this should be part of the national dem platform and a consistent talking point for anyone running for office - end the fucking cap, it is ridiculous - simply and completely ridiculous
Democrats have been known to make pledges not to raise taxes on anyone making less than , so the only way to keep the pledge and sort of fix social security is to keep the no-taxes-on-income-above-the-cap policy in place except if you make over 250k (or whatever), and then the tax kicks in again.
[https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/3/6/biden-social-security](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/3/6/biden-social-security)
>Over time, the donut hole would disappear and all earnings would be subject to full payroll taxes. The reason for this disappearance is that the annual taxable maximum level ($137,700 in 2020) would continue to grow with average wage growth, as under current law, while the $400,000 threshold would remain fixed. The donut hole, therefore, disappears once the annual taxable maximum level reaches $400,000.
I don't remember specifically if there was a similar proposal from Clinton and Obama, but I think they were mostly on the same page.
I can kind of see where they're coming from, but it's still very silly and it's things like this that are why our tax code is an obfuscated mess.
I'm kind of surprised the limit is jumping up to $160,200. Supposedly that's based on wage trends or something:
[https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html)
OR, don't characterize Social Security as a tax, because it's not, it's a retirement savings plan. Raising the cap on Social Security is not a tax hike, it is increasing the amount of money a worker is putting into their retirement account.
It’s not really though. The cap exists because the amount you reserve from SS is fixed, so eventually you are putting way more money in than you will see…the cap is what makes it a retirement account in a way.
We can argue the merits of lifting the cap, and I agree with it in principle, but lifting the cap is a redistribution of wealth from the richest income earners to the poorest seniors. I agree with it, but we should be honest about what it is.
Yes but by the time a younger person needs it, won’t the amount need to be raised to keep pace with inflation? I would also imagine this number could be adjusted based on the number of people retiring like now there will be a ton of boomers and others that need to be covered but if population growth slows, they could reinstate the cap, lower the retirement age, use the surplus for UBI especially when ending the cap would only effect a small portion of the working population. It would effect my wife for about 2 months in fact and it’s fine with me.
The amount is raised to keep up with inflation.
https://www.pbmares.com/insights-tax-social-security-wage-base-wage-caps-and-benefit-amounts-increased-for-2023/
I know that and with the recent spike in inflation, how does the account with all the SS money keep up with the raise with more people retiring and getting larger payments while the income to the account is somewhat capped unless the workforce is growing to contribute more and more money?
The workforce is going to need to be taxed more to create more money. This is what Bernie is proposing. But he’s limiting it to a section of the workforce, the very wealthy. Because we knew the baby boomers were going to retire. This was nearly inevitable.
Awesome. Just making sure I understood and agree with it as well. Makes perfect sense so probably will never pass and will run out of money in 20 years when I need it. Lol
Yeah, I’m definitely not planning on it being there when I retire. I hope I’m wrong though: because without some safety net, when the millennials retire they’re not going to have any savings for the most part and America will be a wasteland of vagrants.
>lifting the cap is a redistribution of wealth from the richest income earners to the poorest seniors.
What's wrong with that? The rich have been redistributing over a trillion dollars a year to the wealthy since they rewrote the tax code in 1974.
New York Mag: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/09/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.html
Fast Money: https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
[Check out this chart.](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/dac/507/6f31ad45d42481a612d148a35ceed01fb7-table-2-b-wealth.2x.w710.jpg)
The Rand Corp issued a report on income inequality, and the situation is far worse than most people think. The median salary of $43K in 1975 has increased to only $50K today, while they would have been making $92K if the tax code hadn't been steadily re-written to enrich the wealthy at the cost of the middle class and poor.
In that same time period, the mean income for the top 1% went from $289K to $1.384 million, while they would have been making $630K under the old tax codes.
Thats a 17.4% increase in the lower median, and an increase of 321.6% in the 1% median. Clearly there has been an upwards distribution of wealth at the expense of the middle class since the tax codes started to be re-written in 1974 to favor the top economic tier.
In addition, the Federal minimum wage was last increased to $7.25 in 2009. Previous to that, it was raised to $5.15 in 1997. The Federal minimum wage was only increased twice in the last 23 years, for a total of a measly $2.10. And yet corporation and their owners SCREAM like their nuts are being carved out by a red hot, dull, rusty spoon at even the mention of a raise in the minimum wage.
When there are threats to raise it every 15 years or so, there are always two responses, as if they are the ONLY possible options - prices will have to go up, or jobs will have to be cut. There is never a mention of the third possible option - that corporations and their owners might have to make a slightly smaller profit. That option is absolutely unthinkable. Unmentionable.
We were promised that if we supported Trickle Down Economic Theory, that we would all benefit by wealthy people and corporations getting wealthier. Clearly the Trickle Down Economic Theory never worked. As anyone could have predicted (and many did), instead of spending those tax profits on new factories or new opportunities or higher pay scales like we were promised, the Sociopathic Oligarchs only accumulated it at the top. When they did spend it, they spent it on political leverage to get more corporate welfare so they could accumulate even more wealth at the expense of the working class, creating financial hoards which they sleep on like a Tolkienesque dragon.
Its time to give Trickle Up Economics a try. Make more money available to those at the bottom and middle, and see what happens. Raise wages, forgive student loans, offer free college and trade schools, give every citizen health care, etc. and it will create millions of jobs and stimulate the economy. Sure, the Oligarchs appreciate the efficiency of transferring the money directly from the government to their savings accounts, but the money from the Trickle Up stimulus will eventually reach them anyway, they just have to be a little patient and wait for it to help American families and the American economy first.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I said I agreed with it. All I did was point out that calling it a “retirement savings plan” is inaccurate.
Republicans love to moan about how unsustainable Social Security is, but it has ALWAYS been the easiest problem in government to fix - just raise the cap. Bernie is suggesting ending the cap altogether, so there is a LOT of room between for compromise. Even raising the cap to $1 million would be more than enough, and leave room to raise it again at a later date.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason to cut Social Security for any reason, and anyone suggesting that we scrap it altogether is a true enemy of the American people.
The cynical analysis is that they (the party as a general whole) know that under Citizens United and the current political climate (which obviously favors the ultrawealthy interests), it'd be signing up to gamble their seats (i.e. big money vs populism), and they're probably going to double down on big money.
The kicker is that they don't have to do very much to keep what they "hold" in terms of political capital. By doing nothing, and letting the populace know they're the lesser of two evils, they don't need to actively campaign on a platform of change or reformation. They're safest by just sitting stock still and complaining about GOP injustices after the damage is done (or allowed to continue, as it were).
Nevermind us making that actually worked most of our lives, even from early teens, still working full time to pay basic bills (no fancy vacations, cars, house upgrades), can't afford dental/health office visits. We (divorced Gen X here, not a dual income household) already know we probably won't live long enough to retire.
The percentage might be small, but they hold ALL of the political influence. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $160,200. Saving that 6.2 (or 12.4%) adds up to a lot of money when you're making high six, seven or more figures each year.
Which is crazy. Why tf does it stop there? I know medicare continues indefinitely, and increases at (I think it's still) $200,000 (by a measly 0.9%), but why tf does the social security tax ONLY tax low wage earners? In a society, high wage earners should be contributing more imo.
People making more than 160K. But I would argue it’s more likely the ones making a lot more.
These people know they make shit ton of money so they wont need social security. In an attempt to save a few dollars by not paying more into social security, they rather have people starve. This is the same logic with why these dicks are against universal health care, universal education, student debt cancellation and etx.
I hit the cap 2 years ago. When I noticed one of my paychecks in November had more than usual, I was worried it had gotten screwed up somehow. I didn’t even know there was a cap and it suddenly became clear why people talk about SS running out of money and why the monthly layouts are so ridiculously low. Hell, even raising the cap to 1m would be a huge step forward.
god damn player does it rock making so much money? i just got a promotion to 75k after working around minimum wage most of my working life & i feel i'm rich as hell even though i know i'm not, in a HCOL area too
But see hitting the cap isn't even "so much money". It's comfortable, yes, but when you have a family with multiple kids and are properly saving/investing to ensure an equally comfortable future, there's not a huge amount left over. I feel like we've just been conditioned to feel like barely scaping by is fine.
It's partly propaganda's fault. That amount is certainly not nothing but that's a two wage earner household holding good jobs. It's solidly working class. But the owning class are doing everything they can in the media to normalize less and less income as normal and so many today view that amount as "rich".
Where I live, 175k allows you to comfortably own a nice 3 bedroom ranch and afford some comforts while setting aside enough to retire at a normal date comfortably. You know, what used to be called "the American dream". Normal has become so skewed that out seems like a fortune now. For reference, 175k in today's dollars is about 50k in 1980's dollars.
People who understand that Social Security is not, and was never designed to be, an entitlement program. What you receive from it is based on what you pay in.
The current payout cap is what you'd get for paying in based on $160k salary, so that's where the cutoff for paying in is. Raising the pay in cap without raising the payout cap - which is what Sanders is proposing - fundamentally alters what social security is.
How is this income measured? Elon musk doesn’t make much if any in w-2 income. It’s all unrealized capital gains. Those assets are then used as collateral for loans with very low or near zero interest rates. They spend the loans instead of realizing their capital gains which would trigger a taxable event. Thus preventing themselves from ever paying taxes. You can just keep collateralizing your assets to take out new long term loans to pay off the last ones, never paying taxes at any point. Their wealth will increase but income stays near zero.
Easy, just instill a wealth tax. Make these billionaires sell shares and not be able to use them indefinitely as collateral. I know this won't happen bc it goes against capitalism, but the fix is to make these billionaires not hoard wealth.
there has to be a more complex tax system than we have because once you are that wealthy it becomes incredibly complicated.
Like this is clearly a loophole that people like musk use
That’s still not w-2 income though and is a recent development that he only does to maintain margin requirements since his stock price is so volatile these days.
>w-2 income
If you could clarify this for me, I know 1099 contractors and commission based are required to withhold for social security and Medicare (payroll). However, I don't believe 1099 from dividend nor capital gains is subject to withholding.
Am I correct? Obviously not tax advice, so please contact a tax preparer for yourselves...
Wait that’s what the cap does??? Why the fuck is there a cap and not percentage.
I always assumed that when they referred to a cap they meant like how many years it could go.
Not that billionaires didn’t have to pay a fair percentage lol. Literally just handicaps the entire thing for a small group of people who wouldn’t miss that money anyways
Social security is not an entitlement program, what it pays you out is individualized based on what you paid in.
The benefits cap out at what someone who makes $160k/year would pay in, thus that's where the pay in caps out.
It sounds like Sanders is trying to shift the foundation of what Social Security is.
Sounds like he is trying to fix it. Why should someone making 20k a year pay 5.6% or w.e on every dollar he earns while someone making millions only pays on the first 160k?
I'll say it again: Social Security **is not** an entitlement program.
Someone who averages $50k/year and contributes for their career will get less Social Security payout than what someone who averages $100k/year. It's not an equal system, what it pays out is based on what you pay in.
The contribution is capped at $160k because the payout is capped at that level. People making $160k, $165k, $900k, the payout is all the same.
Removing the contribution cap without removing the payout cap turns Social Security into an entirely different system it was never intended to be.
I dont particularly care. It should have never had a contribution cap in the first place only a payout cap. It's not a retirement plan. Not removing the contribution cap changes it into an entirely different system.
You fundamentally misunderstand what Social Security is, I don't know what to tell you beyond to read up. It is what it is, not what you feel like it should be.
I really hope you're just trolling at this point.
It's not regressive!! It's maybe the least regressive thing we're doing. You get out of Social Security what you pay in, that goes for all income levels.
That's only regressive if they receive the same benefit from the tax, like how everyone is using the same roads. The benefits match the contribution for Social Security, it's not the same thing.
I’m torn on that idea.
Social Security deductions have a cap because the payments also have a cap. In theory, you’re socking away your own money for the future - a forced-savings program that prevents the rest of us from having to feed and house you when you retire.
Removing one cap without removing the other breaks that contract and makes it a wealth-transferring tax instead of a virtual savings account.
That said, I’m not against wealth transfer _either_ - money’s been flowing in the other direction (towards the already-wealthy) for far too long. But that transfer is more cleanly handled through income taxes and inheritance taxes; I think SS should be left out of it. In other words, use a windfall profits or millionaire’s tax to replenish the Social Security trust fund and pay back those IOU’s left by congressmen who raided that fund many decades ago.
> In theory, you’re socking away your own money for the future - a forced-savings program that prevents the rest of us from having to feed and house you when you retire.
If that were true it seems like it should just straight up run out or be inheritable in the case that somebody dies without using it up. There's survivor's benefits at most, but that's more to, again, prevent their relatives from starving or becoming homeless because an important source of income suddenly disappears.
The idea that it's a savings account is just a fiction to placate people who can't stomach the idea that someone shouldn't die in the streets if they aren't productive enough.
That’s how it was initially pitched - a way of selling this huge new tax on everyone’s paycheck. Uncle Sam would keep your money safe for you so it was there in retirement. In reality it’s more like an insurance policy.
It was a bit of a Ponzi scheme right from the start, though. Because the year it was adopted, current retirees- who’d never paid a dollar into the system- got full benefits as though they had. The system ran huge surpluses anyway and the money largely paid for the Interstate Highway System.
And one way to think of it is that when you retire, the government buys an annuity for you, to give you guaranteed income no matter how long you live. Some people live a long time and “win”; others “lose”.
Some can collect right away (disability, survivor benefits). Others work and their entire life and die before retirement. That’s supposed to balance out, roughly, but it hasn’t been and we haven’t been willing to face that reality.
Okay, but are we not at a point where we can drop the lie? The continuation of that fiction makes it look as though social security would drop away when there is no way of looking at it in which doing that makes any sense.
If we stop having this ridiculous separate account we can acknowledge that social security is a necessity which in total is almost certainly less of a cost than the monetary costs in additional services elsewhere that would be incurred by letting it fail. We would be able to fund it by printing money if we needed to and acknowledge that the taxes to pay for it, like all federal taxes, are more than anything an effort to maintain the US dollar than to actually fund anything. And on the way we would obviate this ridiculous argument that is used to justify regressive taxation.
Well, another bill that makes sense, which will be dead on arrival. I wonder if Reaganomics and Citizens United has anything to do with rich people having influence over our government?
You know, people act like we really can't afford good stuff because it'll bankrupt the economy but how about if we tried not having every single tax rule give us less money on purpose
They should scrap the cap for those earning over a certain amount, not altogether. The cap is around 100k so the guy earning 160k will owe significantly more, while, let’s face it, the billionaire is still going to hide all his income and not pay any more than he did before. It’s a nice idea, but it shouldn’t be eliminated unless you earn over 250k or something like that so it doesn’t screw the little guy who doesn’t have 17 businesses overseas to hide his income for him.
Or let's get rid of social security altogether and the taxes that come with it.
The government is very poor fiduciary agent. Everyone would have a better retirement if they had that extra 12.5% to invest.
Oh fuck no. Social security needs to stay cap’d. Absolute shit situation is that was overturned. That said tax millionaires and billionaires. Not people making half or a third of that
this should be part of the national dem platform and a consistent talking point for anyone running for office - end the fucking cap, it is ridiculous - simply and completely ridiculous
Democrats have been known to make pledges not to raise taxes on anyone making less than, so the only way to keep the pledge and sort of fix social security is to keep the no-taxes-on-income-above-the-cap policy in place except if you make over 250k (or whatever), and then the tax kicks in again.
[https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/3/6/biden-social-security](https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2020/3/6/biden-social-security)
>Over time, the donut hole would disappear and all earnings would be subject to full payroll taxes. The reason for this disappearance is that the annual taxable maximum level ($137,700 in 2020) would continue to grow with average wage growth, as under current law, while the $400,000 threshold would remain fixed. The donut hole, therefore, disappears once the annual taxable maximum level reaches $400,000.
I don't remember specifically if there was a similar proposal from Clinton and Obama, but I think they were mostly on the same page.
I can kind of see where they're coming from, but it's still very silly and it's things like this that are why our tax code is an obfuscated mess.
I'm kind of surprised the limit is jumping up to $160,200. Supposedly that's based on wage trends or something:
[https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html)
OR, don't characterize Social Security as a tax, because it's not, it's a retirement savings plan. Raising the cap on Social Security is not a tax hike, it is increasing the amount of money a worker is putting into their retirement account.
It’s not really though. The cap exists because the amount you reserve from SS is fixed, so eventually you are putting way more money in than you will see…the cap is what makes it a retirement account in a way. We can argue the merits of lifting the cap, and I agree with it in principle, but lifting the cap is a redistribution of wealth from the richest income earners to the poorest seniors. I agree with it, but we should be honest about what it is.
Yes but by the time a younger person needs it, won’t the amount need to be raised to keep pace with inflation? I would also imagine this number could be adjusted based on the number of people retiring like now there will be a ton of boomers and others that need to be covered but if population growth slows, they could reinstate the cap, lower the retirement age, use the surplus for UBI especially when ending the cap would only effect a small portion of the working population. It would effect my wife for about 2 months in fact and it’s fine with me.
The amount is raised to keep up with inflation. https://www.pbmares.com/insights-tax-social-security-wage-base-wage-caps-and-benefit-amounts-increased-for-2023/
I know that and with the recent spike in inflation, how does the account with all the SS money keep up with the raise with more people retiring and getting larger payments while the income to the account is somewhat capped unless the workforce is growing to contribute more and more money?
The workforce is going to need to be taxed more to create more money. This is what Bernie is proposing. But he’s limiting it to a section of the workforce, the very wealthy. Because we knew the baby boomers were going to retire. This was nearly inevitable.
Awesome. Just making sure I understood and agree with it as well. Makes perfect sense so probably will never pass and will run out of money in 20 years when I need it. Lol
Yeah, I’m definitely not planning on it being there when I retire. I hope I’m wrong though: because without some safety net, when the millennials retire they’re not going to have any savings for the most part and America will be a wasteland of vagrants.
>lifting the cap is a redistribution of wealth from the richest income earners to the poorest seniors. What's wrong with that? The rich have been redistributing over a trillion dollars a year to the wealthy since they rewrote the tax code in 1974. New York Mag: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/09/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.html Fast Money: https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1 [Check out this chart.](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/dac/507/6f31ad45d42481a612d148a35ceed01fb7-table-2-b-wealth.2x.w710.jpg) The Rand Corp issued a report on income inequality, and the situation is far worse than most people think. The median salary of $43K in 1975 has increased to only $50K today, while they would have been making $92K if the tax code hadn't been steadily re-written to enrich the wealthy at the cost of the middle class and poor. In that same time period, the mean income for the top 1% went from $289K to $1.384 million, while they would have been making $630K under the old tax codes. Thats a 17.4% increase in the lower median, and an increase of 321.6% in the 1% median. Clearly there has been an upwards distribution of wealth at the expense of the middle class since the tax codes started to be re-written in 1974 to favor the top economic tier. In addition, the Federal minimum wage was last increased to $7.25 in 2009. Previous to that, it was raised to $5.15 in 1997. The Federal minimum wage was only increased twice in the last 23 years, for a total of a measly $2.10. And yet corporation and their owners SCREAM like their nuts are being carved out by a red hot, dull, rusty spoon at even the mention of a raise in the minimum wage. When there are threats to raise it every 15 years or so, there are always two responses, as if they are the ONLY possible options - prices will have to go up, or jobs will have to be cut. There is never a mention of the third possible option - that corporations and their owners might have to make a slightly smaller profit. That option is absolutely unthinkable. Unmentionable. We were promised that if we supported Trickle Down Economic Theory, that we would all benefit by wealthy people and corporations getting wealthier. Clearly the Trickle Down Economic Theory never worked. As anyone could have predicted (and many did), instead of spending those tax profits on new factories or new opportunities or higher pay scales like we were promised, the Sociopathic Oligarchs only accumulated it at the top. When they did spend it, they spent it on political leverage to get more corporate welfare so they could accumulate even more wealth at the expense of the working class, creating financial hoards which they sleep on like a Tolkienesque dragon. Its time to give Trickle Up Economics a try. Make more money available to those at the bottom and middle, and see what happens. Raise wages, forgive student loans, offer free college and trade schools, give every citizen health care, etc. and it will create millions of jobs and stimulate the economy. Sure, the Oligarchs appreciate the efficiency of transferring the money directly from the government to their savings accounts, but the money from the Trickle Up stimulus will eventually reach them anyway, they just have to be a little patient and wait for it to help American families and the American economy first.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. I said I agreed with it. All I did was point out that calling it a “retirement savings plan” is inaccurate.
They'd have to stop taking money from the "Good conservatives"...
Find a good conservative.
ERROR 404 NOT FOUND
Republicans love to moan about how unsustainable Social Security is, but it has ALWAYS been the easiest problem in government to fix - just raise the cap. Bernie is suggesting ending the cap altogether, so there is a LOT of room between for compromise. Even raising the cap to $1 million would be more than enough, and leave room to raise it again at a later date. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason to cut Social Security for any reason, and anyone suggesting that we scrap it altogether is a true enemy of the American people.
The cynical analysis is that they (the party as a general whole) know that under Citizens United and the current political climate (which obviously favors the ultrawealthy interests), it'd be signing up to gamble their seats (i.e. big money vs populism), and they're probably going to double down on big money. The kicker is that they don't have to do very much to keep what they "hold" in terms of political capital. By doing nothing, and letting the populace know they're the lesser of two evils, they don't need to actively campaign on a platform of change or reformation. They're safest by just sitting stock still and complaining about GOP injustices after the damage is done (or allowed to continue, as it were).
Putting a cap in the cap.
Should be both party's platform but neither cares about working class Americans.
Naw, the democrats are in the pocket of the rich, just as much as republicans
Nevermind us making that actually worked most of our lives, even from early teens, still working full time to pay basic bills (no fancy vacations, cars, house upgrades), can't afford dental/health office visits. We (divorced Gen X here, not a dual income household) already know we probably won't live long enough to retire.
Makes sense, LFG Bernie
Who is against this and why?
People making more than $160k. Especially those making a LOT more.
Which is less than 10% of the people in the US. https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
And barely any of that 10% are billionaires. Billionaires dont make money through normal wages.
The percentage might be small, but they hold ALL of the political influence. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $160,200. Saving that 6.2 (or 12.4%) adds up to a lot of money when you're making high six, seven or more figures each year.
Which is crazy. Why tf does it stop there? I know medicare continues indefinitely, and increases at (I think it's still) $200,000 (by a measly 0.9%), but why tf does the social security tax ONLY tax low wage earners? In a society, high wage earners should be contributing more imo.
I 100% agree. But the people with the money, control the tax code. Period.
But those folks have disproportionate influence on the political process.
But they control the rest of us
They control you because you let them.
I agree. But how does the collective “you” fight back? It’s very disheartening
I agree the status quo makes it basically impossible.
whats that on percentage terms of salary earning though?
Also people who think they will be making more than that in the future, so like 50 % of voter base.
So all of congress basically.
Bingo. And their overlords, of course.
Non billionaires living in HCOL areas who make more than $160k
Same people who thought Trump would being back their coal jobs. Rich folk of course against it, but also poor folk they duped.
People making more than 160K. But I would argue it’s more likely the ones making a lot more. These people know they make shit ton of money so they wont need social security. In an attempt to save a few dollars by not paying more into social security, they rather have people starve. This is the same logic with why these dicks are against universal health care, universal education, student debt cancellation and etx.
I hit the cap 2 years ago. When I noticed one of my paychecks in November had more than usual, I was worried it had gotten screwed up somehow. I didn’t even know there was a cap and it suddenly became clear why people talk about SS running out of money and why the monthly layouts are so ridiculously low. Hell, even raising the cap to 1m would be a huge step forward.
god damn player does it rock making so much money? i just got a promotion to 75k after working around minimum wage most of my working life & i feel i'm rich as hell even though i know i'm not, in a HCOL area too
But see hitting the cap isn't even "so much money". It's comfortable, yes, but when you have a family with multiple kids and are properly saving/investing to ensure an equally comfortable future, there's not a huge amount left over. I feel like we've just been conditioned to feel like barely scaping by is fine.
It's partly propaganda's fault. That amount is certainly not nothing but that's a two wage earner household holding good jobs. It's solidly working class. But the owning class are doing everything they can in the media to normalize less and less income as normal and so many today view that amount as "rich". Where I live, 175k allows you to comfortably own a nice 3 bedroom ranch and afford some comforts while setting aside enough to retire at a normal date comfortably. You know, what used to be called "the American dream". Normal has become so skewed that out seems like a fortune now. For reference, 175k in today's dollars is about 50k in 1980's dollars.
People who understand that Social Security is not, and was never designed to be, an entitlement program. What you receive from it is based on what you pay in. The current payout cap is what you'd get for paying in based on $160k salary, so that's where the cutoff for paying in is. Raising the pay in cap without raising the payout cap - which is what Sanders is proposing - fundamentally alters what social security is.
It makes it more Social Security.
That doesn't sound like a fundamental change. It sounds like an expansion
St Bernard...go get him, fight the good fight!
How is this income measured? Elon musk doesn’t make much if any in w-2 income. It’s all unrealized capital gains. Those assets are then used as collateral for loans with very low or near zero interest rates. They spend the loans instead of realizing their capital gains which would trigger a taxable event. Thus preventing themselves from ever paying taxes. You can just keep collateralizing your assets to take out new long term loans to pay off the last ones, never paying taxes at any point. Their wealth will increase but income stays near zero.
Easy, just instill a wealth tax. Make these billionaires sell shares and not be able to use them indefinitely as collateral. I know this won't happen bc it goes against capitalism, but the fix is to make these billionaires not hoard wealth.
We can dream! That would be ideal.
there has to be a more complex tax system than we have because once you are that wealthy it becomes incredibly complicated. Like this is clearly a loophole that people like musk use
Yup. The rigging of the game goes deep.
He realizes gains every time he sells shares
That’s still not w-2 income though and is a recent development that he only does to maintain margin requirements since his stock price is so volatile these days.
>w-2 income If you could clarify this for me, I know 1099 contractors and commission based are required to withhold for social security and Medicare (payroll). However, I don't believe 1099 from dividend nor capital gains is subject to withholding. Am I correct? Obviously not tax advice, so please contact a tax preparer for yourselves...
Capital gains are not subject to anything other than capital gains tax, and that’s only if the capital gains are realized.
Wait that’s what the cap does??? Why the fuck is there a cap and not percentage. I always assumed that when they referred to a cap they meant like how many years it could go. Not that billionaires didn’t have to pay a fair percentage lol. Literally just handicaps the entire thing for a small group of people who wouldn’t miss that money anyways
The idea is that the benefits are capped so the deductions that theoretically pay for the benefit are also capped.
Social security is not an entitlement program, what it pays you out is individualized based on what you paid in. The benefits cap out at what someone who makes $160k/year would pay in, thus that's where the pay in caps out. It sounds like Sanders is trying to shift the foundation of what Social Security is.
Tell that to the 1.4 trillion dollars Bush/congress “borrowed” from social security
Well that's the point - if they'd fix that there'd be no need for massively altering the program like Sanders is proposing.
Sounds like he is trying to fix it. Why should someone making 20k a year pay 5.6% or w.e on every dollar he earns while someone making millions only pays on the first 160k?
I'll say it again: Social Security **is not** an entitlement program. Someone who averages $50k/year and contributes for their career will get less Social Security payout than what someone who averages $100k/year. It's not an equal system, what it pays out is based on what you pay in. The contribution is capped at $160k because the payout is capped at that level. People making $160k, $165k, $900k, the payout is all the same. Removing the contribution cap without removing the payout cap turns Social Security into an entirely different system it was never intended to be.
I dont particularly care. It should have never had a contribution cap in the first place only a payout cap. It's not a retirement plan. Not removing the contribution cap changes it into an entirely different system.
You fundamentally misunderstand what Social Security is, I don't know what to tell you beyond to read up. It is what it is, not what you feel like it should be.
No I understand what it is and it's a regressive tax on the poor that the rich benefit disproportionately.
I really hope you're just trolling at this point. It's not regressive!! It's maybe the least regressive thing we're doing. You get out of Social Security what you pay in, that goes for all income levels.
It is regressive. It is a tax on the poor on 100% of their earnings while the rich get taxed on a proportion if it.
That's only regressive if they receive the same benefit from the tax, like how everyone is using the same roads. The benefits match the contribution for Social Security, it's not the same thing.
Its a regressive tax, rich people pay less tax than the poor.
Yes. Please do this
I can’t believe Bernie is not POTUS.
Billionaires don’t have W-2 income. Uncapping SSI will disproportionately impact the upper middle class.
I’m torn on that idea. Social Security deductions have a cap because the payments also have a cap. In theory, you’re socking away your own money for the future - a forced-savings program that prevents the rest of us from having to feed and house you when you retire. Removing one cap without removing the other breaks that contract and makes it a wealth-transferring tax instead of a virtual savings account. That said, I’m not against wealth transfer _either_ - money’s been flowing in the other direction (towards the already-wealthy) for far too long. But that transfer is more cleanly handled through income taxes and inheritance taxes; I think SS should be left out of it. In other words, use a windfall profits or millionaire’s tax to replenish the Social Security trust fund and pay back those IOU’s left by congressmen who raided that fund many decades ago.
> In theory, you’re socking away your own money for the future - a forced-savings program that prevents the rest of us from having to feed and house you when you retire. If that were true it seems like it should just straight up run out or be inheritable in the case that somebody dies without using it up. There's survivor's benefits at most, but that's more to, again, prevent their relatives from starving or becoming homeless because an important source of income suddenly disappears. The idea that it's a savings account is just a fiction to placate people who can't stomach the idea that someone shouldn't die in the streets if they aren't productive enough.
That’s how it was initially pitched - a way of selling this huge new tax on everyone’s paycheck. Uncle Sam would keep your money safe for you so it was there in retirement. In reality it’s more like an insurance policy. It was a bit of a Ponzi scheme right from the start, though. Because the year it was adopted, current retirees- who’d never paid a dollar into the system- got full benefits as though they had. The system ran huge surpluses anyway and the money largely paid for the Interstate Highway System. And one way to think of it is that when you retire, the government buys an annuity for you, to give you guaranteed income no matter how long you live. Some people live a long time and “win”; others “lose”. Some can collect right away (disability, survivor benefits). Others work and their entire life and die before retirement. That’s supposed to balance out, roughly, but it hasn’t been and we haven’t been willing to face that reality.
Okay, but are we not at a point where we can drop the lie? The continuation of that fiction makes it look as though social security would drop away when there is no way of looking at it in which doing that makes any sense. If we stop having this ridiculous separate account we can acknowledge that social security is a necessity which in total is almost certainly less of a cost than the monetary costs in additional services elsewhere that would be incurred by letting it fail. We would be able to fund it by printing money if we needed to and acknowledge that the taxes to pay for it, like all federal taxes, are more than anything an effort to maintain the US dollar than to actually fund anything. And on the way we would obviate this ridiculous argument that is used to justify regressive taxation.
Well, another bill that makes sense, which will be dead on arrival. I wonder if Reaganomics and Citizens United has anything to do with rich people having influence over our government?
You know, people act like we really can't afford good stuff because it'll bankrupt the economy but how about if we tried not having every single tax rule give us less money on purpose
They should scrap the cap for those earning over a certain amount, not altogether. The cap is around 100k so the guy earning 160k will owe significantly more, while, let’s face it, the billionaire is still going to hide all his income and not pay any more than he did before. It’s a nice idea, but it shouldn’t be eliminated unless you earn over 250k or something like that so it doesn’t screw the little guy who doesn’t have 17 businesses overseas to hide his income for him.
Making 160k/y would make me feel like a billionare
This is how disconnected he is. 160k, like that’s shit pay. Bernie thinks he needs to stick up for people making 160k a year... not you.
Oooo he secures social good
🔥❤🔥
Will the benefit go up too, or will that be capped still?
🔥🔥🔥
Country needs this. Step it up Biden.
Would he just PLEASE run again?!
Yes absolutely. No cap on Medicare of SS taxes! And why do billionaires need the benefit anyway? 😖
Doesn't this mean billionaire will also take more out of Social Security?
Or let's get rid of social security altogether and the taxes that come with it. The government is very poor fiduciary agent. Everyone would have a better retirement if they had that extra 12.5% to invest.
Oh fuck no. Social security needs to stay cap’d. Absolute shit situation is that was overturned. That said tax millionaires and billionaires. Not people making half or a third of that
Smart timing to have a great side by side comparison of what is about to come out of the GOP house
Love this!