Removing the cap would be more than enough to preserve S.S. So more people are sharing a shrinking resource. https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/ Just look what we have with healthcare! I seriously doubt it! Most likely the main goal in any privatized system of anything will be maximum profits. But post a link to your best example of such a system and how it would work. I can't comment intelligently on something I haven't seen
It doesn't have to be paid to Social Security. It's a government bureaucracy and exists entirely at the pleasure of the Congress.
Awe shucks, wants other peoples money. How's about we just reduce you're benefits by the amount you want to increase their tax burden
Removing the cap would not do much. Aside from the fact that the portion of all payroll that is not subject to FICA is relatively small, Social Security payments are based on contributions and those who earn above the cap would then receive higher amounts of Social Security. They also tend to have longer life spans. There's already the problem of high marginal tax rates, and you propose to increase that substantially. That would cause a shift in the way some people accept income so as to not have to pay taxes on it. If the purpose is to protect the poor and middle class from themselves, then it makes sense to tax them for their retirement. If your purpose is to shove your morals down the throats of others by stealing from the rich to give to whoever makes you feel better, then raising the cap is certainly a way to make it seem like you want to do good rather than just punish people you don't like.
Language precision please. If you earn less than $118,000/yr it is ALL subject to FICA. Currently, if you have high enough earnings that a portion of it is above the cap, that portion is not subject to FICA and your SS benefit will be calculated on the cap, --$118,000 or whatever it is. So a recipient who earned $400,000/year receives the same SS benefit as someone who earned $119,000. No they don't. Yeah, corporate officers mainly. But they already take much of their income as back-dated stock options. That sound pretty contemptuous. That sounds pretty right wing extreme AND contemptuous. Why is it the right has such trouble discussing serious social issues without showing contempt for the needy and the public in general?
we went for years with no increases while our warriors got raises every year. raises to help kill people. no raises to help people live. that's immoral.
It is a waste of time to worry about Social Security. Social Security is safe so long as the US government is solvent. The government will simply print the money if it needs to which will increase inflation, and diminish the value of the awards. There will be tweaks along the way, including raising taxes on younger and less politically active citizens. The average citizen is so naive that they could sell them a tax increase on SS and they would voluntarily vote for it. Again.
One of the issues of the Social Security Trust Fund is that by far the biggest part of it consists of government Treasury debt to the fund. That means that a big chunk of the total U.S. National Debt is to the S.S. Trust Fund. And since this money is going to come due and old people are going to have to be paid, that means that the government is going to have to pay a big portion of its debt. It will not just be a simple matter of finding other lenders to borrow that money from, nor will this current lender be renewing the loan (like would likely be the case if the debt were to some other national government).
