Ding! Ding! We have a winner
Will you also raise the SS payouts for the folks who under proposal your now paying more SS tax? Or are the folks earning >$162K now to simply have an additional 6.2% surcharge on their higher income in exchange for exactly zero more benefit to themselves?
Recognizing that the $162K earners already get less than one third of the payout percentage that low-wage workers get. How much worse do you propose to make their payout? And how do you propose to handle their likely response?
Try “It’s extremely difficult to kill yourself, without assistance and detailed medical advice, by a technique that isn’t horrible to go through and that is guaranteed to work, and therefore guaranteed not to leave you alive but even worse off than you would have been if you hadn’t tried it.”
Yeah, I’m fine with rich people continuing to draw their Social Security as they do now: current top bracket indexed to inflation, paying taxes on the portion of it they’re now required to pay taxes on. I just want them to raise the income bracket Social Security is withheld on without further raising that top bracket of payouts; or at least without raising it enough to use up much or all of the additional money raised by removing or significantly raising the income cap.
I’m not expecting some of them to be happy with anything whatever that gets done about anything that doesn’t wind up resulting in their getting an even greater proportion of the country’s and the planet’s wealth than they’ve alreay got. Especially if whatever’s happening is something they think they can warp in order to get their side elected. So saying ‘we can’t do X because they’ll complain!’ is the equivalent of saying ‘We can’t do anything at all, let’s just all of us fall off this cliff together into the flood.’
We’ve heard from several people in this thread, though, that they’d be fine with it.
We don’t get any extra Medicare coverage for paying the Medicare tax without a cap. However, I agree SS benefits should increase (slightly) as the cap is lifted or eliminated. I guess Bernie Sanders said everyone could get $200 more. That would be okay with me.
Yes, this. I’m used to hearing from rich greedy people that they should get to keep even more of their money than they do already, and the rest of society can go to hell for all they care. I give their arguments (ME ME ME ME) all the weight they deserve, which is zero.
Don’t want to run afoul of the rules WRT suicide, but if you truly believe this, you just need to do a bit of research. And I’m fortunate enough to have folk who care enough to assist me if needed. Hell, some days they are downright EAGER to help! 
No.
Yes.
Take it as a small fee for living in an orderly society without a starving, homeless, discontented, permanent underclass always scheming ways to storm your castles and eat your families.
Is there a lot of pushback today from people who have maxed out on SS benefits about the progressive nature of the payouts? I wasn’t even aware of it until I researched SS before I started it.
As for the benefit, the system being there should work fine. When I was working I liked the raise in my paycheck the month I went over the cap, but it was not like I was able to buy food afterwards.
This is another case of the benefits of being relatively rich. Unless you decide to have an extravagant lifestyle, a big investment base lets you live off SS and interest without touching it, while if you have a smaller one you are expected to live off selling some of it, and hope you don’t outlive it. The rich get richer …
Medical expenses may climb even if you are in not bad enough shape to want to end it. My father-in-law went into assisted living at 99 with all his mental faculties intact. Doesn’t cost as much as full nursing care, but was a bit more expensive than just the retirement home. There is nothing wrong with preserving your resources for that eventuality.
Their benefit, btw, is this: if they should happen to gamble away the great fortune they have compiled (as is their right under a capitalist structure) they will benefit by being able to rely on a higher SS payout than was previously available, if everyone’s benefits are maintained (which the 6.2% is providing) and if those benefits go up.
Is this an equitable payout, dollar for dollar? No–rich people pay more into the SS system than they will receive. But if they unexpectedly become poor people, as sometimes happens, then the SS system is their safety net, as it is everyone’s.
You don’t want to be a part of this inequitable system? Easy–avoid becoming grotesquely wealthy.
It’s not really a significant problem – as it is, the benefits formula increases only slowly with Social-security-taxed income (15 cents on the dollar) for income just below the maximum; continuing at that rate for additional income from the current maximum up to a new maximum (or to infinity) costs less than the added revenue.
Okay. Fair enough. A hot topic again.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s no wonder the entire SDMB, whose only hair color is gray, doesn’t want to touch the payment side but is all for erasing the income cap or raising the retirement age. It’s funny, you read this entire thread and you’ve got people arguing against the idea of reducing the maximum payout because, hey, those people might be poor people and promises were made and yadda yadda yadda, but then they turn around and argue for eliminating the cap because screw those rich people. It’s convenient how they ignore the connection between max payout and max pay-in:
Just to provide both a serious proposal, but also expose the hypocrisy of these corn-pone opinions, how about this: let’s just cut the max benefit of anyone born 1943 to 1973, since it’s well known they underfunded the program for decades during their working years and are now trying to draw on that underfunded pool, but we don’t cut future benefits for anyone born 1975 and later, since they’re not responsible for this pending bankruptcy. Also, if you’re over 50 today and you’re still working, you have to pay an extra 2% “catch up tax” to make up for all the years you paid too little. Everyone younger still pays the same amount.
Deal? I mean, that’s fair, right? Now no elderly go hungry but those mean rich people can pay their fair share, finally. And no one else has to clean up the Boomers’ mess. The ones who made their bed can lie in it and the rest of us can wash our hands of it. You’re all for that, right?
I don’t recall doing any such thing. (underfunding the program) ETA: I supported greater funding for my entire voting life. I did what I could. Short of insurrection.
What’s wrong with raising or eliminating the cap, and raising benefits for everyone, especially at the lower end? I would pay a lot more in, get a little more out, and everyone would have a financially sound system.
Protip: Next time, try not posting this immediately following a comment suggesting precisely that.
Thank you. You’ve said explicitly the point I’ve been making implicitly.
The political rationale for SS pretty well requires that additional tax go with some additional payouts. Once you cut that link it’s just “socialist welfare” and the reactionary right will gut it sooner rather than later.
But that doesn’t mean that the over 162K crowd will pay in a dollar and get back a dollar. Right now, as you say, they pay in a dollar and get back 15 cents. Getting back zero is politically dangerous, and getting back 15 cents is politically easy. Even getting back 5 cents would keep the “you pay, you get” link intact.
I really don’t understand how folks are missing this. Every single “you pay, they get” transfer system the USA ever started, whether dating from FDR’s Great Depression recovery efforts, from LBJs’ Great Society efforts, or any other time, has been comprehensively gutted in the last 10-30 years. The sole program that has been sustained and even has grown is SS and the closely related Medicare. Why are they different? Answer: “everybody gets”. Break that link and it’s game over.
It’s the social renegotiation I have a problem with. Here, from your very first real job, we pull money to pay for your retirement at 62…no 65…no 70…
If you look at an annuity calculator, that $2800 a month SS would pay requires I save, over my lifetime, an additional $500,000 to replace.
I don’t have a good answer for it, people living longer, more people retiring at a time making the model unsustainable, politicians trying to grab pots of money for their own goals, the inability for people to make equity in a real estate purchase to help with retirement (where you save, AND you can live in it, at the exact same time)
Because the wage cap has been raised many times and the tax rate has also been raised without increasing benefits above COLA adjustments. Hell, until 1972 there weren’t even automatic COLA adjustments, congress had to act to raise benefits. Raising the current cap is hardly unprecedented – it has increased many times.
That makes sense to me. (Though @squeegee may also have a point; I don’t know the history in that much detail. However, things that were routinely done historically have sometimes become a lot harder to do now.)
And even if it’s ‘everybody at all levels gets an extra $200’, but the math works out so that removing or sufficiently raising the cap will both cover that and make the system solvent for a considerable time to come, that’s also OK by me. I just don’t want them to raise the top level enough to eat up all or most of the benefit from removing or raising the cap. If it’s necessary to bribe the rich folks with money they don’t need in order to get enough of them to let the system keep functioning, then maybe we have to do that.
What are you talking about? Nobody suggested cutting current payouts, which is precisely what I’m suggesting. And is the fair and obvious solution. At best, people are arguing for not increasing the payment, which is clearly not the same thing.
I already told you. For decades we screamed “You have to increase contributions. Boomers are nearing retirement. You’re going to miss out on taxing them. You have to raise contributions, boomers are starting to retire, you’re almost out of time to tax them! Boomers are mostly retired, it’s nearly too late to tax any of them! Aaaaand Boomers are completely retired. It’s now too late to tax them. Way to go, you fucked it all up.” And now that the window has completely closed, it’s “let’s tax workers more and pay recipients more!”
“What’s wrong with that?”, you ask me? With a straight face?