Sure, and also social security is the opposite of need based as well. So those people who paid tax on a tiny fraction of their income also see the largest checks after retirement age when they need zero percent of the money. Meanwhile, people who worked their whole lives and paid social security tax on 100% of their earnings don’t get enough back from social security to be able to continue to live.
Social Security can be saved. Scrap the cap!
Submitted 2 weeks ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to workreform@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/68adb505-c345-4194-8ab4-93636f7c7565.jpeg
Comments
aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Burninator05@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
While someone making millions should be taxed at 100% for SS like most of us, think about how much would be in the fund if capital gains were taxed that way as well.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Enough to lower the social security age from 67 years to 6-7 weeks gestational age.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Well, no.
You could lower it for sure, but the thing is, if everyone’s retired and nobody’s working, there’s no productivity, meaning there’s either no money, or money is meaningless
It could certainly be reduced by a pretty good number of years though. Enough that you start your retirement when your body and your mind is still “all there”, you get to enjoy it.
psycho_driver@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The people making more than 184k do not want to be a part of our society, it seems.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
That’s fine. The tree of liberty could use some refreshing.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Framing social security this way is dangerously misleading. Yes, the amount you put in is capped, but the amount that you get to take out when you are old is also capped. I fully believe that taxes need to be progressive, but social security is not a tax, it’s a retirement fund.
InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax.
It is a tax. That is a fact. That sentence is literally from the social security website https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/how-is-social-security-financed.html as of August 15th 2026.
Ajen@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Unlike most other taxes, you only benefit from social security if you’ve paid into it. And the amount you receive is proportional to the amount you put in. Practically, it’s far closer to a retirement account or pension than a tax.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Social security is a social safety net, not a personal retirement fund. That’s what my pension, 401k, etc are for.
When social security was instituted with the retirement age of 65, the average life expectancy was 63. It was only “retirement” income for people who had lived longer than expected and would otherwise be living on the street - especially since so many had lost their savings in the Depression - but retirement savings wasn’t its primary purpose.
But people started living longer and stopped saving (either because they knew they had social security coming, or because we suck at planning ahead, or because corporate America sucks donkey balls and people are always living paycheck-to-paycheck) and it became something it wasn’t meant to be.
It should provide income for retirees who have no other income, but like other social programs it should be based on need. Super rich people should pay into jlot just like everyone else, but they shouldn’t be able to collect it because they don’t need it and it’s not intended to take the place of personal savings.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
I disagree with the “based on need”. That’s “means testing”, and converts the program from a simple social entitlement program into charity. It immediately builds in resentment for “successful” people being compelled to support “failures”. Means Testing is the underlying problem that creates and systematically oppresses the poverty class.
Social security should be provided equally to every person of “retirement age”, regardless of need or whether they have actually retired or are continuing to work.
Social Security should be moving toward becoming Universal Basic Income.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Umm… No? The monthly amount you receive is based on your earnings, yes. However (And please correct me if I’m wrong) the benefit continues until the death of you and any qualified person (spouse, ex spouse, minor children, disabled children, disabled parent) who survives you. You and/or they could be collecting that benefit on your 150th birthday.
Alternatively, if you die before retiring, without qualified survivors, social security pays nothing to you or your estate.
It’s not a “fund”. That is a pension, or a retirement insurance program. The taxes that pay for it are premium payments.
gingersaffronapricat@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The faces around her are so expressive. I wish i had the energy to give them thought bubbles
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The one on the right looks like the real version of the gru meme
HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Imagine, for a moment, what a tiny, insignificant fraction of Elon Musk’s income must go to Social Security. And yet the cunt goes on JRE to say it should be abolished.
Billionaires shouldn’t be respected as human beings.
rayyy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
So? Your ruling oligarchs don’t care and they tell most peons how to vote. Now get back to slaving away.
Nautalax@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Per Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget scrapping the cap would postpone the trust running out to either 2054 or 2058 depending on whether or not those who pay the now higher taxes would also receive correspondingly higher benefits or if the benefits remain capped. So an extra 20 or 24 years since presently the trust is slated to run out in 2034. When the trust runs out, benefits are going to be cut to match the money coming in which would mean about ~20% reduction to benefits.
Good start and punts the issue off for another generation, but it doesn’t quite save social security all the way.
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Social Security is forced retirement savings. There’s a cap on what you pay in because there’s a cap on what you pay out.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
There is a cap because republicans want to kill social security. It’s the same bullshit they are doing to the postal service.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
It’s not savings of any sort. The remainder of your savings goes to your heirs when you die. If you don’t have a spouse, or minor children or disabled adult children, and you die before collecting all of your contributions, you and your estate forfeit 100% of the remainder.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Median attorney income in the US is $150k, Liz.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
She didn’t say “if you’re a median attorney”, she said “if you’re a lawyer raking in millions,” and she was correct.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
She went out of her way to pick a profession that doesn’t fit with the second clause of her sentence.
Code monkeys with equity should get the shot taxed out of them too. Skilled laborers who use their sole proprietorship contracting company to absorb personal expenses should get taxed to death. Nurse anesthetists should be paying a massive tax on their hundreds of thousands of dollars of income.
It was a weird shot at a group of people who are largely populated by workers making less than six figures.
DrPop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The cutoff for having to pay social security for 2026 is $184500. That’s not that much more than the average.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
If you make more than $184k you pay zero dollars into social security. The other part is you aren’t getting any benefits.
Aqivex@fedinsfw.app 2 weeks ago
Absolutely true. Also just like, fundamentally bullshit, and perfectly reasonable to consider expansion of the cap.
Those currently over the cap reap outsized benefits borne from the labor of those who don’t make the cap. That’s how they fucking made it, above the cap.
There is no moral turpitude in taxing them to fund a social net they won’t directly use, because they’ve been indirectly benefitting from it all along.
The piddling argument I can already hear you making, gets even more ridiculous when you scale past the professionally licensed professions and get into pure capitalists.
This is a compromise being offered, in lieu of the buffet table, and of course they’re gonna be too fucking stupid to accept it because the morons forgot the bread part and all they got left is their shitty circus.
mirshafie@europe.pub 2 weeks ago
I pay taxes knowing that I won’t benefit directly from many of my country’s programs. Free school lunches? New train lines? I drive. Free health care? I’m healthy. I’m not a child and I don’t have children. Social housing? I own my apartment.
But the thing is, I benefit directly. It means that everyone around me has a reasonable standard of living. I’m surrounded by healthy, literate people with clean clothes and full bellies. That pushes my standard of living up. I’m happy to be taxed.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
What piddling argument do you think I’m making when I state facts about the tax code.
nop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Well that is wrong on both accounts, unless you assume SS will be bankrupt before you can collect anything.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Downvote reality all you like, it won’t make y’all any more correct. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Believe it or not it is true.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
They pay social security taxes on the first 184k/yr. They do not pay taxes on that part of their income above 184k.
They do, actually, receive social security checks, regardless of income or need, beginning at (or before) the age of 70. Since they’ve been paying in the maximum, they are receiving the maximum benefit, $4152 per month, rather than the median benefit of $2083 per month.
You are wrong on both counts.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Liar liar pants on fire. You can delude yourself and try to deceive the community all you want. You will continue to be wrong though.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Dude I’m a milennial, I already accepted the fact that I’m not getting any benefits.
I’m 41 now. I have a funny feeling that in the next 25 years, the retirement age will go up, and the number of people living long enough to collect it will go down.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
All my life, I was told SS wouldn’t be there for me, and now I’m collecting it.
If you tell DC that you expect it to go away, and you’ll accept that outcome, no matter how much you hate it, that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Stop surrendering in advance, and wasting your time posting such pathetic messages. Use your posts to warn them that they are being watched and JUDGED, by the people who have that right. They need to be afraid of us at all times.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
we also have ton of old people that still need the young paying into the tax scheme. there already parents moving back with thier children to save money, and vice versa.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Yep. Same boat.
gartheom@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Anybody making more than the cap still pays the tax. The cap just means as far as social security is concerned, you only are taxed and provided benefits as though you earned $184k.
musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
Go through the irs form here, page 9. Self employed folks making more than the max put in 0 for SS. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Usually it works the other way around, where people don’t start paying a tax until their salary reaches a certain level. Somehow they’ve inverted this to favor the rich? Why aren’t people rioting?
Goodeye8@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Because people have finite time. Most of it goes to work, some of it goes to sleep, the remaining time gets spent on not looking like a hoarding caveman (or if you have kids, kids). So if you get an hour of actual free time in your day you probably have it pretty good. Now, do you want to spend that hour on politics or do you want to chill from your day?
Keeping up with politics is a luxury most people don’t have.
socsa@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Right, democratic agency requires not only rights, but the ability to actualize those rights. Just like elections are meaningless if you don’t have the freedom to engage with and debate political questions, so are those freedoms meaningless if you don’t have the time, energy or capacity to reduce those freedoms to practice.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Or don’t want, I stress at my job, stress about finances, stress about family, last thing I’m stressing over is what’s going on in the world. I’ll watch my very local news to see what the dog of the week is but that’s about it
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Slow boil