So give them government aid, just don't call it "welfare," even though that's what it is.

I can't remember where I read this, but I think it was in one of Pete Peterson's books. Peterson (or whoever it was) said that the reason Social Security was established and portrayed as a "savings account" program instead of welfare was because those in favor of Social Security felt this arrangement and characterization would help protect the program from future cuts by critics. In addition to this characterization, the idea was that if you paid benefits to all retirees, this would create a large constituency. The fear was that if it SS payments only went to needy retirees this would also make the program more susceptible to future cuts by critics.

But retirees in general, and wealthy retirees in particular, are still a formidable voting bloc. Which is why going after Social Security benefits is generally viewed as political suicide.

I've always been in favor of some kind of means-testing but am not as keen about raising the retirement age for full benefits. I do think, however, that conventional wisdom is correct; suggesting cutting benefits to wealthier retirees is political suicide. I think the "savings account" characterization has become deeply ingrained and almost all retirees (and near-retirees) feel they are owed money that they "paid in" to the system. That's why they call it an entitlement.

David Friedman has shown that Social Security is one of our biggest subsidies from the poor to the rich! This is not just because the rich receive bigger checks, but also because blue-collar workers enter the work force younger, retire when older, and have much (~ 7 years) shorter life expectancies than white-collar workers. This is an even better reason to end the program than the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme, mathematically certain to collapse anyway.

Abolish it and let Granny apply for welfare if she needs it.

I've always been in favor of some kind of means-testing but am not as keen about raising the retirement age for full benefits.

Why not? when the program first started you had to live three years PAST the average life expectancy.

If social security were started today you'd get benefits around 80-85

My grandmother who has been collecting for nearly two decades still wouldnt be eligible.

Since when is a program a person pays into "welfare"?

The Newspeak is strong in this one. SS is "welfare" exactly as much as "Obamacare" is "insurance".

So, you took hundreds of thousands from me, with the promise I would get something in return, and now you are going to say too bad? That isn't political suicide, that is Congressmen shot dead in the streets and a jury of their peers will rule justifiable homicide.

I guess I'll just have to keep working because I cannot retire on what I have saved and the couple of modest pensions I will receive and I am far, far better off than most of my peers.

Good luck finding a job, kids. You will need it.

Social Security can pay about 70% of what is owed. You want to cut everybody by 30%, then we can talk.

(sigh) Once again: just raise the cap on income taxed for SS, problem solved.
For 2015, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $118,500.
Income above that amount is not subject to SS tax. Why? Who does this really benefit?

So, you took hundreds of thousands from me, with the promise I would get something in return, and now you are going to say too bad?

The way I see it the people who need to get fucked over are the greedy myopic assholes who got themselves into this situation by voting for legislators ho promised to expand eligibility and pay outs.

NOT their great/grandchildren who wont even be eligible to vote to protest the financial ass raping they are going to receive.

1. My aunt told me that when Social Security was young, it was
emphasized that the benefits are something you've paid for; they're
not welfare. Ads showed movie stars going to collect their Social
Security.

2. Even setting aside the promises made to those who paid for years,
treating it as welfare will kill the system. How popular is
welfare?

3. And what does the government get out of this? Analysis has shown
that it would trim just a few percentage points of the total Social
Security payout. It turns out that there just aren't so many rich
people, and the SS maximum possible monthly payment is not so high
[1], that doing this would make much of a difference to the total
budget.

Conclusion: it's more about envy and "soaking the rich" than about
budget concerns.

[1] An individual can't get more than $41K/year and they can get
that high an amount only if they wait until age 70 to collect.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable

SS is an income redistribution program just like so many others. But it is also a very sexist one. Men are the primary earners, taking more difficult and hazardous jobs for more $ to be taken from them women live significantly longer. As it is with current age limits and life expectancies women receive about 75% of all SS benefits, raising the age will even more skew this.

If it's welfare, then treat it like welfare. Have it come out of the general fund, supported by the various general tax systems, like all the other welfare is.

You have to ask yourself, why is it collected differently, as a direct percentage of income, if the intent wasn't always to pay it out differently?

People who believe it is an entitlement aren't smoking funny stuff. They were TOLD that's what it was, when it was sold to them.

@ Ron
1. Your aunt was a moron who bought into government propaganda

2. Fuck those idiots, they made a bad bet, why should I and my children be forced to give them money becuase they were too stupid and lazy to do basic math. Also IT IS WELFARE. The money they "paid in" wanst invested, it wasnt kept in an individual account that paid back out. They are getting back far, FAR, more than they ever paid in.

3. What does the government get? Nothing. Politicians however get votes, by promising such people even MORE money

You do understand that when SS started on average people DIED 3 years BEFORE they were eligible for a payout right?

On average people today die 25 years AFTER eligablity.

So using your figure of 41k per year

Start of program
41k * -3 = -123k

Today

41k * 25 = 1025k

1025 - (-123) = 1148k or

$1,148,000

So as you can see the difference in today's payouts are VASTLY different than when the program started.

Yes, raise the eligibility age. It needs to be adjusted according to average life expectancy.

"Once again: just raise the cap on income taxed for SS, problem solved.
For 2015, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $118,500.
Income above that amount is not subject to SS tax. Why? Who does this really benefit?" - drcos

That actually benefits the employers. For the 6.2% of your income you contribute to Social Security, your employers pay out of their pockets the same amount for you.

This is what ticks me off about people like Bernie Sanders recommending the removal of the cap: Not one word is mentioned about a plan to remove the cap for employee contributions, but keeping it in place for what the employers pay. If I had a highly successful company and had an employee earn $250,000, I would have to pay Social Security $15,500 without the cap, as opposed to a maximum of $7,347. That actually makes a big difference and would deter me from wanting to pay anyone more than $118,500, even though they're worth more.

Thing is, whole thing is built on a pile of lies, and the skulls of the conquered.

OK, maybe not skulls, but still.
My government removes money from my salary EVERY PAYCHECK.

That makes this NOT welfare, but neither is it some kind of bank account... because you can get back more than you put in.

That parts gotta stop, with simple truth.
The complex truth is that, like most programs that are old... many things have changed, but the program itself hasn't evolved.

When it was set up, they were hopin' you'd croak before drawing any money... so they could pay for those that lived.

Dunno how they were supposed to take care of the money, but I don't think they have done so, in any case.

So essentially this is a fraud perpetrated by our government, and it is in many people's interest to turn a blind eye... as long as they get theirs.

Anyone have cajones to tell the truth? Doubt it. A lot of people wouldn't believe you.
They dun wanna know what's in the sausage.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that it was money that wasn't being used immediately. It was just sitting there. And there's nothing a politician hates more than money just sitting there ... instead of being used to buy votes.

So, they took Social Security out of its own fund and put the money into the general fund. That way, they could use it to fund programs.

Then, one day, Social Security had more recipients than contributors, a crisis it likely could have weathered had it been left to gather interest and grow over the years when there were more contributors than recipients.

Sorry, Gramps, we spent your pension fund and now we're going to call you greedy for demanding your own money back with the interest we promised it would accrue.

http://www.amazon.com/Pension-Fund-Just-Sitting-There/dp/0030491762

Let's assume that all of us will turn 65 and one day need the safety net we've had being deducted at 6.2% from our checks for the last 40+ years. If you paid that money, you should benefit from it having been collected and set aside for your benefit. To not be able to access it after all those years is a fraud on the part of our government. Do not collect that money from me if I will not be able to retrieve it when I need it. I'll put it in my 401K instead.

My mom was the picture of health until diagnosed with esophageal cancer at age 64. Don't presume that because life expectancy is longer that it equates that your working life is also longer. Sometimes it is, but most times it is not.

It may not seem equitable that Mill Gates and I get about the same SocSec payout, but he paid in. Is it fair to simply confiscate his?

flbeachmom: If it's welfare, then treat it like welfare. Have it come out of the general fund, supported by the various general tax systems, like all the other welfare is.

You have to ask yourself, why is it collected differently, as a direct percentage of income, if the intent wasn't always to pay it out differently?

It's my understanding that the original intent was to provide financial support only to those retirees who needed it. (Welfare: "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need".) However, as I mentioned above, supporters of the program were concerned that if it only went to that subset of retirees, instead of to all retirees, it would be much more vulnerable to eventual cuts (or elimination.) Give money to all retirees and you've got a much larger voting bloc with an interest in maintaining the system and I think everyone -- supporters and critics alike -- can agree that strategy worked out very well.

It's collected differently because the creators/supporters wanted to portray it as a "savings account." But just because you portray something in a particular way, doesn't mean it actually functions in that way. From the Concord Coalition's COMMON MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY:

Myth: Each worker has his or her own Social Security retirement “account” at the Social Security Administration.

Fact: No—Social Security is not a personal investment program. It is a “pay-as-you-go” Federal entitlement program where current workers fund benefits for current retirees and disabled Americans.

Myth: Each worker has his or her own Social Security retirement “account” at the Social Security Administration.

Fact: Each worker can get a Social Security statement of projected benefits which outlines the benefits derived from his or her input into the program. Said statement does not specify any need-based criteria and is tied to the Social Security number of the worker.

I get one every quarter.

=========================

As noted above, Social Security surpluses are, by law, invested in U.S. Treasury securities. As with any public or private funds invested in Treasury securities, the Social Security surpluses become available for expenditure on other Federal programs. Beginning in 2017, when Social Security payroll taxes are projected to be insufficient to cover benefit payments, the Treasury will begin to draw down the accumulated Treasury securities held by the Trust Funds to cover the shortfall in payroll taxes.

Basically, the government put an IOU in the box instead of investing the money and is whining about shortages and threatening to implement need-based benefits now that the IOUs are coming due.

"Since when is a program a person pays into "welfare"?"

How about all of them Radwaste? There are beneficiaries and there are contributors to social security. Just like every other welfare program. Money goes from the contributors to the beneficiaries. Just like every other welfare program. Beneficiaries do have variable benefits. But that is common to many welfare programs as well.

Conan,

Just because you have a statement of projected benefits doesn't mean you have personal property. There never was any intent to invest surpluses. There never was any interest. And there never were any property based accounts. SS is not an IRA or pension. It is a government welfare program based on age.

I can call a foot a leg-hand. Doesn't change it's nature.

I'll give up all of my claims to SS if all all of the cash I've paid into it is returned to me, with interest, tax free.

No, I don't really think that will happen.

As for Christie's proposal? Whatever. It won't make any long term difference.

I view Christie as a long shot candidate. He will have a lot of trouble getting support from southern voters.

Heck Steve, I'll give up any future claim to SS if I can just stop paying in. They don't even need to refund me.

Conan, the fact that you can get a Social Security statement of projected benefits does not mean that you have an "account" the way you have an "account" at your bank or credit union. If you have $10,000 in your bank or credit union account, that institution can't decide to reduce the amount in your account to $9,000.

In contrast, Congress can decide to reduce benefits and/or extend the retirement age for collecting full (or early) benefits (see Heritage Foundation link below.)

From the Pew Research Center: 5 Facts About Social Security

At its root Social Security is, and always has been, an inter-generational transfer of wealth. The taxes paid by today’s workers and their employers don’t go into a dedicated individual account, nor do Social Security checks represent a return on invested capital. (Although you might be forgiven for thinking so, since the “personalized Social Security statements” that used to be mailed out once a year and now are available online detail your payment history and projected monthly benefits.)

Rather, the benefits received by today’s retirees are funded by the taxes paid by today’s workers; when those workers retire, their benefits will be paid for by the next generation of workers’ taxes

Basically, the government put an IOU in the box instead of investing the money.

SS surpluses have been invested, as the comment you posted notes: "Social Security surpluses are, by law, invested in U.S. Treasury securities."

Where do you think they should be invested?

*

Heritage Foundation: Social Security Basics

According to the Supreme Court, workers actually neither own nor have a legal right to their Social Security benefits. In fact, the Court has even said that Congress can end Social Security benefits at any time. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that Americans have no property right to their Social Security benefits. In his dissent, Justice Hugo Black observed that this decision "simply tell[s] the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their own and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing, and can stop doing so when it pleases."

Just because you have a statement of projected benefits doesn't mean you have personal property.

If you're gonna act like it's an account and make promises tied to a persons personal account number, you don't get to claim that it's technically not an account when it's no longer convenient to treat it like one.

===================================

via Snopes.com:

However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report:

In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.

Where do you think they should be invested? ~ Posted by: JD at April 17, 2015 1:12 PM

Investment in Treasury securities by the US Government is not "investing."

As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report, the Social Security Trust Fund "investing" in Treasury securities resulted in no additional revenue coming into government coffers.

That's like moving money from your mortgage account to your checking account and spending it, then claiming that the money in your mortgage account was invested in your checking account and that your checking account will pay the money back some day.

Overall, you're still in the hole for the amount you spent. You made the promise of payment to a third party at a later date and you still have to come up with the money.

The money would have been better off actually invested in stocks and bonds (like a pension fund). However, as the Great Depression was still raging when this law was passed, investment in the stock market would have been difficult to sell to the public. The law, however, could have been amended later to enable real investment of the funds instead of simply shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic by having the government "invest" in itself.

Radwaste: Since when is a program a person pays into "welfare"?

Steve: I'll give up all of my claims to SS if all all of the cash I've paid into it...

Along with De Beers convincing women that diamonds = love (see below), the U.S. government convincing people that they've "paid into" a Social Security "account" is a brilliant sales job.

No matter how many times you explain to people that the taxes paid by today’s workers go to pay the benefits received by today’s retirees, the vast majority of people continue to see SS as something they're "paying into."

Marketing Diamonds

This idea of connecting diamonds to romance was captured in a brilliant ad campaign begun in the 1940s, causing demand for diamonds to increase. Surely you've heard the De Beers advertisement that "A Diamond is Forever." This ad campaign, which was created by the N.W. Ayer advertising agency in 1947, transformed the diamond market. In 2000, Advertising Age magazine named the ad campaign the slogan of the 20th century. De Beers infiltrated Japan with the same ad campaign in the 1960s, and the Japanese public bought into the idea as much as the Americans did.

If you're gonna act like it's an account and make promises tied to a persons personal account number, you don't get to claim that it's technically not an account when it's no longer convenient to treat it like one.

Ah, but you ("you" being the U.S. government) does get to do exactly that.

What the government granteth (in benefits) the government can taketh away (or reduce.)

Look, I'd be more than happy to discover that I'm legally entitled to the projected benefits on my SS statement so if you can provide something to all of us that demonstrates this, I'd welcome it.

Nobody from the welfare state has responded to the point I made earlier:

If it wasn't SUPPOSED to be different, why has it been COLLECTED differently, and as Conan stated, treated differently by the government.

I have never received a statement from the government stating what my benefits would be if I lost my job and became homeless. That's welfare - SS is not welfare.

As I said, if it is to BECOME welfare, then the government should collect a higher general tax rate, and eliminate the SS "contribution". But until that happens, I reserve the right to insist it's an entitlement.

(And I'm not naive enough to think it won't get yanked out from under me, regardless of what I think is right.)

From another section of JD's link, above:

Means Testing Social Security Benefits
"...another way to reduce the program's eventual deficits would be to target the benefits of those who need it the least through means testing. ...However, such a move would threaten the program's deep support and begin the process of moving it to a welfare program"

According to JD's link, it is NOT A WELFARE PROGRAM. At least for now.

The money would have been better off actually invested in stocks and bonds (like a pension fund). However, as the Great Depression was still raging when this law was passed, investment in the stock market would have been difficult to sell to the public.

And you think that would be an easy sell to the public now?

Here's a brief, but good, piece about the idea of government investing SS surpluses in the private sector.

And here's a piece from the GAO, Implications of Government Stock Investing for the Trust Fund, the Federal Budget, and the Economy.

Ah, but you ("you" being the U.S. government) does get to do exactly that. ~ Posted by: JD at April 17, 2015 1:37 PM

Sad, but true.

And you think that would be an easy sell to the public now? ~ Posted by: JD at April 17, 2015 1:50 PM

Not at all.

George W. Bush tried to introduce some needed reforms to Social Security that would have included allowing (not requiring) contributors to invest some of the money in publicly traded stocks and bonds - partially turning Social Security into an account.

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton shot that down quickly and got quite a bit more public support than you would have expected from a public facing a soon-to-be-broke pension system.

If it wasn't SUPPOSED to be different, why has it been COLLECTED differently, and as Conan stated, treated differently by the government.

flbeachmom, I believe I addressed that in my response to you above.

But until that happens, I reserve the right to insist it's an entitlement.

As I said to Conan, I'd be more than happy to discover that I'm legally entitled to the projected benefits on my SS statement so if you can provide something to all of us that demonstrates this, I'd welcome it.

According to JD's link, it is NOT A WELFARE PROGRAM. At least for now.

Under the definition of welfare as "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need", you're correct; SS is not a welfare program because it's paid to retirees regardless of their financial need.

As I've repeated - I don't like that we collectively were lied to (over a number of generations).

I know SS is going broke. I don't at all believe I'll get what my SS statement has promised me in the past.

Maybe all I'm looking for is an apology and a responsible approach to fixing the mess. Being told to, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," ticks me off. Telling me it was never what was originally promised, or saying the lie happened 80 years ago, doesn't make me feel better.

Chris Christie and his many Republican buddies will get immense pensions. And they also make millions from various corporate groups who give them lucrative speaking engagements, and positions after political retirement, in exchange for supporting the corporate agenda of removing all barriers to corporations making billions of dollars, hiding it in tax shelters, and not being forced to abide by any environmental protections.

So Christie, who is undoubtedly already a millionaire, wants to reduce social security benefits for middle-income people, and take it away entirely for those making about a tenth of what Christie makes each year from various sources. Social Security was never in trouble, but the Republicans hate the safety net. They want to return to the Gilded Age, when you could fire anyone who got injured at work, and essentially leave him out on the street to die, since he could not earn a living. Social Security was a brilliant idea which was meant to help retired people at least get by. Republicans do not care if they get by, they only care if they can help billionaires make more billions. If any of these people actually gets elected, we will end up in some version of Dickensian London. Or Mad Max.

(sigh) Once again: just raise the cap on income taxed for SS, problem solved. For 2015, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $118,500. Income above that amount is not subject to SS tax. Why? Who does this really benefit?

No, no, and HELL NO!

I've been making just enough so that I've gone above the cap for the last few paychecks of the year the last few years. I am, by no means, "rich." I live within my means and, since I know I'll be lucky to get even dimes on the dollar back from SS (I'm 42) I've been saving for my own retirement.

But people like you think the solution is to, yet again, penalize responsible people like me by making us shovel even more of our earnings into the bottomless pit.

No!

What do I think?

I think Chris Christie has a bridge he wants to sell. Or block during rush hour.

Whichever.

Count me as one who will carry a torch and pitchfork against those politicians who try to get off Social Security.

I did NOT ask to join; I was FORCED to join. And, now they want to suggest that I not get my share?

Fuck that shit!

As a white male I've had to give up so much else in the name of "fairness" whether it was losing out on a college scholarship because a minority or woman "needed it more" or losing out on a job for the same damn excuse - I am sick of it.

And, now some lame politician wants to not pay me for what I've been forced to pay into?

As I just said: Fuck that shit!

Count me as one who will carry a torch and pitchfork against those politicians who try to get off Social Security.

I did NOT ask to join; I was FORCED to join. And, now they want to suggest that I not get my share?

Fuck that shit!

So you want the government to now force others to join? Knowing full well that their payout will be even less than yours?

Fuck you

It is misleading to talk about "what the employer pays" toward health care, social security, or anything else regarding employment. The employer writes the check, but the burden falls on others. Employers organize work and production, they don't bear the burden on their own account other than taxes on profits. Their customers pay more or their employees receive less and so bear the burden.

See the Journal of the American Medical Association:
( http //jama.ama-assn dot org/content/299/9/1057.extract )
Who Really Pays for Health Care?

The “employer contribution” is a political diversion. The overall compensation offered to employees includes their health and other benefits, cash salary, state and federal unemployement taxes, and the "employer contribution" toward social security and medicare. The employer considers the entire amount to be the compensation offered. The employer buys the benefits for the employee, pays the required taxes, deducts withholding, and pays the remainder in cash. In other words, taxes and benefits are purchased with part of what could be offered as cash.

An employee's cash compensation has already been reduced by the 6.2% + 1.45% "employer contribution" for Social Security and medicare. The employee puts in another 7.65%, to total 15.3% of salary. If the employer's 7.65% were eliminated, the competition for workers would raise salaries by almost all of that amount. That is the way that workers are really paying 15.3% and more, but think they are only paying 7.65% and making their employer match it.

ObamaCare increases health insurance premiums and requires the employer to pay that increase. But, the employer pays this cost of employment out of the production of the employee. So, the employer must get around that requirement, offer a lower cash wage, or fire the employee. The employee will likely blame the employer, not ObamaCare.

See ( easyopinions.blogspot dot com/2008/12/company-paid-health-insurance-is-part.html#reduceWages )
The Employee Pays Higher ObamaCare Costs

Sorry all, I wrote:

"Count me as one who will carry a torch and pitchfork against those politicians who try to get off Social Security."

That should have read:

CUT off my Social Security

Cut off, not get off. Sorry, I wrote it in haste.

Maybe I should NOT be joining those carrying pitch forks as I'm acting in haste!?

So you want the government to now force others to join? Knowing full well that their payout will be even less than yours?

Screw unto others as others have screwn unto you.

"Chris Christie and his many Republican buddies will get immense pensions."

Isn't that precious?

William thinks only Republicans get "immense" pensions!

LOL

Years ago, I did some math for a pastor who had the choice of SS or not. Turns out that, with modest assumptions, I could do better. I could do better with retirement benefits, survivor benefits and disability benefits.
What I could not do--I was restrained by actuarial reality--was build in all the COLA he would receive if on SS retirement. If it isn't actuarially sound, the money is coming from someplace else. IOW, this isn't paying its own way.

Sorry all, I wrote:

"Count me as one who will carry a torch and pitchfork against those politicians who try to get off Social Security."

That should have read:

CUT off my Social Security

Cut off, not get off. Sorry, I wrote it in haste.

We know what you meant, and still - Fuck You

But people like you think the solution is to, yet again, penalize responsible people like me by making us shovel even more of our earnings into the bottomless pit.

First off, happy for you that you're more 'responsible' than the rest of us who don't make as much money as you.

Second, removing or raising the cap doesn't penalize anyone, it just removes an obviously unfair perk that us 'irresponsible' people like us don't get.

And if you're over the cap and still just 'living within your means' maybe you should try it down here with the rest of us. I used to not make d*ck and have to get by, now I'm doing better and don't mind paying more. What irks me is jerkwads who are doing better in the cash dept whining about paying their 16 or 17% (Mitt) while I'm paying around 20, and I guarantee that 20% is more to me than the 16 or 17 they pay.

The view is always better from above, isn't it?

You are flat wrong DrCos. Social Security benefits are based on the top few years of contributions (not earnings). So if you raise the cap you also raise the payout, changing nothing. If you then decide to raise the cap but not the payout limit you are penalizing those above the cap.

You can't have it both ways.

DrCos, a nitpick. The benefits aren't based on the "top few years".
They're based on the average of the top 35 years, as corrected for
inflation.

You remain correct that raising the cap will raise the payout.

Sorry, misattribution. The above was a nitpick for Ben's post.

It's a fair nit to pick Ron. I had forgotten how many years it was.

Fayd Says:

"If I had a highly successful company and had an employee earn $250,000, I would have to pay Social Security $15,500 without the cap, as opposed to a maximum of $7,347. That actually makes a big difference and would deter me from wanting to pay anyone more than $118,500, even though they're worth more."

This argument doesn't make any sense.

If you were willing to pay an employee $250,000 with the current system because you believed they were worth it... adding an additional ~$8,000 in cost from your end in terms of employer SS payments should only reduce the over all salary for this employee to ~$240,000.

That you would essentially slash that salary in half to less than ~$120,000 suggests that as an employer you would just be looking to use a modest SS payout increase as an flimsy excuse to cut the salary of your most valuable and high performing employees in half.

Either you are terrible at simple math, or you are looking for excuses to undercut your most talented and valuable employees.

Someone who is being reasonable should at most cut salaries to an equal extent to what they now have to pay the government such that the change is neutral. Only a cheapskate would look to use this as a reason to cut payrolls in half for people they recognize as being worth more.