Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ktxhopem3276 t1_jc2v2zj wrote

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

Wealthier people live longer and draw social security longer. The percent of gdp over the cap has increased since the 1980s even with the yearly increase in the cap. It’s also why there is a big jump from 24% to 32% in income taxes at $183,000 but that could be up to $200,000 using 401k deduction. The way I look at it is once you make that much money, you are probably lucky that whatever career path you picked is in demand. Democrats generally say they would create a donut hole by applying the tax on income over $250,000

8

hiricinee t1_jc2w8g3 wrote

Right now the cap on the payroll tax is at around 150, very much to the point if wealthy people are living longer than means testing the benefits would reduce payments to them more. Of course the problem with that is that there's a lot less rich people than poor ones.

Also almost all of these ideas go against the principle of ss, which was to be a government sponsored retirement program you paid into and got out once you retired. Basically all of the ideas to fix it completely neglect that (out of necessity.)

2

ktxhopem3276 t1_jc2x1pm wrote

Means testing is tricky because people will spend down savings faster to avoid it. The scary thing about means testing is it’s a slippery slope. We already have means testing sort of. When they added taxes on ss benefits in the 80s it was never inflation indexed. so now most people have to pay income tax on their benefits. Raising the cap brings in a lot more money than means testing according to the ssa analysis. Another possibility is to fix ss by shifting the medicare payroll tax to the ss trust fund so that ss is still a pay in to get benefits design. Medicare is only half funded by payroll taxes anyway and is mostly paid for by the general fund.

1

thunder-thumbs t1_jc31zod wrote

If you remove the cap and remove the max payment, then that principle is retained, though, isn’t it?

1

TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc48c0f wrote

How convenient that Congress makes 170 to 230K a year.

0

MainStreetRoad t1_jc4wjrm wrote

That’s a façade, congress makes MOST of their income via bribes.

2

TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc4x2rm wrote

You seem to be confusing campaign funding with income.

1

ktxhopem3276 t1_jc4y0oo wrote

If the campaign funds improve their chances of winning election,they personally benefit

1

TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc4yzhd wrote

The fact you don't pay payroll taxes on something that isn't payroll is the point.

1

ktxhopem3276 t1_jc4zvsa wrote

Obviously it was a joke. But not all bribes are in the form of campaign funds. Other bribes are the paid speeches and future employment offers

1

TracyMorganFreeman t1_jc50ty2 wrote

Which you till pay taxes on.

This, combined with the numerous bureaucrats and tech professionals who are their donors is why that donut hole was selected.

Ultimately it's telling they don't just try to lift the cap entirely.

0

ktxhopem3276 t1_jc51ag9 wrote

tech professionals that make more than $160,000 or less than $250,000 are big campaign donors?

1