Skip to main content

25 replies

GailL1
GailL1
Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
July 27, 2025

I hear and read everybody saying that it would be fixed if we raised the cap - NOPE Not unless the benefits of those who are paying in so much more is also limited - very limited.  So how is that fair as the article thinks people feel - ?

 

So what happens to those who work (2) jobs and make over the cap?  Right now, they and their employer get their withholding back.  

 

EDITED TO ADD:  The Social Security Actuary when analyzing various proposals also look at behavioral responses - the founded ones.  

What they say over and over again is  “We assume employers and employees will

redistribute total employee compensation among taxes, wages, and other compensation. This behavioral response reduces the increase in both payroll tax revenue and scheduled benefits that would occur in the absence of this behavioral response.”

 

MY BIGGEST SUGGESTION and it could be done right away - is to have employees and employers begin to pay withholding taxes for both Social Security and Medicare on the employee health benefits that employers give as a benefit instead of salary to their individual employees.  Itis still compensation and should be treated as such.  Plus it would also increase our tax revenues.  WHY iS THIS NOT EVER TALKED ABOUT AS A FIX or at least part of the fix?  

 

If we want to tax investment income for Social Security and maybe even Medicare, then I think it should all investment income should be taxes for everybody - not limited by income level.  

Would those paying more into the SS system with this tax on investments get any benefit based on this or is it only for funding for those who are getting a benefit.

 

Personally,I think we also need to revise some of the benefits - especially the early retirement.  OH, there is nothing wrong with filing for retirement benefits early but a person should not be able to get auxiliary benefits when they are just filing for early retirement.  

 

I also think that we did a disservice to the whole system by eliminating the WEP and the GPO instead of passing a new formula.  But the deed has been done - BIPARTISANLY - so who are I.  Will those same people stand up for the higher earners getting their just benefit when they are paying in more by increasing greatly or eliminating the Social Security cap?  

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
    R
    RickS467730
    Contributor ⭐⭐
    August 3, 2025

    You’re raising important questions—and I agree that raising the cap alone isn’t a magic fix, especially if benefit formulas aren’t adjusted alongside it. But we also have to be careful about policies that treat higher earners like bottomless ATMs without a proportional return. That undermines the “earned benefit” premise of Social Security.

     

    You also make a strong point about behavioral responses. If we keep hiking taxes on labor or investment, people will naturally shift compensation structures or delay work—hurting the very funding we’re trying to protect.

     

    As for taxing employer-provided health benefits—technically that’s compensation, yes, but there are real consequences to making those benefits more expensive for both employers and workers. It could even push more people onto the public system or reduce employer coverage altogether.

     

    I’ve said in the Social Security section a few times now that I’m personally more drawn to ideas like partial privatization—something along the lines of the Sweden model or President Bush’s proposed carve-out accounts. These give younger workers the chance to earn market-based returns while still protecting current retirees and those close to retirement. But every time it’s suggested, it gets dismissed outright as “unacceptable,” without even a serious debate.

     

    Your point on WEP and GPO is also spot on. I’ve said before that repealing them without creating a fair and thoughtful replacement was a mistake. Bipartisan or not, it weakened the long-term credibility of the program. If we’re asking higher earners to pay significantly more, fairness demands they see a benefit tied to that extra contribution.

     

    We can’t fix this if we won’t talk openly about tradeoffs and realistic, forward-thinking options—especially ones that don’t just raise taxes or keep pushing the retirement age up. Too many people shy away from opposing viewpoints, and that’s part of why we’re stuck.

    R
    RickS467730
    Contributor ⭐⭐
    August 3, 2025

    I think there’s still a lot of confusion out there about what partial privatization really means. It’s not about forcing people to go it alone or yanking money out of the system. The money stays in the individual’s Social Security account—it’s just directed into an area that has the potential to grow faster than the traditional trust fund. I’ve said it in several threads now—this is about a modest carve-out (originally proposed at around 3%) of payroll taxes into personal accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan or the Sweden model (which I’d encourage anyone unfamiliar to read up on). These accounts would give younger workers the ability to earn market-based returns while protecting those already in or near retirement.

     

    Privatization should have been implemented back in 2006, when there was still time for compounding to work its magic for younger workers. But here we are. I still think it should be part of the long-term future of Social Security—but we also need more immediate structural fixes now to stabilize the program. That includes eliminating WEP and GPO, tightening benefit formulas for high earners, and closing loopholes that quietly drain resources from the system. 

     

    Too often, reform ideas get dismissed out of hand without digging into the details. That’s why I appreciate thoughtful disagreement—it’s how we move conversations forward. We’ll never get meaningful reform if we treat debate like a threat instead of a tool.

    S
    sktn77a
    Contributor ⭐⭐⭐
    July 30, 2025

    When Social security was first implemented, average lifespans were less than the retirement age(65).  Today, average lifespan is almost 20 year longer than retirement age.  No wonder it's going broke.

     

    Raise the full retirement age to 70 and raise the early retirement age from 62 to 66.

    LisaS961881
    LisaS961881Author
    Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
    August 17, 2025

    ….. a gloomier article just three weeks later:

     

    https://www.newsweek.com/americans-fear-end-social-security-poll-2113953

     

         ~ Lisa 🙋

    GailL1
    GailL1
    Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
    August 17, 2025

    @LisaS961881 

    So Do You think that President Reagan with the help of a Democratically lead Congress could get the changes they passed in 1983 - passed today in this political climate?

     

    I would say “NO” - 

    IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
    LisaS961881
    LisaS961881Author
    Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
    August 17, 2025

      Gail - I totally agree.

    With both political parties being more concerned with tearing each other down rather than reaching across the Maginot Line and creating a solution together, I cannot foresee a comprehensive solution anytime soon.

     

       Yup - gloomy….

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement