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.

    GailL1
    GailL1
    Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐
    August 9, 2025

    The Cassidy/Kaine proposal is interesting - I think we should post the Hill article as a separate post to see what others here might have to say - probably nothing but who knows. What do others in this conversation think about this?

     

    I didn’t read it like you, @Tonster521 - I read it as they would be investing the $300 billion for 5 years to = 1.5 Trillion in investment.  This would come from our Treasury but only as an investment that will be paid back in time - 70 years./ 75 years

     

    This proposal does NOTHING to fix the income / outgo problems that we have with the Social Security Trust Fund which are actually problem we have with the Social Security programs themselves - ALL this proposal does is stop the benefits from being cut around 20% in 2034 or there about.  THAT’S IT.  

     

    HOW IT WORKS ~

    1.  the government would create an investment fund separate from the existing Social Security trust funds, into which the government would place $300 billion annually over the next five years.

     

    2. The money would be invested into stocks, bonds and other investments, and it would be held “in escrow for 70 years.”

    So no touching for 70 years.  

     

    3.  Any dividends being paid, for example, flow back into the investment fund. So like a DRIP - dividend reinvestment plan

     

    4. As that occurs, we also repeal the law requiring that benefits be cut to match income,  So no cuts to benefits because the Trust Fund reaches insolvency because there is this backstop of earnings but without direct access to these “profits” at the time.

     

    5. The Treasury Department would be responsible for making up the payments for those 75 years.

    So Treasury has this [invested and earnings] money on their balance sheet and they are paying the WHOLE amount of any Social Security benefits claim during this 70 - 75 years period - the Treasury would be making up the difference in any SS Trust Fund shortfall year by year.

     

    6.  At the end of this 70 - 75 year period,  the investment fund would pay back the Treasury Department and use its remaining funds to supplement Social Security payments.

     

    7.  So what the Treasury will get back is the

    (a) initial investment of 1.5 Trillion +

    (b) any money they have put out during the 75 years to make the SS Trust Fund pay out the 100% of benefits - since the Treasury has been picking up any short fall in the income and expenses of the SS Trust Fund during those 75 years.

     

    Personally, it is just a way for government (they don’t even deserve a capital G) to avoid what is coming . .. . . . 

     

    Now IF they combined it with some real law changes to increase the Trust Fund income AND some real law changes to modify the cost of the program, meaning perhaps cuts in benefit design, 

    increasing retirement ages, whatever -

     

    The Social Security law changes to benefits + or -  HAVE to come 1st before any of the Cassidy/Kaine proposal is put into play!  

     

    I just don’t see government willing to make these Social Security changes - they are more interested is GIVING MORE - like the Social Security Fairness Act and trying to sooth the masses from paying taxes on their benefits.  

     

    Even the proposals that are coming on board about fixing the solvency problem in the Trust Fund are concentrated on giving more to some and then taking more from others.  

     

    Here I go again - being a CYNIC - Please prove me wrong.

     

    Fixing the program of Social Security is not just about talking more from some and giving more to others in some financial balancing act.  It is a societal problem - and one that I don’t think we can fix - not with the current mindset of most of the population and not with politicians of whatever variety.  

    IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
      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