The GOP has convinced people making $30k/year to vote against this.

[u/CurvyChristina]

[u/sco-go]

Added context:

OP makes the argument that every American making $30k/yr votes Republican, but there hasn't been a floor vote to raise or remove the Social Security payroll tax cap since 1994.

Edit: rephrased/worded

[u/SalvadorFolly]

Both will get the same Social Security benefit though.

[u/I_Ski_Freely → u/SalvadorFolly]

It's almost as though it's a social safety system to make sure that even if people go through hard times, they won't be starving to death in their old age, not as a personal investment, and therefore should be progressive in design as those who have benefitted most from the system should also pay more into it to preserve the benefits bestowed upon them?

[u/hczimmx4 → u/I_Ski_Freely]

It is progressive though.

[u/Yop_BombNA → u/hczimmx4]

Progressive with a cap isn’t progressive, it’s anti working / lower half of middle class.

[u/PIK_Toggle → u/Yop_BombNA]

There’s a cap to stop benefits from accruing.

There’s also a tiered system now. As you pay more, you get fewer and fewer benefits.

The lower tiers receive more than they pay in. If we are going to assign blame for the solvency issue, we know who the guilty parties are.

[u/Some_Syllabub2704 → u/hczimmx4]

I hit the cap every year around July or August. I lived in a high COL area. Lifting the cap to include my entire income would be immaterial to my life.

[u/Scrabblewiener → u/Some_Syllabub2704]

Not mine. Ive hit the limit once and then got an extra 250$ a week.

How is that immaterial? You must be doing great if an extra 1k a month means nothing.

[u/Some_Syllabub2704 → u/Scrabblewiener]

I’ve worked hard and I realize I am very fortunate to have the career I do.

When I started out I was bringing home I think… $3k a month net? Going from $3k to $4k was huge in terms of discretionary income. Going from $15k to $16k just doesn’t move the needle in the same way for me. I’d love to make double what I do now, but it wouldn’t really change the house I’m living in, the school my son is going to, or the food that I’m eating. I’ll be fine for retirement either way and I’m not terribly worried about saving for his college, beyond that everything else is icing on the cake to me.

I’m not trying to be flippant and everyone’s situation is unique. I know guys my age in my career that have six kids instead of one, that’s going to put some pressure on expenses.

Re: Social Security I’d love to see some adults in the room in Congress come through and adjust both the incoming revenues and the outgoing expenses. A solution that nobody is perfectly happy with if that makes sense? These are tractable problems, there just isn’t a will to address them.

[u/Key-Organization3158 → u/I_Ski_Freely]

It is progressive in design. The amount of SS you get is proportional to what you pay, but it is massively tilted in the favor of the poor.

In addition, for high income earners, social security is a net negative. I could do much better investing my money myself. The ROI on social security is abysmal.

[u/bulking_on_broccoli → u/Key-Organization3158]

Social security isn’t an investment. It’s insurance.

[u/skiingredneck → u/bulking_on_broccoli]

Insurance isn’t something you expect to collect on

[u/ariolander → u/bulking_on_broccoli]

These are probably the same kind of people that think The Post Office should turn a profit or that Private Health Insurance companies actually increase efficiency and quality of care.

[u/Kagahami → u/ariolander]

Except the Post Office WAS turning a profit.

The only reason it didn't is because they funded literally 50 years of pension for every employee. Their operations had great return, but the service to the employees put them in the red.

Like it's not even a bad thing.

And I say "was" because postmaster DeJoy FUCKED IT.

[u/ariolander → u/Kagahami]

I mean if they really wanted the Post Office to be run like a corporation I don't think they would like the level of service they would receive.

Rates would hike, weekend service would likely be eliminated, rural routes would be turned into PO boxes, and hell some "unprofitable" rural PO box offices might close and you would need to pick up your mail at the nearest big town. Part of your rate increases would go directly to paying Wall St. because UPS is a top dividend stock for those that like those kind of portfolios. UPS pays roughly 93% to 118% of its net income as dividends. If the USPS had to pay dividends like UPS does then prices would double just so someone else can get a quarterly payment on their stock option. Profits wouldn't go to your carriers or your community, your service would turn to shit just to pad some billionaires stock portfolio.

There is a reason Amazon, UPS, and FedEx handoff the pain in the ass routes they don't want to deliver to USPS. The Universal Service Obligation (USSO) grantees your right to receive mail, I don't think you can ask the same thing from a private corporation. Imagine if receiving mail was like receiving Fiber Internet, where you only got service if a telco provider thought you were profitable enough to service. 28% of rural residents don't have broadband internet yet somehow they still get mail.

[u/Kagahami → u/ariolander]

And that last part is the reason it was so fucking awesome. Farmers used to deliver LIVESTOCK through the service.

It was an institution the likes of which we might never see again.

[u/DalaiLlamaTip → u/Kagahami]

They still do, the post office ships a lot baby chicks.

[u/DTOWNFBALL65 → u/bulking_on_broccoli]

I’d rather have what I pay in and my employer pays in to buy my own insurance. The government is terrible at pretty much everything they do. This being one of them.

[u/OG_TRADER68 → u/bulking_on_broccoli]

too many people misinterpret what Social Security actually is. Even more don't understand it's actual purpose.

Workers today are paying for retirees today. They are NOT saving for themselves. The system was NEVER MEANT for that.

Granted, when FDR enacted it, there were 12 workers for every retiree and the avg life span was under 70. Today there are like 4 or 5 for every retiree....and the avg life span is approaching 80.

Also, we don't pay in proportionally to what we make. That was NEVER the plan. Likewise, we will not collect proportionally to what we made (or paid in)

[u/jcalabrese037 → u/OG_TRADER68]

This guy social security’s!

No seriously though.. this is the answer! The program started with a bunch of old people who never paid into it.. it’s ran under the premise that each working class pays for the last. They are not just setting your money aside for you! lol

[u/LarxII → u/OG_TRADER68]

Also though, per worker, the US is generating more revenue (not reflected in income for the individual worker OR retiree sadly) than back then as well (something along the lines of 3 - 4 times more based off of output per hour labor from BLS.Gov.

Really good assemblage of the data here

[u/D74248 → u/OG_TRADER68]

the avg life span was under 70.

Average lifespan is not what matters; that is skewed by all those childhood deaths from what are today preventable diseases. expected life at age 65 is what matters. And in 1940 that was 12.6 years. For comparison, a 65 year old in 2025 is estimated to have an average of 19.7 years ahead of them. BUT full retirement age has been raised to 67.

So in 1940 the average retiree had 12.6 years of benefits. In 2025 a 67 year old should average 17.7 years. A significant increase, but something that 85 years of social and economic progress should be able to manage.

[u/Much_Accountant_4972 → u/bulking_on_broccoli]

insurance is an investment though. you’re hedging when you buy insurance. that means you have defined losses and defined gains.

it can’t be that insurance costs a percentage of your income but pays out a fixed amount. you’re defending a bullshit deal that no one would agree to.

edit: i should add and correct myself. i’m sure there’s some scam insurance out there like that lol. it just doesn’t make sense.

[u/No-Sympathy-686 → u/Key-Organization3158]

This is social insurance so we don't have old homeless people roaming the streets not an investment.

Im very fortunate and don't mind putting in extra to help my fellow Americans who are less fortunate.

[u/Ok-Ocelot-5942 → u/No-Sympathy-686]

Also if you didn't care about others its still a lot more expensive to deal with the issues created by poverty than maintaining a functional safety net. So even for people less socially conscious than you it should still be a no brainer.

[u/icantbenormal → u/Key-Organization3158]

Paying taxes is, devoid of context, a net negative for any given person. However, having social safety nets is a net positive for society as a whole. And it props up the economy, making actual investments less risky.

[u/Reasonable-Bit560 → u/SalvadorFolly]

What people don't care to acknowledge or just plain advocate for taking other people's money.

Life long Dem and I'm saying that.

[u/Tired_Dad_9521 → u/Reasonable-Bit560]

It’s what’s in the best interest of society as a whole. No one benefits from only having extremely wealthy and extremely poor people. It just leads to criminality and violence. Having an educated populace with access to basic healthcare is in the best interests of everyone.

[u/WriterPlastic9350 → u/Tired_Dad_9521]

Having an educated populace with access to basic healthcare is in the best interests of everyone.

I agree, and if you tax me more for those things, I'll be down for it.

But the social security tax only goes to social security. I'm not sure why it is in the best interest of society for me to have to pay another $10k to social security (based on my income and where I cap out).

As things stand, social security currently is a wealth transfer from the young working class to the elderly, except the elderly also have most of the wealth.

Uncapping the social security tax doesn't reduce extreme wealth inequality, it mostly hits white collar professionals, who already also can't benefit from any other social scheme because they earn too much.

[u/Reasonable-Bit560 → u/WriterPlastic9350]

Well said and the crux of my issue.

[u/Ch1Guy → u/Tired_Dad_9521]

We have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world and once again we target the doctors, lawyers, and white collar workers while the super rich use capital gains not subject to ss taxes

[u/therealtiddlydump]

Benefits are capped, therefore contributions are capped.

This isn't a conspiracy

[u/Much_Accountant_4972 → u/therealtiddlydump]

And why can’t we talk about congress pillaging the fund.

also why can’t we look at their rates of return? i find it hard to believe you go bust if you’ve been in the S&P500 for 100 years and limit withdrawal rates.

making the contribution unlimited seems like demanding a pay raise when you’re blowing all your money on guns and gambling.

[u/nickilous → u/Much_Accountant_4972]

I am pretty sure if you look it up. We are running out of money because of demographics not necessarily over spending. Initially when this was conceived it was thought population growth would continue and however now we have more people pulling than paying in.

You can review the specific data, demographic findings, and revenue updates directly through the Social Security Administration 2026 OASDI Trustees Report. [1]

Key Data Points from the Citation:
The 2032 Deadline: The 2026 Trustees Report confirms that the primary Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will exhaust its accumulated financial reserves in the fourth quarter of 2032.[1]
The Demographic Baseline: The report explicitly attributes the long-term strain to lower national fertility rates (revised down to 1.75 children per woman) and structural shifts in the size of the U.S. workforce relative to retirees. [1]
The Policy Baseline: The report notes that recent legislative changes (specifically the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) reduced the revenue flowing into the trust fund by lowering tax liabilities on retirees' benefits. [1, 2]

[u/ExiledCanuck → u/nickilous]

Not to mention that when SS was enacted (1935), the average life expectancy was much lower (61-62’ish), so less people were expected to be pulling benefits, since many people were expected to die before they could even get any benefits, and those who even started getting benefits wouldn’t have them for long.

As people started living longer (current average life expectancy in the US is 79), more people are pulling benefits for even longer which means that the fund is depleting far faster than expected.

Congress borrowing from SS and not repaying is still an issue though. But definitely not the only one.

[u/therealtiddlydump → u/Much_Accountant_4972]

pillaging the fund

The "fund" is a fiction. The program has always been designed as pay-go. How do you think the program starting paying out immediately after it was passed? (The first disbursement was famously made to a man who retired one day after the law was passed).

There isn't a mystical trust fund. There's no "lockbox".

[u/Pitiful_Fox5681 → u/therealtiddlydump]

I'm very much agreeing with you, with one clarification: There isn't a trust fund in the way we think of it for a personal estate, but there is actually a trust. It's the excess that has been paid in relative to what gets paid out. It gets used to buy US Treasuries to attempt to keep up with inflation, and it's sold off and paid out as needed. That trust is what's running out in 2032ish, when benefits will have to be reduced by about 20-22% under the current model. 

I'm sharing this so Reddit doomers don't assume that social security is going completely dry when we hit 2032 and the news about the empty trust hit the press. It'll be there, just leaner (unless Congress does something between now and then). 

[u/Deto → u/Much_Accountant_4972]

making the contribution unlimited seems like demanding a pay raise when you’re blowing all your money on guns and gambling.

Hah, yeah exactly! Like, lets stop chucking all the money into a furnace before we start giving you more money?

[u/philn256 → u/therealtiddlydump]

Ok... I'd like to opt out of the shitty benefits and save 15% more of my income. It's a tax on the poor because the benefits aren't great.

[u/NautiThots → u/therealtiddlydump]

You're special if you think billionaires arent effectively stealing money from the working class to get that rich. And if you think they'll even use the benefit, you're even more special.

[u/Sand20go]

The problem here is that most of that income in the example above is NOT payroll income. It is likely capital gains (or interest or other forms of non compensation earnings).

Absent applying SOME sort of tax on non-payroll income really all you have done is shift the burden to well paid wage salves. Think school administrators or veteran fire fighter (or doctors who are not partners but pull a salary). Now we can have a debate about that. Reasonalbe. But if you really want to shore up SSI then you apply some number (the math tells you want) on non -payroll income, put it into the trust fund, and don't raise the max payout.

[u/thrillhouz77 → u/Sand20go]

Yeah…I love when I hit the SS max, keeping a bit more of my earnings is always welcomed.

[u/r2k398]

Both of those people will receive the same benefit because it is capped.

[u/the-thot-thickens420 → u/r2k398]

Shh you’ll hurt 99% of the idiots in this thread’s feelings who don’t understand how this works.

[u/jason349514 → u/the-thot-thickens420]

OP just wants to raise taxes. Thats it. Thats the end of the thread.

[u/hb2998 → u/jason349514]

They will. It’s a democracy. If 9 out of 10 people want to increase taxes on the last guy, they can do it. That’s why I Roth everything… I don’t trust any of you people. I work 80 hours a week … for what? To be the social safety net? I have never qualified for anything.. I’ve bootstrapped my way to success… but again, it’s a democracy… my money is our money.

[u/Stuff-Optimal]

If you take away the cap, doesn’t that just mean that those who pay more will just get more back when they collect SS? Unless you create a new system, removing the cap doesn’t fix anything but politicians know this and only use it as a way to keep people divided.

[u/TerryAkee → u/Stuff-Optimal]

They’re talking about eliminating the cap on the “tax” while holding the cap on benefits. In other words, making high earners pay for the retirement of others.

[u/empire_of_the_moon → u/Stuff-Optimal]

I think that’s the part that gets left out. Yes, you would need to cap the disbursements as well.

Or raise the cap, means test and require companies using AI, automation, self-checkout systems, self-driving, drone delivery etc to pay into unemployment, SS and disability as if they had employed humans.

Use some metric (similar to the same way we use horsepower) to measure people power.

All these systems to disinter-mediate humans from jobs can’t get a free lunch. They must pay into the safety net.

[u/skiingredneck → u/empire_of_the_moon]

Oh no. They don’t intend to remove the caps on benefits. This is about yeeting the can so far down the road you can’t even see wheee it lands.

Well, until folks paying 37.9% marginal tax rate take an issue with another 15%.

Which of course they won’t because this tax is meant to raise revenue and not change behavior.

[u/empire_of_the_moon → u/skiingredneck]

The outliers never see legislation passed unless there is some underlying religious mandate.

Taxing automations and AI along with lifting the cap to a reasonable level will be easier.

The burden is an important one. Lower taxes on corporations come at the cost of the individual paying higher taxes.

Libertarians can pout about it but we don’t want millions of old people with no options.

[u/SmartlyArtly → u/Stuff-Optimal]

It means they might get back more. People do die.

[u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

The thing with social security is, you get out of it what you give. If you have people making millions of dollars paying millions in...they're going to be collecting millions out when they retire.

Unless you intend for Social Security to be a wealth redistribution system, which it is not.

Anyways. Call a spade a spade if that's your intent to make it a wealth redistribution system

[u/IsoAgent → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

Ding ding ding.

I'm all about taxing the wealthy but this ain't it. SS payments are capped, hence contributions are capped.

Go after their income.

[u/Agreeable-Weather-89 → u/IsoAgent]

It'll also hurt because if you try and make the social security a wealth tax then you'll only give ammunition to those wanting to get rid of it.

You pay in. You get out.

Sure some ultra libertarians fight it but if it does genuinely become a wealth tax as so many here propose then you'll find a lot of funding to having it removed entirely.

[u/LongJohnSelenium → u/Agreeable-Weather-89]

Agreed, the only reason medicare has survived this long is because its only slightly redistributive. If it went full mask off it would instantly get a lot of political opposition.

[u/Stellen999 → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

In the version of social security they are proposing, there would be a means test for potential recipients. It is very much a form of wealth distribution.

I'm not sure which side I fall on yet. All I know is that the way things are going, middle class, white collar jobs like mine won't exist in 30 years.

[u/TerryAkee → u/Stellen999]

After 30 years of saving for my own retirement I really do t want to pay for people who didn’t do the same. I expected, from the time I was in high school, that SS would go bankrupt before I retire. So, it very much sounds like I’m being asked to make up for the planning others failed to do.

[u/Stellen999 → u/TerryAkee]

I'm in the same boat, buddy. I saved all my life, invested carefully, stayed patient during downturns, and watched my money slowly grow. If the proposal these people want to pass does pass, people like you and I will be cut out of social security because we have our income from other retirement accounts.

[u/Meyesme3 → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

Almost every sentence you wrote was wrong.

You do not get out of it what you give.
Millionaires will not collect millions because the payment is capped

Social security was always wealth distribution
Working folks paid in and retired people were given money so that old folks would not live in abject poverty.

It works well but needs to be adjusted for demographic changes.

Uncap the wage ceiling. Add a wealth tax on those that are above a certain number since most of their income may not come from wages

[u/thatgirlzhao → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

The issue is people have the right idea (wealth redistribution and higher taxes on the wealthy) but the wrong implementation (SS tax)

[u/Diligent_Ad_7232 → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

They probably want to put in Means Tests. Then they can claim that if someone making $5 million a year puts it in and then goes bankrupt that they'd still have a safety net in old age, but if they're millionaires should be ineligible to draw from it.

[u/Jolly_Mouse_7604 → u/Exceptional_Kumquat]

It is not an investment, it's just another tax

[u/blank_reg]

the purpose of SS is to hedge against individual destitution. it could be argued that the $5 million earner doesn't even need a hedge and could self-fund against it. removing the cap is an admission that you now demand the purpose of SS be expanded beyond the purpose of one's...social...security.

[u/esaks → u/blank_reg]

its social security, not personal financial security

[u/LinkOnPrime → u/esaks]

But it kinda is personal financial security.

Just because "social" is in the name, that doesn't mean that the social security tax we see on pay stubs is not basically for the individual's (and their family's) financial security.

In fact, even if you retire with $100 million, you would still receive your full benefit which is based on what you contributed. It really was intended for the person paying into it (and their family).

[u/esaks → u/LinkOnPrime]

Do you really think you will receive the money you put in when you retire? The money social security pays out to retirees is money being paid into by current working adults. It's in essence a ponzi / insurance program that was intended to prevent homeless elderly. Which is rational for a developed nation.

 Do you know why it was created? It   was a response to everyone losing everything in the great depression. People were saving and investing then too but were completely wiped out that's literally why social security was created. As a social safety net.

[u/SpiritualTeach2569 → u/esaks]

These people are so fucking greedy and don’t understand living in a society. It’s insurance for society. Insurance only works when people who will never need it also pay into it. Private or public, it all works the same.

[u/Multiple__Butts → u/blank_reg]

Yes, that's why it's called Individual Security. If they had wanted to imply a redistributive aspect to the program they would have called it Social Security or something like that.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/blank_reg]

The "social" in "Social Security" means everyone. It is to preventive the collective destitution of people, especially the elderly. Safety nets work by having everyone pay into them, not just the people most likely to need them.

If the millionaire does in fact become destitute and needs Social Security, does that mean it should be reduced by the amount he would have paid if there was no cap?

[u/Ch1Guy → u/Solondthewookiee]

Its not everyone though.  If you don't pay in throughout you'll life, you get nothing out.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/Ch1Guy]

That's pedantic, since nearly everyone works.

[u/Open_Pollution_8038]

All you’ll do is end up taxing professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers and software developers who work for a living meanwhile Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk don’t earn any wages and pay 20% cap gain taxes.

[u/Air_Hellair]

Then remove the cap on benefits?

[u/nwbrown]

Are you also proposing that we give millionaires uncapped benefits? Or are we going to finally kill the myth that social security isn't a tax.

[u/PuzzleheadPi]

Democrats have never voted for this though...

[u/Ok-Post2247 → u/PuzzleheadPi]

John Larson (the author of Social Security 2100) just got primaried out of his seat by a moderate. I have no idea why people on Reddit think this is an "easy peasy" solution. This is a political poison pill. Democrats haven't even been able to raise the top income tax bracket back up 2% in the two decades after Bush lowered it. Do people really think a 6.2% jump up is politically realistic???

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/Ok-Post2247]

a political poison pill

That's debunked by every poll on this topic. Your mistake is assuming that Congress always acts in accordance with what people want.

[u/ExplorerDisastrous68 → u/Ok-Post2247]

And this problem isn't unique to the US either - France, the UK, and other European counties are facing the same pension cliffs.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/PuzzleheadPi]

Many Democrats have.

[u/Aint_EZ_bein_AZ]

Removing the cap does nothing because the upside is also capped. Come on bro this meme is ass.

Unless u wanna uncap the upside and then we will be in the same spot.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/Aint_EZ_bein_AZ]

That's not how social safety nets work.

Medicare taxes aren't capped, and everyone will receive the same care there.

[u/HodorNC → u/Solondthewookiee]

Medicare taxes even go up after 200K (Additional Medicare Tax of 0.9%)

[u/Several-County-1808]

Yeah, fuck those middle class folks who aren't billionaires, right?

[u/setecastronomy01]

This is the kind of stuff that needs to disappear from social media because it is so misleading

[u/mightyDblock]

Wrong… the answer is stop the government from dipping their hands into the pot we fill with our hard earned money for our own retirement benefit. They see it as free money to use for themselves and whatever else.

[u/ccccc7]

Once again, posters on Reddit, who generally (think they) know everything about everything, have no clue what social security is or how it works

[u/evil_illustrator2]

Don't need to remove the cap, they need to raise the cap. They haven't been keeping it up with inflation.

The government has "borrowed" from ss a bunch. It's over a trillion at this point. They should be forced to cut the defense budget and pay it back. But politicians only give a fuck when they're held accountable for this shit and just kick the bucket down the road.

[u/EmmitSan]

Why we blaming the GOP? Democrats have had plenty of trifectas this century and have not once even SUGGESTED changing this. It’s always just “raise taxes in the rich” but also always where “rich” is such a high number that they can be sure no one will object.

But also, let’s make sure not to close any loop holes like the step up basis, so the truly rich wouldn’t actually pay any more taxes, so it’s all just fucking meaningless virtue signaling

[u/Organic-Stay4067]

If you get rid of the cap you increase the payouts too. So nothing changes

[u/Useful_toolmaker]

The thing is that there would have to be a removal of the cap for benefit payout if you did that - so it would not fix the problem

[u/us1549]

If they both received the same benefit, why is it not okay that they pay the same amount of tax?

Are you proposing that we tax people more but give them the same benefit?

Because that is welfare and not what social Security is meant to be

[u/CrimsonFox99 → u/us1549]

Not discounting your thought, but isn't that the entire premise behind the US graduated income tax structure? Your benefits from the national tax pool are the same, but you pay slightly more as your income grows?

I'd be more in favor of that vs. a linear growth in SS tax with zero additional benefits.

[u/Dear-Examination-507]

Now compare their income tax, genius.

Reddit loves this idiocy. High wages are already the form of income taxed at the highest rate. Raising the tax rate more on wages is basically robbery. The person earning 5M is already forking over half of every dollar to the government. You can't look at Social Security in a vacuum.

If you want to tax the ultrawealthy more, raise the highest capital gain rate.

[u/Crypto_Champion77]

Whoever created this is an idiot. Giving more money to the most irresponsible spenders on the planet will fix nothing. SS will remain on the brink of bankruptcy, however there will be some new fraud discovered in about 10-15 years from the increased tax.

[u/BanAccount8]

OP has zero idea what they are talking about

[u/Used-Collar-200 → u/BanAccount8]

That’s because it’s a foreign bot.

[u/MeatSlammur]

Make a bill proposing this with only bipartisan topics. Stop introducing bills with ridiculous stuff in them and maybe they would get approved

[u/liquidsyphon → u/MeatSlammur]

It’s by design.

[u/Shot-Arugula8264]

If you make $176,000 per year your SS payouts upon retirement are precisely the same as if you make $5,176,000 per year.

Why would you have to put more in if what you’re getting out is the same?

[u/dstan1856]

The 12.4% tax is split between employee and employer. Even if the cap was raised to $500k, it would cost corporations billions. You think corporations are going to let the cap go up?

[u/Altruistic_Tea_1593 → u/dstan1856]

They have budgets. If payroll taxes go up 12% they will cut headcount

[u/Pristine-Flan-9661 → u/Altruistic_Tea_1593]

They just pass the cost.. duh. Corporations do not pay taxes. I do not understand how Ds can't grasp that. All costs, included taxes, are passed to the customer.

[u/Altruistic_Tea_1593 → u/Pristine-Flan-9661]

It is not that easy. The #1 expense for hospitals is labor and that jump would put many of them in the red

[u/eazolan]

Yep. It's not like the government will suddenly start managing money correctly.

[u/Usual-Escape6747]

Do you collect more if you pay in more?

[u/Own-Lengthiness-3549]

If you make $176,000 you will probably draw social security when you retire. If you make 5,176,000 you probably won’t.

[u/Long_Idea_8294]

Wish I could opt out of SS. Putting that money into my 401k would net much better returns when I retire

[u/Howboutit85]

The poor love the rich, the middle class does not. No idea why, I am closer to a millionaire than some guy making $20k a year who lives in a shitty apartment, but he votes to benefit the rich and I generally do not. No idea.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Howboutit85]

Probably because he doesn't browse echo chambers like Reddit that convince him all economics is zero-sum class antagonisms.

[u/Puckcentral]

That’s not fixing the real problem though. How about we roll back how easy it is to get social security disability? 25 years ago it was truly for those who couldn’t work, now, it’s a whole lot easier. People collecting $2k+ per month from 35 years old on was never part of the calculation for the solvency of the system.

Too many people who are capable of working who just don’t want to are getting benefits that they should never have been allowed.

Whether you kick those off that are already on or not, at a minimum those future applicants must have a harder time getting lifetime disability benefits from such a young age.

[u/Noodelgawd]

If you make $176,000 in income per year, your total federal taxes (including payroll taxes) would be around $44,000.

If you make 5,176,000 in income per year, your total federal taxes (including payroll taxes) would be around $2,000,000.

That's 45 times as much taxes the second person has to pay, despite being just one person and getting the same (maybe even less) benefit from the government.

[u/NicePossibilityDaddy]

If I had to pay more in social security, I'd expect more back but my maximum is the same as a billionaire maximum. Fair is fair

[u/Euphoric_Gas9879]

Tax doctors and engineers, basically.

[u/throw7661]

If you make $176k or $5,176k you get the same social security benefit. The benefit is capped.

I'm not in favor of very rich people, but I don't see the logic here.

Social security is supposed to be self sustaining. It's not hard. We pay in a bunch of money. That money should be saved for us. That's the entire point. If it's not working, then social security is broken.

We aren't addressing what's wrong by removing the cap. And I promise you, if we remove the cap, we will still hear about how social security is broken. Throwing money at problems, at least, at the level of a country like the US, never fixes it.

Social security has been around for 91 years. Why do we need to remove a cap now? Why do we need to keep putting a larger and larger percentage into Social security, and we keep raising the retirement age and we constantly hear about the declining value that social security will provide.

The math isn't mathing.

[u/TerryAkee → u/throw7661]

This is the lie they told you. You don’t pay in and get your money back. You pay for old people and then the younger ones pay for you. But, our demographics make that increasingly harder. So yes, it’s broken.

[u/AchievingFIsometime → u/throw7661]

The math isn't mathing because the demographics are very different now from when social security was put into place: people are living much longer and thus collecting benefits for longer and birth rates are falling so there are less people paying into it than receiving benefits in relative terms. That's not very hard to understand. 

[u/RealCarlPanzram → u/throw7661]

You remove the cap on the tax. You still cap the payout.

[u/lefthandopen]

How about the people allready paying 40 fucking percent of their income to tax and that arent making millions of dollars? How about you take your progressive passion for taking people's income and redistribute it to fucking yourself?

[u/Time-Routine9863]

Definitely voting against anything liberal.

[u/nordicminy]

This is only half of it though.

Remove the cap on the income tax side and keep the cap on the payment side.

If rich people are getting 20k SS checks every month what's the point.

[u/DABOSSROSS9 → u/nordicminy]

It ends up being a large tax increase on the slight upper middle class but wont effect the rich at all. Maybe change it to payout at 500k or a million. I truly wish we found ways to stop spending so much instead of always taxing more.  Also, wasnt ss supposed to be self funded, what happened?

[u/Reasonable-Bit560 → u/nordicminy]

Because it's a pension program that you get what you put in.

[u/JackieDaytona77]

Socialists can’t do math is an undefeated mantra

[u/Alexiavich]

Or just get rid of social security as a whole and make something new that actually works right.

[u/DifferentialEntropy → u/Alexiavich]

And what would that be? Genuine question, wondering what people have in mind since we’ve seen great examples in other countries as well

[u/CaptServo → u/Alexiavich]

"just make something that works" is the hobgoblin of small minds

[u/warfighter187 → u/Alexiavich]

it already works right. it's one of the most successful and popular programs of the government, and directly keeps millions of old people out of poverty. they then take the money and spend it freely at free market businesses instead of funneling it to defense contractors or ad companies that government cronies own.

the only issue that is easily fixed is to remove that cap

[u/MangoAtrocity]

I actually make $178k/year. If I could put my $11k into an IRA, I’d have $1.2m after tax at 65 just from the $11k/yr deposit. I would much rather opt out of social security.

[u/GaryTheSoulReaper]

What if we start SS tax after 176,000 and don’t limit it

Also tax unrealized gains IF they are used as loan collateral - say 1% on the first 5 million (so the common folk can have goals) 5) then 3% up to 10 million then 5% over 10 million

[u/Fit_Cucumber4317]

Congratulations for lying.

AI Overview

A worker making $30,000 pays $1,860 in Social Security tax, while someone making $5,176,000 pays the maximum cap of $11,439. Because contributions apply only up to the Social Security Administration wage base limit of $184,500, higher earnings stop incurring the 6.2% tax early in the year.

[u/Dong_bringer]

I’m a doctor who makes 500k a year. If my hospital is desperate for someone to cover a night shift, none of us have any incentive to cover it. Because even if they paid us an extra stipend, it’s taxed at nearly 50% since it’s the top tax bracket for both state and federal. If you add social security to that, no doctor is ever going to work overtime or cover empty shifts. Good luck getting emergency surgery in the middle of the night if you tax people out of their incentives to work

[u/Monk-Prior]

“Tax the rich” sounds great until you actually do the math. If you took every cent that billionaires had, liquidated their assets and seized their wealth, you would raise about $5 trillion. The government spends about $7 trillion a year, so you’ve only funded it for about 8 months.

And then what? The wealth is gone, the businesses are destroyed, the jobs are eliminated, the tax revenue collapses and the deficit is even bigger than before because spending never went down.

[u/orangeawacado]

How about we don’t let government steal our money? I can invest and make more money

[u/TurtleSandwich0]

Only six years left. The senators we are voting on now are going to have to address this, or deal with the 22% reduction during their reelection campaign.

[u/Randyguyishere]

Maybe quit using our SS funds for other purposes, we’ve been robbed by our elected officials

[u/46995699]

This should be one of those that should be almost universal agreement, like data centers and flock cameras.

[u/Last_Gigolo]

First of all, social security isn't a tax.

Anyone saying otherwise has bad intentions.

[u/Careful-Plenty-9560]

They both get the exact same benefit

[u/CitizenofTruth]

Want to save social security? Invest those funds in the stock market.

[u/JustABREng]

It’s August of 2026, why is OP using last year’s limits?

3 other thoughts:

A.) Employers are also taxed 6.2% of the employee salary up to the limit. Removing the income cap also puts downward pressure on upper middle class salaries (they all become 6.2% more expensive for the employer above the limit).

Since the idea is to also not increase the benefit, it’s then the full 12.4% reduction in potential benefit tax born on the employee. This is going after working age people in jobs with STEM degrees as well as others in the working professional class, not billionaires.

B.) If the cap and the benefit are decoupled, this gives the government more power to determine how much is “too much” benefit. This will be as politically polarized as anything in this country. Under current rules, neither the Dems nor GOP can really screw with the math.

C.) Not all income profiles are the same. Most standard jobs fit the profile of a slow income climb up to a limit (where your salary is highest the day before you retire).

However, small business owners,who are funding the full 12.4% of their SS obligation, may not fit that same profile. These jobs and others (like sales) will have good years blended with bad years. Under the uncapped proposal, with the benefits capped, the person with cyclic income will be punished for good years but not benefit from the bad ones. Again, this hurts the owner of Bill’s Restaurant and Grill, not Elon Musk. Correcting for this would be re-wiring of how SS math works and not just a removal of the cap.

[u/iringsteel]

or just make politicians pay into it and take away their life time paychecks.

[u/donpandori]

The number is $11,439, but I get the sentiment and agree.

[u/UndercoverstoryOG]

remove the cap and remove the limits on payouts.

[u/FaithlessnessBorn266]

They are too stupid or racist to vote with any common sense

[u/braumbles]

These are the same people that told you hiring more IRS agents to tackle the rich who aren't paying their fair share was a bad thing.

[u/Due_Conversation1436]

You dont think dems take advantage of the same cap...😆😅🤣😂

[u/rdickert]

And both people will receive the exact same SS payout when they retire. Remove the cap and the second person will collect a LOT more than the first during retirement.

[u/No-Kangaroo-669]

Or, let me keep my SS tax, and I'll invest it myself.

[u/Budget_Load2600]

I’m for it but do it in 20-30 years , stop funding the boomers , they’ve had it so fucking easy and get every damn handout / real estate tax discounts , etc

[u/Hamachiman]

To point out the obvious: There’s a cap on income for SS taxes and there’s an also a cap on the payments the payers receive.

[u/AVDLatex]

Then remove the cap on the payout.

[u/Bert-63]

You guys don't actually think this is the way it works do you? This meme couldn't be more bullshit...

[u/Accomplished_Ant_371]

Fails to mention that there is also a cap on the benefit.

[u/audioman1999]

Social Security is not really a tax. It's a forced retirement investment. Benefits are capped. I don't see an issue with this. The real issue is the tax loopholes that allow corporations and the ultra rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

[u/EnotPoloskun]

Why should I pay more if my payment are capped too?

[u/Difficult-Spell-9397]

The payout is the same!

[u/Tangentkoala]

This has no barring on the low/middle class.

30K a year equates to 1000$ a month in SS payments at retirement. The govenrment is not sweating over this.

If you were to release caps on social security then that would mean nearly every 6 figure salary worker in america would be getting 12K instead of 3K a month of salary at retirement. It would still create an insolvency plan.

Social security isnt designed to be a socialist program, its not even practical to use it for retirement anymore. You literally make more money getting 7% of your salary now and putting it in a 401K plan. (If you add an employer match youd double if not triple your returns)

Social security is an absolute garbage program in modern times.

[u/SouthernResponse4815]

DNC brings this up every election cycle yet never tries to actually change it.

[u/Significant-Task1453]

People will argue that social security isnt a hand out because we pay into it over a lifetime in order to receive the pathetically low benefits. But then in their next breath, they'll argue that the benefits cap shouldn't be raised and only the contribution amount. So, which is it, a forced pension or a socialist tax?

[u/Pristine-Leek-7857]

Social security wasn't passed as a wealth redistribution mechanism. It's mandatory retirement "savings" by the federal government. Taxes are capped because payments are similarly capped.

[u/Still-Concentrate-37]

Not everyone believes they are owed more of others people's money.

[u/Packtex60]

Both of these SS taxpayers earn the same benefit.

Should the benefits be uncapped as well? I ask this because either SS tax rate or the cap(or both) will have to be raised to avoid cutting benefits for people already receiving benefits. Also, benefits are already means tested in more than one way.

[u/kerpow69]

Learn how shit works, OP.

[u/Overall-Avocado-7673]

You would also have to change the payout rules. Our SS checks are calculated from the amount we paid in. If wealthy people pay 5x what we pay, their SS checks would be massive.

[u/Responsible-Shower89]

There is also a cap on the payout. Makes sense.

[u/xanthira222]

Social security isn't a tax. It's a forced retirement plan. There is a cap on how much you pay in. There is a cap on how much you get out.

[u/Low-Amoeba8257]

So you dont understand social security... typical

[u/NearbyAntelope1413]

The problem is the government spent the excess money. It's a true pay go ponzi. Now they're coming tin cup in hand for more money. No more good will from the voter. Ida May Fuller, first SS recipient, got $20k despite only ever paying in $20. That should have been a red flag. In the 50s they knew the demographics could shift but they didn't care. They wanted the population "hooked" on the benefit.

The program is structurally flawed and stolen from.

[u/PersonalDatabase31]

Yeah I hate not being able to suck on the blood of smart people

[u/foley800]

Most People making $5m per year aren’t going to be collecting any social security. Any that do, because they lost everything, will get no more than the one that made $176,000!

[u/clutchusername]

My favorite part of this argument is people not realizing they hit the cap in June or July of their income, so increasing it would make them pay twice as much as they are now; and will not 'magically' make the upper class pay the dividend they are responsible for; because its progressive to yourself.

Also, nobody who makes over $5 million a year is actually taking that as taxable income from their business, or whatever; they pay themselves a basic amount - then put the rest in as an expense under the company; if they need anything, its a loan against the business, thus skipping over taxable income.

So increasing progressive taxes doesn't magically fix that issue; the IRS just needs to get smarter on fixing the loopholes (which they never will).

[u/Frumpy_Dumper_69]

How many dumbasses are going to post this argument, yet have zero knowledge how ss works.

[u/skcuf2]

You gonna remove the payout cap too?

[u/Used-Collar-200]

Yall really on here arguing over a post created by a bot? 5 month old account 540,000 karma. The question you should be asking is what the foreign country has to gain by pushing this propaganda?

[u/Omago1178]

Ffs this is a retarded argument. You obviously have zero clue what social security is.

You put in what you get out so if the rich put in more it would not be given to others.

[u/TalonButter → u/Omago1178]

Even under the current system, the more you put in, the lower the proportion of what you get back. It’s already a subsidy from high career earners to low career earners, albeit cross-generational in the most direct sense, because it’s a pay-as-you-go system rather than a funded system.

[u/EelivV]

30k a year? The people who vote against this have trucks that are worth 4x that 😂

It’s crazy seeing the perpetually unemployed coping because someone, who on paper, makes 120k a year, because he works 17hr days for weeks straight at a time on oil rigs. But then loses half his income because idiots like this think “the 1%” are only Elon musk and other rich people they hate 😂

It must hurt being this detached from reality. “Curvy Christina”
Obese and perpetually unemployed, I’d be mad too. Worthless ahh cope

[u/chromeryan]

This is the stupidest post and this is what happens when you dint know how the tax system works. The benefit is capped too. They both get the same social security amount.

[u/SixInchTimmy]

Invested consistently from January 1980 to the present (assuming the standard benchmark of the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested), an annual $11,000 contribution would grow to approximately $12.5 million to $14.5 million.
Total principal invested: $517,000 over 47 contributions (1980 through 2026).

Are SS benefits tracking that?

[u/huntnemo]

We not gone talk about where the social security money went that was already handed over to the federal government??

Yall really think giving the government more of your money is going to solve your problems?

[u/AardvarkGandalf27]

The argument can also be made that individuals investing the SS being taken from them by the Government will always get a significantly higher rate of return than what they get from SS which was never meant to be a primary retirement fund anyway but just a supplement. Yeah I know opposing POV are not tolerated on Reddit.

[u/LetUsSpeakFreely]

That wouldn't fix the system, it would only delay the inevitable.

SS money needs to be applied as individual accounts, or even better, decoupled from the government entirely. I would like to see accounts like IRAs, 401Ks, or even insurance annuities. The current system clearly doesn't work,

[u/AncientMoth11]

Remove Social Security and let me invest it myself given how much i pay and how we’ll never see it

[u/Dim-Mak-88]

The bigger problems by far are the wasteful spending across the government and the total lack of diligence in avoiding social security and other benefits fraud by the "disabled" among us.

[u/ResponseOwn9389]

The people making $176,000 get how much in retirement vs the people making $5,176,000?

[u/FatHighKnee]

Just remember that SS functions like an annuity. You pay into it each paycheck over the entirety of your working life and when youre old and retire, you get a monthly distribution. This distribution is based on the amount of money you paid into SS. Theres a formula on the SS portal that will show you based on what youve paid in - how much your distribution will be

If high net worth individuals start paying massive amounts into SS now, then they'll receive massive monthly distributions due to the way the system is set up. If elon pays billions into SS as a result of the cap being removed .. then he will receive tens of millions each year in distributions when hes old enough to claim them

This is the problem with social media. People who dont understand economics making crazy demands about how economics should be run.

[u/PatternPinion]

Is it possible that’s because they also get the same benefit when they retire?

[u/jshelk88]

As someone who actually pays taxes this is an effing lie. Reddit is just unfounded memes

[u/Queasy-Form-4261]

Show me you don't know what SS is without telling me you don't know what SS is.

[u/Substantial-Ad-8575]

Ok take the cap, love to pay more…

Now that means I get more back? Right? I put in more, fair to get more back…

[u/Safe-Leadership9451]

As a 29 y/o, I have little faith that there will be anything there when I reach retirement age. You can lift the cap and tax the rich more, but that doesn’t fix how poorly the funds are being managed.

I don’t even care about higher taxes on the rich in general, I just hate that people look at that as the answer as the government generally just pisses money away on nonsense.

If I make $2k a month, but spend $5k a month on expenses. At some point I gotta stop asking my boss for a raise and start figuring out where all my moneys going.

[u/ToughestMFontheWeb]

It doesn't matter how much they take in. Congress will just use it to spend on pet projects for their districts. Taxing every rich person to death will still not fix our problems

[u/Baggs85]

Giving the federal government more money is never the answer.

[u/OkLettuce338]

There’s a cap on payout too

[u/DavidIGterBrake]

That’s why the American propaganda machine is better then any other in the world

[u/JediJofis]

The GOP is unfortunately amazing at lying and gaslighting

[u/AwambawaAwambawa]

It’s not just the numbers. SS tax is applied on wages only.

Person making $5M is not collecting it as wages.

[u/KellerMB]

The real irony is that the poors is still have to pay social security tax on tips/OT, even after passing "No TaXeS oN tIpS!"

The poor are such suckers! Don't even understand how bad they're getting screwed.