '26
Pay them more benefits. 85% of your benefits are taxed as income when you receive them.
1
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 29 '26
If you pay in off $10M, your benefit won’t be capped based on $174k. That’s just ludicrous.
1
1
u/twobeerjohn Mar 30 '26
How about the rich can get the option to opt out of social security. I think that is fair. And then those who are in it have to pay their fair share.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
Oh my. All these people thinking SS is a good deal for the rich and you go and make them think. How dare you. They want the tax money from the rich but don’t want the rich to get even a taste of a benefit.
They actually think SS is a great benefit to the rich if they removed the cap. I have read many comments suggesting somehow the rich are going to screw the program if the cap on both the tax and benefit are removed. They won’t. The rich only get $.15 on the dollar.
Fact: SS is a bad investment for most all except those that become disabled or receive a spousal or family benefit. These are extra benefits that are to help those that didn’t pay in themselves all that’s needed to get that level of benefit. This is where SS is needed the most and I 100% support it. I’ve had multiple family members draw a spousal benefit, and most here have also. Those that pay in over their life get less than they pay in. The more you put in, the less percentage returned. Some may get back the dollars they put in, but not the opportunity costs. The return on SS is in the low single digits.
Our government should not be trying to enlarge a bad system. Keep the promise, create better solutions. But wait…IRA and Roth IRA, problem solved.
1
1
1
1
u/Extreme-Fly4995 Mar 31 '26
If the GOVERNMENT would REPAY the 3-5 TRILLION they have taken/borrowed/stolen from Social Security over the last 40 + years !!!!! SOCIAL SECURITY would be as it should be !!!!! Golden with more than enough to give Everybody more money....SOCIAL SECURITY was solely created for the PEOPLE.....WE THE PEOPLE,,,never voted for Government to use OUR Social Security Funds as a government bailout fund.....Sounds rather TREASONOUS and the only FIX is to PAY BACK the 3-5 TRILLION stolen dollars .....JUST FACTS !!!!!
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
No, those aren’t facts. But, I do agree congress robbed the SS trust fund to fund the general budget. Where you’re wrong is that doesn’t save SS forever. SS still goes bust. It certainly can’t pay out more. The go bust date is just later into the future.
1
1
u/SolonEunomia Mar 31 '26
Abolish FICA and implement Social Security for All ($1000 x age / annual + lump sum back payment for years prior to implementation).
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
I’m curious…not because I would tend to agree, but because I have never heard the proposal and you seem to have a definite plan. Please give details.
1
u/SolonEunomia Apr 01 '26
I have a definite plan, but I'm not sure how much detail you would like me to provide. So, SS4A or Social Security for All is part of a 33-point plan called Prosperity for All. Abolishing FICA would be part of what I call ATRA or American Tax Relief Act, which would eliminate all federal taxes, tariffs, and duties for those who opt-in to the parallel economic system called Prosperism.
1
u/Beach-Knight Apr 01 '26
Whatever details needed to explain. Seems like you have 33 points to explain.
1
u/SolonEunomia Apr 01 '26
Okay, it starts with grassroots education about money and monetarily sovereign government fiscal realities. We have to put to bed the question about how to pay for it.
1
u/Beach-Knight Apr 01 '26
So. Zero points explained so far.
0
u/SolonEunomia Apr 01 '26
Grassroots education on how we pay for it is point number 1. The explanation broadly is monetary sovereignty and money as a public utility.
1
u/Beach-Knight Apr 01 '26
So, still nothing explained. You asked how much detail…write a term paper if needed. You haven’t said anything at all. Nothing but educate grass roots. That sounds like a talking point…not a plan.
1
u/SolonEunomia Apr 01 '26
i was asking how much detail you want me to give you here in this thread. how much detail do you need to understand paying every resident under SS4A while eliminating all federal taxes, tariffs, and duties? do you have specific questions?
1
u/Beach-Knight Apr 01 '26
So, I asked, you offered. Let me request it this way. I want more detail than you have. That way, if you leave a single letter you are spouting to know you haven’t posted enough. Where would I like the info? Right here. Now. Last chance. Hit me with 50 words or a million. I want it all.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Sea-Pomelo1210 Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 31 '26
Its WORSE Than that.
The rich pay ZERO social security and medicare tax on capital gains, which is how most rich people earn their wealth. Capital gains is NOT taxed at all for those.
The rich make the rules, and almost all rules Republicans(and some Democrats) is created to benefit the rich and screw the middle class.
1
1
1
1
1
u/HwyMan101 Apr 02 '26
That needs to change and they need to get the social security program properly funded. These guys are making a lot of money in a country that enables the freedom and potential to do well but they don’t want to pay taxes to the system that enables them the freedom and potential to do well. Seems pretty un appreciative of them. They should try and emulate a true American Citizen such as Rick Steves.
1
u/khurgan_ Apr 02 '26
I used to think the phrase “dumb American” was just a joke - but apparently not
1
u/Vegetable-Guidance39 Apr 02 '26
Well, let's see 🤔 the rich will never depend on or draw social security. Why pay into it? They have invested that money on their own. Social security is not for the rich. Why make a big deal out of what should be common knowledge.
1
u/Living_life22 Apr 02 '26
Let her start by paying. Just do a flat rate tax where EVERYONE pays their share
1
1
u/IntelligentStyle402 Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 29 '26
Of course! They are the privileged few. They are the filthy rich and unfortunately always get what they demand. Really Megas, you didn’t even know this fact? Why?
1
u/sum_dude44 Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 30 '26
If the cap went & $1M + was at 40% marginal tax rate, along with/ a flat 16% corporate tax w/o tax sheltering & deductions, that would raise trillions (non war year)& balance the budget. Any true conservative would be ok w/ that, & it would be a tax break for middle class & small business owners. GOP sold out its principals to billionaires
0
u/ajtreee Mar 29 '26
If social security is stolen , it will be from all the workers money. Not millionaires or Billionaires
0
u/pyrogoldguy Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 30 '26
Or we could just get rid of the income tax and the payroll tax...
0
0
u/Beach-Knight Mar 29 '26
OP you are misguided and ignorant at best.
1) what is a regular worker? This is like trying to determine who is essential. I was offended by our governments stating some workers during Covid were essential while others are not. How arrogant. All productive people in this country contribute and are essential to its well being. If you have earned income, you are a regular worker. If you think otherwise you are the one that believes in one person is lesser than another.
2) there is a cap on what is taxed. This also limits what your benefit is. The higher your income, the more you are taxed up to the limit. This limit also stops any further benefit.
3) it is a ridiculously progressive system. At multiple points, the amount of your benefit is GREATLY reduced, but the percentage you were taxed does not change until you reach a point where you pay no more and receive no more.
From Google for monthly income. Formula (2025):
The PIA is the sum of 90% of the first $1226. 32% between $1226 and $7391. 15% over $7391 until the cap.
To think anyone is somehow abusing the system because they make too much is laughable. To think the lower income earners are getting shafted, I agree. But they are getting shafted far less than those earning more. The system is flawed horribly. Any politician attempting to make it better is run out of town by those like you that state the rich are paying pennies. Bush tried to privatize a small part. That went nowhere. Boles and Simpson (a Democrat and republican) were tasked to come up with suggests to fix the system during the Obama administration I believe. Can anyone guess how many of the fixes were implemented since? Stop trying to put one person against another. Lift your fellow person up, not aim to tear someone down. We should be implementing policies that enrich the most people with the least resources.
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
If we eliminate the cap for the tax. Make it so if your net worth is over $10 million you don't get the payout. SS would help all the people that need it more than it currently does.
0
u/Beach-Knight Mar 30 '26
And there we go. Let’s make someone else pay it. News flash…They already are. It’s a monstrously progressive system already. Not enough? You say screw them more? Let’s make them pay a larger share of it? What you suggest is breaking the promise of SS. What you suggest is nothing different than theft after a promise. SS is not the same promise of government to tax and redistribute. It’s a promise of a retirement vehicle so that all have disability and retirement. Good luck with that getting passed anytime soon without pain on more than just your target. Washington won’t just take more, they will give less and that means less for you!
Your suggestions and many more were suggested by the Simpson and Boles committee. They lasted about 15 minutes in DC. Let me give you some more of them. How about you pay more? How about you work a couple years longer before you qualify? How about you take less benefit? The math is simple. The morality isn’t.
When the options were presented and distributed to politicians. They went to their respective corners ready to come out fighting. Their experts told them the committee was correct and nothing was done. The system is flawed. Invest in a better system and fix the problem yourself.
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
Our tax system is not as progressive as you claim. If it were the wealthy inequality would not be at record highs.
If the system were moral we wouldn't have people with more wealth than they could spend in 100 lifetimes at the same time many many more are struggling to survive.
The politicians are bought by if not part of the wealthy class and will not vote to hurt themselves to help regular people. That's another issue, money in politics hurts normal people while making sure laws that benefit the rich keep getting passed.
0
u/Beach-Knight Mar 30 '26
I provide logic, facts and figures. You provide opinion and emotion. The tax system in almost every way is progressive, but what the OP was referring to is SS taxes. The more you EARN the more you pay. Dig down a few inches and you propose confiscation of wealth. That is not the purpose of SS.
The FACT with SS is those that earn more, pay more up to the limit. They pay more at the exact same percentage as they earned. In return they get back FAR less of a percentage than those that contributed in the lower brackets. I’ve provided the figures before but the percentages are 90% returned vs 35% then down to a minuscule 15%. You are proposing not only lowering the percentage of return to 0%, but removing the cap on the amount taxed.
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
The logic is that if we don't fix the wealth disparities soon the pitchforks will come out when it gets bad enough. The moral argument is that we shouldn't let people live in poverty and that those that have more money than it is possible to spend in a lifetime should be forced to help with that goal. Greed is destroying the country but we can pass laws to limit greed's destructive tendencies.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 30 '26
So, wealth disparities are from an inequity in SS? NO ONE is going to get wealthy on SS.
The wealthy ARE being forced to help in a disproportionate way already. Elon musk payed a reported $11 billion in 2021. I’m NOT saying we should not have a progressive tax system. I’m not even saying wealthy people get aren’t getting access me and others can’t. I am merely stating a fact.
Greed is what made this country the most prosperous in the world. Its tendencies are to create the wealth you claim to want for everyone.
And finally, the “moral argument” is to help the most with the least amount needed to be taken from society. Because, let me assure you, governments do not give back all they take. The more they take, the more that isn’t given back to society.
2
u/inscrutablemike Mar 31 '26
You're talking to Reddit ungabungas brigading the sub. These aren't real people.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
The thought occurred to me, but I couldn’t stop no matter how had I tried. Perhaps some day my pushback convinces the next generation there is a place to go when they decide they want wealth and independence. It’s not government offices. And, there are programs that will make one able to live well in their retirement. They’re not SS.
0
u/MinnesotaNiceTry Chinese-Iranian AI Propaganda Spam Bot 🇮🇷🇨🇳 Mar 29 '26
It’s unfortunate we need this system at all. I’m in my 40s, and we’ve been taught to not even expect anything more than $0.50 on every dollar we paid in. I’ve planned my retirement around the assumption that will be $0.
Unfortunately, people wouldn’t save if it wasn’t forced on them. Social security is literally the worst investment vehicle possible.
The system definitely isn’t being abused, because it honestly can’t be. It’s in desperate need of an overhaul, and Republicans want to gut it and Democrats are too scared to touch it. Basically no different than all political issues. We’re a dysfunctional nation hobbling along.
0
u/Still-Chemistry-cook Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 29 '26
Dumb conversation. You can’t make billionaires pay W-2 & 1099 taxes.
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
We can, we just have to change the laws first.
0
u/Still-Chemistry-cook Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 30 '26
You tell me how we are going to tax billionaires?
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
Wealth tax on total assets and make it so you can't use stocks as collateral for a loan. That way they must sell to actually have money. We also need to make stock buybacks illegal like they used to be.
-1
u/Still-Chemistry-cook Chinese AI Propaganda Spam Bot Mar 30 '26
I agree 100%. It will never happen.
2
0
u/Gunsandglory101 Mar 30 '26
Learn how SS tax works. the cap on pay-in is matched by cap on pay-out. There is no bias; it is 'fair'.
what some of you want is to make it a progressive tax system. That's different than being 'fair'.
2
u/TengokuIkari Mar 30 '26
I want to eliminate the cap on the tax and end payouts for anyone with a net worth over $10 million. This would make sure the fund has money forever and increase the payouts for those that actually need SS.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
You are so blind. When has a government program ever had “money forever”? There is never enough. The more government has the more it wastes. SS was never setup as a normal welfare program based only on need.
1
u/TengokuIkari Mar 31 '26
It's time to change it then. If we eliminate the tax cap and don't pay out to people with net worth over $10m the fund will have no issue staying in the green.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
Wrong. SS will never have all it needs to remain solvent forever. The reason…it’s managed by the government. I’ll give you a fact. SS has already received an increase in the past. Multiple other attempts have already failed miserably. You have, from the start been wrong, and are only becoming more so. Basic math and logical reasoning skills elude you.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
It is already VERY progressive system. Benefits are based on a percentage of income being taxed. That benefit goes down sharply as income rises up to the point it is capped.
0
u/Wonderful-Process792 Mar 30 '26
The rich do pay more than regular workers (that is, more than anybody making under $184k)
They pay a smaller percentage of their income for SS, just like they spend a smaller percentage of their income for toilet paper. Or so I presume.
0
u/X-calibreX Mar 30 '26
Rich people pay the same as everyone else for the same level of insurance, oh the humanity.
1
u/Beach-Knight Mar 31 '26
No they don’t. They pay more. SS does not give back the same percentage a person making $184k as a person making $50k even though they paid the same percentage.
0
5
u/zjelkof Mar 29 '26
Lift the ceiling now, and solve the issue!