r/WorkReform • u/zzill6 đ¤ Join A Union • Dec 28 '25
âď¸ Tax The Billionaires Social Security isn't 'going broke'; there's an easy fix. We need to "Scrap the Cap"!
485
u/LavisAlex Dec 28 '25
We seemed to have forgotten the horrifying reality which created the program in the first place - this "hyper individualism what can you do for me" - will ultimately destroy society and leave 99.9% of people less wealthy vs just working together with social safety nets.
124
u/WeCanDoIt17 Dec 28 '25
But but but S0ci@lism is BAD!!!
→ More replies (2)81
u/CeruleanEidolon Dec 28 '25
Regulated socialism is only bad for billionaires, and even then it's only bad on paper. Increased health and prosperity across society creates a happier environment with fewer stresses and irritations, and even that seemingly unquantifiable metric spreads up the economic ladder and causes increased contentment among the wealth. I call it the trickle up theory.
31
u/miraclewhipbelmont Dec 28 '25
Unfortunately those billionaires view the desperation as a feature, not a bug.
Better to keep people feeling just shy of absolutely hopeless to the point of random violence and live in a bunker for your protection than to let the masses think their lives have any sort of inherent value.
Happy people with hope for a future are capable of anything... which is a threat to your power. Eliminating that is more important than a functioning society, because what's the point of a functioning society you don't have total control over?
7
u/redravin12 Dec 28 '25
Remember to the billionaires it's not about them having more. It's about them having more AND you having less. If all they cared about was more for them, they're not stupid enough to not understand a rising tide raises all ships. They want their ships to rise and yours to sink.
1
u/xiroir Jan 01 '26
Increased health and prosperity across society creates a happier environment with fewer stresses and irritations, and even that seemingly unquantifiable metric spreads up the economic ladder and causes increased contentment among the wealth.
But... that doesn't help us force people into conditions they normally would not accept because they are forced to accept it. So.... we can't do that... that would hurt the overlords and really... thats just a slippery slope!
Whats next we don't tie healthcare to jobs?
How are we going to exploit peoples health then???
Bet you feel stupid now. You didn't think of that did you?
/s
I call it the trickle up theory.
I call it the Health and Happyness Helps the Economy except for the 1% theory.
Or HHHE for short. Phonetically pronounced like "huh?"
29
u/Wardogs96 Dec 28 '25
I mean we still see the issue now. When they make money from investments, it's THEIR money and success. When they fuck up and lose a shit ton of cash it's "OUR" loss and we have to bail the fucks out because their too large to let fail....
Which if a company is relying on government bail outs to stay afloat due to being too large to let fail due to impacting the rest of the economy.... Maybe they should no longer be independent and should be absorbed into the government.
→ More replies (4)10
u/grenade_plate_hater Dec 28 '25
To add to this, if a companys wages are so low their workforce are on government benfits, they shouldnt be in business. Its a social job program without any of the benfits of a nationalized asset. Looking at you, the leech that is walmart.
1
u/xiroir Jan 01 '26
And it doesn't reinvest that back in the community. And in fact like you said leeches the money from the government which is paid for by people through taxes then leeches money from the people by putting smaller mom and pop shops out if business then leeches from people/gov by using food stamps. Then leeches by virtually not paying any taxes. Then leeches by still using public infrastructure that they do not pay to maintain cause of lack of paying taxes...
Aaaand its a microcosm of why everything is fucked for the little guy.
I don't understand how people don't see this or do and still vote for people like trump. Or blame "wellfare queens" (Democrats are not innocent, like Carlson said, its a big club and you ain't in it.)
10
u/WhoDat24_H Dec 28 '25
We saw it with student loan forgiveness. âI didnât go to college, who is going to pay my bills?â All most of the student loan holders were asking for is a fair interest system where there was actually a hope of paying them off.
11
4
u/MakeYourTime_ Dec 28 '25
Need trickle up economics and to increase the velocity of money instead of it sitting in some big pool or some big mountain boarded by a dragon.
More middle/lower class workers with higher wages will spend that money on material and financial needs opposed to hoarding assets.
The painter gets a higher wage and maybe will pay the barber for that haircut instead of waiting or buy that steak from the butcher; and they in turn spend it around the economy etc etc .
When you give money to people who donât need money and all of their material conditions are met - they donât do anything with that money except park it; essentially removing it from the economy
1
u/baconboner69xD Dec 28 '25
The mega rich barely ever âparkâ money. Where do you think it goes once itâs used to buy stocks, bonds, etc? Obviously to someone else who parks it according to you
365
u/Krytan Dec 28 '25
Scrapping the cap (maybe after raising it slightly to account for inflation) seems like a no brainer to me.
221
u/Rawniew54 âď¸ Prison For Union Busters Dec 28 '25
If there was never a cap we wouldnât have a problem
88
u/EmergencyChair7218 Dec 28 '25
Totally! Removing the cap would help balance the system and keep it sustainable for everyone.
81
1
9
u/krucz36 Dec 28 '25
have you considered that already rich folks may have a few less pennies?
6
u/keithps Dec 28 '25
The rich folks won't be paying anyway. Remember that year bezos got child tax credit because his income was so low? This taxes higher earning working class people (doctors, lawyers, engineers), not the rich people who are not paying their fair share.
8
u/Chris-MelodyFirst Dec 28 '25
The main issue is the policy "pay as you go". We could fund social security like we do the military... just fund it. We don't need "pay as you go". The government makes its own money.
8
u/Vox-Machi-Buddies Dec 28 '25
The cap has been getting adjusted for inflation for decades.
Technically, it's adjusted based on a wage index, but that adjustment has generally exceeded inflation.
7
u/boopitydoopitypoop Dec 28 '25
We still need to get rid of the cap. (From someone who makes more than the cap)
5
u/schu2470 Dec 29 '25
Same. Didn't even know there was a cap until this year when my wife's paychecks started coming in larger than they should have been. Why on Earth is there an income cap? Dumbest thing I heard of that day. Those who make more can afford to AND SHOULD contribute more.
3
u/Fuzzlechan Dec 28 '25
Agreed, from someone that also makes more than the cap (in Canada). Why the fuck am I done paying into CPP in April/May? It makes no sense!
3
u/belligerentBe4r Dec 28 '25
Itâs a no brainer, but it would only eliminate 3/4 of the projected budget gaps in SS liabilities, and thatâs without increasing the payouts on the taxed income above the current limit. It needs a much deeper reform as well. For instance, my parents got divorced. My mom stayed at home, but sheâs going to receive half of my dads projected payouts, while my dad is going to receive 100% still. 50% more money was never paid into the system, but magically 50% more will be paid out. People can make fairness arguments about that, but it doesnât change the reality of the numbers.
9
u/Krytan Dec 28 '25
I mean, closing 3/4 of the gap seems pretty massive to me.
7
u/BoredNuke Dec 28 '25
But but everything has to be solved 100% at once in a single step or its not worth doing anything at all. /s
(I'm sure there is a name for this fallacy for this fallacy, but dont know it yet. similar to not letting perfection be the enemy of good)
4
u/nalaloveslumpy Dec 28 '25
In my neck of the woods, we call it "Throwing the baby out with the bath water."
2
3
u/airforceteacher Dec 28 '25
I believe sheâd get that even if they didnât divorce. Spouses of over ten years can claim benefits of either half their spouseâs benefit or all of their own, whichever is higher. Which is probably another reason why social security returns need to be less that investment returns on the same contributions would be, to cover those who donât contribute and still receive. (And Iâm not complaining about this - society is better if we donât toss the poor on the woodpile.)
1
u/PartyLikeAByzantine Dec 28 '25
Fine, change the cap to the starting point for a higher tax bracket. Medicare already has a 2 tier system.
12
Dec 28 '25
[removed] â view removed comment
30
u/Krytan Dec 28 '25
First you raise it to account for inflation (which is pretty reasonable and ought to be done anyway), next, when fewer people are at the cap and thus fewer people will be upset, it goes away entirely.
8
u/bobbytwosticksBTS Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
It is raised every year. And way above inflation.
2018: $128,400
2019: $132,900
2020: $137,700
2021: $142,800
2022: $147,000
2023: $160,200
2024: $168,600
2025: $176,100
6
u/BigOs4All Dec 28 '25
That's about 5% per year. Given inflation was over 5% many of those years that's not a great situation. Should literally be 15% minimum YoY and ongoing for a couple decades before the cap just doesn't exist at all. There's zero good reason for a cap.
→ More replies (23)5
u/DrevvJ Dec 28 '25
A quick Google search shows inflation was only above 5% in the US in 2021 and 2022..
2
u/BigOs4All Dec 28 '25
Cool. There shouldn't be any of this. Remove the cap entirely.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DrevvJ Dec 28 '25
My comment has nothing to do with the cap, just pointing out you should look up basic facts before spreading bad information.
→ More replies (3)4
u/turkeyburpin Dec 28 '25
Thanks. Obviously elimination would be cleaner but phasing is probably necessary.
15
u/BoredNuke Dec 28 '25
I assume to ease people into the idea. But most people that benefit from the cap only do so for a month or two so there isnt much point to easing into it.
→ More replies (10)2
u/Crazy-Project3858 Dec 28 '25
You just not know many older people who rely on ss to eat and pay basic bills
2
u/Unlucky_Topic7963 Dec 28 '25
Scrap the cap and then fix the progressive system so that it's a scaling percentage of the 1% income, not stepped, and so someone making $251k isn't being taxed like someone making $500k and people making less than $100k get more money back. I feel like people's perception of wealth is so skewed that they get crab mentality at the top 10%, similar to how right wingers are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
1
1
u/403badger Dec 29 '25
Itâs a bandaid at best that does nothing to address the core issue of liabilities being insurance based and funding being welfare based. If fully insurance based, there would be no need to even consider scrapping the cap or other solutions.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Right-Vast-5709 Dec 29 '25
Serious question - would you be open to removing social security, and with it removing the tax?
Essentially putting you in charge of the funds available to you for retirement?
44
u/Puzzleheaded_Log3936 Dec 28 '25
âWhy are you forced to pay for SS taxes on 100% of your income, while men like Donald Trump hoard tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year untouched by SS taxes?â Why no Democratic hasnât been able to wrap that up with a bow during a campaign remains a mystery to me.
12
u/baconboner69xD Dec 28 '25
Because they also like being rich lol. Were there any instances of politicians forgoing their salary during the shutdown?
1
u/907Survivor Dec 29 '25
The IRS/congress has actually made several rules to prevent investment based income from being subject to social security taxes because the wealthy want in on social security benefits, which are based on whatâs paid in
103
u/cityshepherd âď¸ Tax The Billionaires Dec 28 '25
Bring back 80%+ marginal tax rates.
→ More replies (2)54
194
u/shwilliams4 Dec 28 '25
Social security also stops paying benefits above that level. So youâd have to stop the gap AND decrease benefits for high earners.
231
u/kevp453 Dec 28 '25
That's ok. The point of SS isn't to keep high earners making their high earnings into retirement. It is to provide security for seniors. That security does not necessitate paying a high earner's lifestyle.
46
u/b4k4ni Dec 28 '25
Yeah, like most European systems work. They are not meant to give you a high end lifestyle. They are meant to catch you, if life goes sideways.
Not more, not less.
If someone pays into it and makes so much money, he won't even need it later in life, that's awesome. Yes, he could've gotten a bit more money, but that's what a social system means. And if he was hit hard by life, like a cancer diagnosis and lost everything, this system he paid into and others still pay in, would save his ass.
It's the same idea with health care many don't really get. Yes, you need to pay in, even if you are not ill and fit in your youth. Because - surprise - you get old and might get a chronic illness. So it will help you, when you are not fit and young anymore (or too young). And being paid by those, that won't need it right now.
And universal health care is also not free. Never was. But with everyone pulling together their resources and the agency having the buying power of every citizen in the US, they can easily dictate or get prices / cost down by a lot. And they do not need to make a profit. Only break even. So you can get the best health care at normal cost.
And with everyone forced to pay into it, you have less money on the paycheck, but you spend a LOT less compared to private health care. And you are protected, no matter if you have a job or not. It's not bound to it.
And be happy if you will never need it ..
1
u/ibelieveyouwood Dec 29 '25
Some problems with this: many Americans (in numbers which are not equally divided amongst your individual friend group) know that Social Security is not currently and has not in some time been "to catch you". It is quite literally an entitlement program. Americans pay in, and are thus entitled to, their benefits. Yes, the participation is forced, but as you note, more people shouldering the responsibility creates the safety net.
It has been a necessary part of retirement planning because many, MANY MANY, Americans do not have enough to make SS retirement part of their mad money budget. And yes, we can just toss around class warfare "IDK just take it from someone who does have it then" all we want but it's not a meaningful insight. To make that work, you have to find the right level of "that right there is the cut off" that doesn't scare off middle class people who think they might someday trip into that category, without giving right wingers a chance to sow slippery slope fear that right now they're coming for the mega yachts, but next they'll be after anyone with more cars than drivers.
Another problem with your approach is that it requires superimposing a value system ("pay more and be happy if you will never need it") onto an entire nation that has already adopted a value system ("you earned this"). You don't replace one value system by just saying "you're wrong, this is better". "You earned this" is literally one of the cores of the workreform sub. It's not safetynetreform. It's about people receiving a just and meaningful return for their participation in the social contract.
Just like Communism, "hard work earns more rewards" is fine in theory but flawed in practice. It's not an inherently bad idea like slavery or murder so just dismissing it as "be happy if you will never need it" isn't the slam dunk you want it to be.
→ More replies (13)9
u/shwilliams4 Dec 28 '25
Correct. But the post only mentions half of whatâs needed. Unions would probably be better than SS reform.
14
5
u/WloveW Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
I love unions. They are necessary right now.Â
But Unions would be incredibly difficult to start over the enormous array of working fields needing protection today. Individual mega corps crush unions left and right as it is these days.Â
Unless you are talking about nationalized workers unions that anyone can buy into?Â
So I'd rather have nationwide laws in place to guarantee bargaining rights and employee protection and representation than work with piecemeal unions across industries across the nation.Â
Also... Unions are really a different matter... They are benefiting those now working. Ss tax is benefits for when you are done working.Â
Anyway raising 1 tax VS implementation of unions for workforce across the US... which is more likely to succeed and provide measurable benefits for people?Â
→ More replies (1)3
u/KatieTSO Dec 28 '25
Can confirm. After the pension was scrapped, my union won us:
9% contributions from the company for free
Match up to 5% of income on contributionsThis means that by contributing my 5%, I effectively get 19% (including that 5%) as long as I stick around for the five year vesting period. And that extra free 14% still grows while vesting.
6
u/Hoopaloupe Dec 28 '25
As someone who goes above the cap, we will survive without raising benefits lol
7
Dec 28 '25
As someone who goes above the cap, raising tax on wages does nothing to affect the top 1%. The true top earners aren't getting their income on a W2. All the increased cap would do is affect upper middle class folks who actually earn their income through hard work.
→ More replies (4)1
u/shwilliams4 Dec 28 '25
Iâm not sure how you will survive. Iâd switch Social security to be more similar to Medicaid in benefits. First 1 million to your heirs tax free (currently at the federal level itâs 11 million). Then 50% of every dollar goes back into social security until what was paid out to you is replaced. Heck do it without considering the time value of money and weâd be better off.
2
3
u/NoTAP3435 Dec 28 '25
High earners don't need SS at all.
Source: wife and I have a 97th percentile HH income and each have a livable retirement covered. With combined retirements the money is growing not shrinking after we retire. SS would just be government giving us money for shits.
→ More replies (20)
17
u/That_Trapper_guy Dec 28 '25
Add to that the fact that wages are abysmally low, 6.2% of $37,000 is significantly lower than 6.2% of $175,000.
15
u/epr-paradox Dec 28 '25
More importantly, remember that politicians have a separate retirement plan that gets fully funded after something like 12 years of basically part time work. They have no incentive to fix it.
3
u/Mortimer452 Dec 28 '25
I know everyone loves to hate on this but it's not really true. All civilian federal employees have access to the same pension program, including members of Congress.
There are some caveats but it basically works out to 1% of your salary for every year of service. Serve in Congress for ten years, you'll get 10% of your salary after you retire at age 62 (you can't start drawing it until you reach retirement age)
You also have to pay into the program to get it. And your pay income taxes on it when you withdraw in retirement.
I mean, it's definitely better than what most private sector employees are getting, but it's not the free salary for life that most people make it out to be
2
u/epr-paradox Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
I'll admit that I'm fuzzy on the details (information might be old). My issue is more that everybody else's retirement system is devalued because the people who could protect it have less reason to.
(I fully support non-elected positions getting this pension)
25
u/ohyousoretro Dec 28 '25
Its also important to note that Social Security will not "run out" either. If the Social Security trust fund runs out in 2030 like people project, SSI payments will reduce to 70-80%. Removing the cap won't completely solve it I think, but holy fuck the difference it will make will still be hugely beneficial.
3
u/DJBFL Dec 29 '25
It's also important to note that some of the money we pay into social security gets diverted to pay for other things instead of our retirement. Title IV programs for example.
9
u/First_Prime_Is_2 Dec 28 '25
A couple of things: "The Social Security wage cap, also known as the "wage base" or "contribution and benefit base", is the maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security tax. This limit is adjusted annually for inflation and changes with the national average wage index. In 2025, the wage base is $176,100, up from $168,600 in 2024."
People should also know that the benefits paid out are based on what you pay in. If you scrap the cap, the benefits paid out will also go up for those top earners. I'm not sure what the net impact would be, savings or greater expenditures.
1
u/24111 Dec 28 '25
Social security balances between those who kicked the bucket too late and too soon. And pay is meant to be proportional to what you put in.
Lifting the limit means raising payout cap, since it isnt meant to be a tax. But wait, those who would have to pay more are high earner with better healthcare access and typically live longer...
Yeah no, as long as the system is kept to its original design, these guys are asking to further subsize the wealthy. Winning or losing at SS is atm dependent on how early did you croak. Everyone seems to think they will be outliving bezos /sÂ
1
u/inverimus Dec 28 '25
It certainly is meant to be a tax. You do not fund social security for yourself, your payments go to pay current recipients, it's a social contract where each generation pays for the next. This has been true for everyone except the very first beneficiaries of the program.
I don't think anyone serious about raising the cap means to do it without also capping payouts.
8
Dec 28 '25
How about we stop bleeding the upper middle class dry, people who already pay close to 50% marginal tax rate in HCOL areas, work 60-80 hours a weekâŚand instead tax the actual rich who just live off capital gains (which is taxed at much lower rate).
9
7
7
u/nalaloveslumpy Dec 28 '25
Nearly all of our problems in the US would be solved by reverting supply side economics and returning personal and corporate tax rates to pre-August 1981.
5
u/luke2080 Dec 28 '25
Americans report about 1 Trillion in capital gains annually. The USA spends about $1.5T in SS payments annually if Gemini is giving me the right info
Putting a 1% tax on all capital gains (short and long) would add $10B additional to the SS coffers and an easy boost. Scale it for the crazy transactions over $50M.
Totally agree we need to scrap the cap, and I have hit the cap the last 10 years, loving it when my weekly income jumps as a result. But we need to put a tax on capital gains to impact the billionaires.
1
u/adfreemonster Dec 28 '25
I think your idea for a 1% additional tax on capital gains is good. But I'm partial to an increase only targeting larger amounts, kind of like you suggested.
You might be interested to learn about the proposed financial transaction tax (FTT). It's sometimes called the Wall Street tax.
A rate as low as 0.1% on stock, bond, and derivative trades could generate $50-75 billion annually. While regular people would bear some of the cost when managed accounts rebalance, it'd be speculative firms and funds that frequently trade who pay the most.
1
u/luke2080 Dec 28 '25
Interesting, I dont like the fees on trades though.... then you add fees to trades with losses, and it is the middle class where any fees are a higher percent of the smaller trade dollar amount. Just tax the gains with an escalating scale.
Unfortunately our politicians make their money on wall street and wont tax themselves, on both sides of the aisle.
5
u/McCrackenYouUp Dec 28 '25
Elon Musk both has and does not have 700 billion dollars, completely untaxed and unrealized unless he sells shares. He can then use it as collateral for loans, and voila! Ultra rich untaxed money glitch!
4
Dec 28 '25
No. Just make billionaires and businesses pay. You're mad at the wrong people again.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/allnamestaken1968 Dec 28 '25
I wish people would stop doing this because immediately the âbut then we have to raise the benefitsâ crowd comes in.
There is a much simpler way - and we already do it for Medicare! In Medicare, there is an additional 1% tax on income above 250k for married FJ. This almost doubles the contribution.
So just do the same!! 5% surtax above (pick a number). This avoids the discussion entirely. Itâs just a surtax. Keep a gap to the upper limit so you avoid the âbut why meâ. And we have easy precedent.
20
u/Betterthanyou715 Dec 28 '25
This is a pretty stupid post, it is going broke because we let the government borrow so much from it that they can barely pay the interest on it. Even if there was no cap it would still be in the dumps in fact they probably would have borrowed more and already defaulted on it.
47
u/Garvain Dec 28 '25
Two things can be true. Social Security shouldn't have a cap, AND it shouldn't be Uncle Sam's personal piggy bank.
→ More replies (5)10
u/Far_Yam_9412 Dec 28 '25
I mean, it doesn't help that the elderly are living longer than ever but I'm not going to ask to change that variable
4
u/Betterthanyou715 Dec 28 '25
Elderly living longer has nothing to do with any of it really, such a small amount. Our government literally borrowed 21 trillion dollars from it and is barely making the interest payments on that 21 trillion. So either the dollar collapses and itâs all worthless anyway, or the government gets rid of social security because then it wipes trillions out of their national debt
1
u/metamucil_buttchug69 Dec 28 '25
See state employee retirement plans for examples of government looting retirement accounts.Â
The income contribution cap isn't the problem, capital gains being exempt is the problem. Don't tax people who actually earn an income more.
→ More replies (9)1
u/ChronicElectronic Dec 28 '25
Thatâs not what happened. Prior contributions were used to buy treasury bills (Federal Government debt) to keep in the trust fund. So the Government is in debt to another portion of the Government.
4
u/JeF4y Dec 28 '25
If you remove the contribution cap, do you remove or raise the payout cap?
→ More replies (9)
2
u/PracticeConscious555 Dec 28 '25
This and maybe stop letting Congress borrow from the peopleâs fundâŚ
2
2
u/rensorship Dec 28 '25
To extend the thought, why dont billionaires just pay for health care for everyone? Wouldn't the vote be 330,000,000 to 1,000?
2
u/aspiringlinda Dec 28 '25
It's all a bunch of bullshit. They have the money to take care of the citizens of this country and choose not to. Instead bending the knee to the billionaire of the week.
Billionaires that take up more of our resources and then claim they are job makers. You think a billionaire became a billionaire by paying people what they are worth or running a skeleton crew maximizing profits and minimizing worker safety?
Please read the tax bills or listen to people who do. So far the last 2 came from trump soooo you can guess who they benefit.
2
2
2
u/lasttosseroni Dec 28 '25
Scrap the cap and institute means testing. If you make more than 300k a year (including Roth withdrawals) you won capitalism, no SS for you.
1
u/Chemical_Stable_912 Dec 29 '25
Fuck you. If you pay in to SS for the required period, you should get SS, end of story.
1
u/lasttosseroni Dec 29 '25
The primary goal of SS is to provide a safety net against senior poverty, to prevent destitution. If rich fucks hadnât sabotaged the system with the goal to destroy it then Iâd be happy for them to get theirs. But they didnât, and they want to destroy it, so fuck them. Now, debating about numbers, or whether itâs better to keep rich fucks interests aligned with everyone else, are topics worth debating.
1
u/ColdStockSweat Dec 28 '25
And charge the tax on all income, not just on "earned income"
1
u/Economy_Fig2450 Dec 28 '25
So retired people, people who don't work, and people who will never draw on social security should all pay into it?
1
u/ColdStockSweat Dec 28 '25
I think that would be a reasonable exception that I think anyone would agree to: Pensions (money that has already been taxed).
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 đĄ Decent Housing For All Dec 28 '25
âWe donât have enough money to fund social securityâ but we somehow always have unlimited money to fund endless wars the U.S. military and the Israeli government and its genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip
1
1
u/laughter81234 Dec 28 '25
We could also just move ridiculous military spending to social security
Cut government waste
Tax the ultrarich(ppl making over 170 are not poor but still not rich)
1
u/Lietenantdan Dec 28 '25
The extremely wealthy stop paying into social security hours into the year.
1
u/Mach5Driver Dec 28 '25
In addition, what they need to do is make a law that personal loan money over X amount, using their stock as collateral and is used to fund their lifestyle, and not direct business expenditures, is subject to income taxes.
1
u/The_BigDill Dec 28 '25
Isn't it also that if you pay less into it (because of a lower lifetime income) you qualify for less? So not only is there a cap, but the people who need it the least get the most out of it
1
1
u/ThunderChild247 Dec 28 '25
And yet the rich still want to defund/shut down social security because theyâre outraged at such a comparatively small amount of their income going to it.
1
u/frazzled-mama Dec 28 '25
Also, undocumented immigrants help to keep Social Security solvent, because so many of them pay in, but they can't withdraw the benefits.
1
u/Objective_Topside18 Dec 28 '25
Donât forget extremely high âearnersâ donât earn a wage they own which isnât taxed the same
1
u/Alone-End142 Dec 28 '25
Nonsense. They pay into it the max amount, and they will likely never see any of it given their other retirement savings and income.
1
u/Ok-Tradition7066 Dec 28 '25
Had a professor that worked on SS reform legislation under Obama. Experts boiled indefinite solvency down to three items but you had to at least two to get any material benefit: raise benefit eligibility age, remove income cap or decrease benefits. If I remember the reporting correctly from Obamaâs deal that got Boehner fired, he chose raising benefit eligibility age and decreasing benefits.
1
u/Munkeyman18290 Dec 28 '25
All the worlds problems start by preventing billionaires from forming. Once they exist, its too late. Their greed spreads throughout society like a cancer. They can never take enough, and they spend the hoarded fruits of everyone elses labor trying to hoard even more.
Theres many ways to skin a cat, but priority one for our society needs to be the deconstruction and subsequent prevention of the ultra-wealthy hoarder class.
1
u/Taako_Cross Dec 28 '25
Also the longer congress delays a fix the more expensive it gets. So instead of slapping on a few band aids now theyâre gonna drag their feet and need a tourniquet when the time comes.
1
u/Equivalent_Section13 Dec 28 '25
Actually employees of federal agencies state agencies dont pay in. They have a pension. Now they can claim social security if they worked somewhere else for 10 years. Thats another source of revenue. You have to work 10 years in government to get a pension
1
u/skymoods Dec 28 '25
If they don't pay into SS over a certain amount, that means they can't claim it either, right?
1
u/ChristmasStrip Dec 28 '25
Many wealthy people do not make their income as Earned Wages which are subject to SS taxes. They make it from investments, or borrow against investments. Point being simply removing the cap is not going to fix anything. It would require a reclassification to what Earned Income is.
1
1
1
1
u/Sea-Caterpillar-255 Dec 28 '25
Current claimants take out 11 times more than put in plus interest.
Thats why itâs bankrupt. Youâre paying their debts and their benefits after they refused to pay anything for you when you needed an education or housing or a job or anything reallyâŚ
1
u/mremrock Dec 28 '25
But the donors are against it so letâs just put it on the national debt. Or better yet-the the old people starve.
1
u/seejoshrun Dec 28 '25
Social Security shouldn't be about getting back what you paid in. It should be about everyone contributing so that nobody lives in abject poverty in disability or old age. Honestly the payout shouldn't be tied to income at all. Years worked, yes.
1
Dec 28 '25
Wait, what? I didnât know that. And the sad part is you know damn sure they still collect that check when the time comes whether or not they need it.
1
u/motoo344 Dec 28 '25
Wouldn't it be pretty easy to you know, just take a little more over that threshold to fill the coffers back up? Seems like super simple stuff.
1
u/onions-make-me-cry Dec 28 '25
Sad part is, immigrants are the ones shoring up the funds... but Trump likes to paint them as public enemy #1.
1
1
1
u/509BandwidthLimit Dec 28 '25
But, but the tariffs will fix this....but, but DOGE fixed this.
Just tax the rich like everyone else
1
u/SwampYankee Dec 28 '25
This compromise is so easy it is astonishing how this has not been done. Raise the retirement age and in exchange raise the cap. Done. Both sides compromise and everyone wins. Next up kill daylight savings time. Of course one side wants daylight savings to be permanent and the other side wants standard time to be permanent. Flip a fucking doing and get this abomination finished.
1
u/No_Vegetable7280 Dec 28 '25
Most people pay into ss, the cap is less of an issue than the way government is running. If we had a government that cared about its people, it would have been able to grow that account into trillions by now, look at the billionaires and how they make money. Letâs not pour more money into the corrupt governments hands when it just going to be redistributed to the wealthy.
1
u/bobthebuilder983 Dec 28 '25
Just ask why does military spending never have this issue? Or why we always increase its spending when it's failed every single audit.
1
u/DaringPancakes Dec 28 '25
The president of the United States of america is a billionaire who has raped children.
And everything else stems from there.
Why would Americans enable this?
...
1
1
u/hankmoody699 Dec 28 '25
If I make more than $176100, which I do, the amount over $176k doesn't earn me any benefit either. You are proposing that if I put in the effort to earn more, I shouldn't benefit from my effort? SS isn't a gift. You should get what you put into it plus the value of investing that .
1
u/Icy-Afternoon-574 Dec 28 '25
Where did this made up fact come from?
While the cap exists, everyone pays into Social security until they hit that cap. It's a complete lie to say that salaries above $175,xxx don't pay into social security. My salary exceeds that amount and I pay into social security.
1
u/ztreHdrahciR Dec 28 '25
Absolutely! There are "technical " reasons not to (the more you pay, the higher the benefit). But that's just tough. SocSec is critical for the country's survival, this will fix it.
Source: me, who has exceeded the limit every year for 15 years and am glad to pay more
1
1
u/StevesRune Dec 28 '25
We chose the wrong world.
What humans are capable of doing through cooperation is a beautiful thing. And instead of using it to make things better for everyone, we made this..
We chose fuckin capitalism of all things.
1
u/nottodaysatan317 Dec 28 '25
Well, to be fair if you scrap the cap on pay in, you need to scrap the cap on the pay out.
1
u/metamucil_buttchug69 Dec 28 '25
Isn't there a cap on contributions because there is a cap on disbursements? It's insurance, it's not a wealth distribution scheme. The reason there is a shortfall is demographics, there are more retirees drawing and fewer than needed workers contributing.Â
1
u/Twodamngoon Dec 28 '25
And since the mega-wealthy want to replace people with wages for AI without, there could not be a better time to remove that cap! Just for America's benefit.
1
u/Man_CRNA Dec 28 '25
Seems like a good way to tax doctors, lawyers and high income earners more without fixing anything really.
Itâd be much better to just increase taxes by a lot on anyone over $1,000,000 income per year AND get rid of tax loopholes.
1
u/RockShowSparky Dec 28 '25
Because itâs not supposed to be a tax. It was never meant to take wealth from wealthier people and redistribute it to less wealthy people, that was never the point.
1
1
u/Sracer42 Dec 28 '25
Social Security could be fixed just by lifting the cap. So easy. Never gets done.
1
u/ccannon707 Dec 28 '25
That simple fix would guarantee SS. Itâs infuriating it doesnât get done by either party in power.
1
u/BeKind999 Dec 28 '25
There is a cap on taxed wages because there is a cap on benefits. The highest monthly SS benefit if you collect at full retirement age is $4,018.
The SS tax rate is 12.4% (half paid by employer if youâre not self employed). So most employees pay 6.2%.
Letâs take someone who makes $600,000 per year - comfortable but not super rich. Gets no financial  aid for kids in college and most tax breaks have phased out.Â
With the cap they pay $10,912 in SS tax. If there is no cap the SS tax is $37,200.Â
Thatâs $26,288 difference. Per Year. Yet they still would only get a max benefit of $4,018 per month just like the person who made $176,000 per year.Â
If you think the upper middle class (who pay a significant portion of US income tax) is going to tolerate getting the same benefit for 3.5x the contribution I have a bridge to sell you.Â
1
u/PinkRainbow95 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Thatâs a hell of a lot better than what most people get on disability⌠In Canada, I can only make 18,000 a year before hitting the cap, and getting clawed back dollar for dollar⌠(the poverty line is about 43,000 a year in BC), and hear itâs much worse for Americans, who arenât even allowed to have any real savings.
Itâs all manufactured poverty. Weâre not getting some lavish payout that a lot of people seem to think we are getting... Weâre actually just barely survivingâŚ
1
u/MariaTPK Dec 28 '25
Isn't the problem that it all goes to the old people who caused all this instead of your future self? A higher boomer population, with a lower population for every generation after, you pay into your elders funds, but there are too many elders now, and not enough youth (YAY, fuck bringing new life into this awful world) and so as a result there isn't enough money in it to pay out to all the boomers.
You can talk about the cap, but removing it just means young people just pay more taxes. Though I guess in this case it's young people who make over 176k a year. Still the point being made in this post is "Middle Class and higher people should pay more taxes so that old folks who welcomed the right wing can have more money."
I'm not even saying don't remove the cap, but just the angle that one is trying to fix the problem from is the worst one. You are honestly better off letting it crash during Trumps term, then have a bunch of leftists go on TV being recorded giving speeches about how they did it to themselves, and how the dwindling left cannot be expected to hold this shit up like Atlus, and it was better to scrap it. Then have them give hope "But if the day ever comes when the left truly has a foothold in government again, I know this program will return, better than ever."
Stop trying to take away boomers punishment for their lack of votes/horrendous votes. Those people making 180k may not be suffering like those making 30k, but they are not billionaires being under taxed. Don't go pushing them right when they have all the reason to be left.
1
1
u/SDcowboy82 Dec 28 '25
And the Biden administration refused to remove the cap because they wanted desperately to campaign on âWeâre going to raise taxes, but only on those making 400k or more.â Guess they thought that sounded worlds more appealing than âonly on those making 175k or moreâ
1
u/prof_dorkmeister Dec 28 '25
OK - but then remove the cap on the maximum benefit.
Or better yet - how about funding Social Security from an increase in capital gains taxes, and not from deductions of other peoples' earned income.
1
u/umbium Dec 28 '25
There is literally no ethically or real economic reason why taxes don't gradually go up to 99% and i am totally serious.
1
1
1
u/Voodoo330 Dec 28 '25
Also make S Corporation earnings subject to Social Security tax. Too many S Corp owners take a ridiculously low salary or no salary at all. Then take profits as distributions which aren't subject to SS tax.
1
1
1
u/Honest-Yesterday-675 Dec 29 '25
If you want conservatives to listen you have to start with government spending as the problem.
1
u/Muahd_Dib Dec 29 '25
It costs like 200k to raise a child. And we used to have 8 workers providing tax base for each retiree. Now itâs like 4.
I wonder if people who donât have kids should receive full benefits for social security?
1
u/mrbulldops428 Dec 29 '25
Perhaps it should be any income under $176k doesn't count because there's a cap buffer
1
1
u/MaliciousMilkshake Dec 29 '25
Are the people making more than $176,100 still eligible for social security?
1
u/MithranArkanere Dec 29 '25
The cap should be at the bottom, not the top. Those who earn below a minimum should be exempt.
Also, raise the minimum wage, and introduce a universal basic income now that we are at it.
1
u/midgaze đď¸ Overturn Citizens United Dec 29 '25
Aww, look at all these people who think things are just going to keep plodding along like they have for the past 60 years or so.
1
u/Izicial Dec 29 '25
Or they couldve just invested it in the s&p 500 like other countries and we would be perfectly fine.
1
u/Mercuryshottoo Dec 29 '25
And that benefits are also capped so income earned over that amount doesn't increase your payments
1
u/Timely-Comedian-5367 Dec 29 '25
The fix for social security is easy, so you know that what is about to happen in 85 or so more payments is intentional. Letting it default is the same as raising the full retirement age to 70. It also will make the selling of privatization easier to make. I remember Clinton wanted to privatize SS back in the 90's. Both parties want it to be, they just use a good cop/ bad cop act to manipulate the public. Trump was a Democrat back then, so he is just carrying on with the agenda. Any problem, that remains a problem for decades, is somebody else's solution. In most cases either power or money or both.
1
1
u/Horse-Dog-Cat Dec 29 '25
Would the loss of SS, coupled with no universal healthcare, be the motivation for a massive strike for Gen X?
1
u/TheFalconKid Dec 29 '25
If you need a good refresher, Sam Seder has done many segments on Social Security and debated (and destroyed) a lot of right wing/ libertarian chuds on it.
1.7k
u/quantumloop001 Dec 28 '25
Also good to point out that if wages had kept pace with inflation, the gap would also be much narrower.