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

    @Tonster521 

     

    I think you have asked the Twenty thousand dollar question - rather in this case the 1.5 Trillion dollar question.  Please sit down - I do not want you to fall when laughing so hard with what I am about to say.

     

    Their plan is short on details in the beginning or maybe they are thinking like many government reps think - money grows on trees.  

     

    In order for it to work as designed, the investment money has to come from someplace other than the government - no room for paying out any interest; we need no more debt !

     

    So the only solutions would be we sell something or we sell many somethings - government land, other type real estate, vehicles, equipment, marijuana 🤓, buy the rights to all the GLP-1 drugs, things that are “HOT” and will move in the marketplace.   Do we own any small countries that somebody might want to buy the real estate?   I don’t know enough about crypto to even go there - but I do know that people BUY stuff - we just have to sell them the stuff they want. 

     

    IF we did a national lottery several times a year, I bet people would buy tickets cause everybody wants that get rich quick plan.  We do pretty good here in GA with our Peach State lottery - it has been going a very long time - 30 years and we pay for a lot of kid’s higher education (HOPE Scholarships) and Pre-K for all of our 4-year olds. We do about 300 million +/- a year.  Multiplied by 50 surely we can earn some money for the “Social Security Trust Fund Benefits Fill-in Plan.”

     

    What about TIPS but just for 30 years - at least we would not lose principal if the plan is a bust - right?  Plus if it is a disaster, we could sell them at anytime - right?  Been a long time since I invested in TIPS directly. 

     

    In reality, I think we, ans beneficiaries,  are just gonna have to make our budgets work with 20% less - Or the government will just go into more debt for whatever number the shortfall is every year.  Or those of us who are better off may just be the losers and we turn Social Security into another welfare type program.  

     

    The Cassidy/Kaine plan comes up short in my book.  But actually the plan is par for government.  It is like the person that is already in debt up to their eyeballs thinking that if they just got one more interest free for an interim credit card that they will be home free.  

     

    I have no idea what we are gonna do - seems no politician is ready to make some really hard decisions because the decisions they make may just take away their job.  

     

    If all else fails, there is alway the GOFUND ME method.

    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