Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ArrayGamer t1_jc29x6k wrote

Reply to comment by skilliard7 in [OC] US Social Security Fund History by PM_Ur_Illiac_Furrows

Or get rid of the cap where you stop paying social security taxes on income over $160k. Seems preferable to making people work even longer in their later years

9

skilliard7 t1_jc2bde5 wrote

That would just make the problem worse because it would increase liabilities. The wealthy don't need social security.

The top marginal tax rate is already nearly 60% between federal and state. Higher taxes are not the answer.

−4

ArrayGamer t1_jc2fxw4 wrote

Higher average income earners get relatively less back (double your salary and taxes paid doesn't double your benefits) so it shouldn't make the problem worse. Optionally, the cap could be removed to extend solvency while changing benefits to not increase for those earning over the current cap.

If none of this is to your satisfaction, an alternative of increasing social security taxes by ~3.4% would extend full solvency of the program to around the year 2100.

Also, who pays 60% taxes in the US? IIRC, the highest income percentiles tend to pay around 20-25% in effective federal income tax rate after accounting for deductions and other creative accounting. I doubt between social security taxes (capped to no longer have income taxes after $160k), state taxes etc, almost anybody pays nearly 60%. Removing the cap would make it so social security is no longer a regressive tax where higher earners pay a lower percentage of their income.

5