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 3, 2025

    @RickS467730 wrote. . . . . 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.

    ===================

    I completely agree although many don’t seem to share our agreement - 

    ===================

    @RickS467730 wrote . . . . 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.

    ========================

    That’s true and I support both employees and employers paying more for these employer provided benefits to be considered what they are - compensation.  WE will reap the rewards 

    1.  The employee will earn a higher Social Security benefit for their contributions to the Trust Funds

    2.  The employee and the employer will pay more in taxes as they should in this situation.

    3.  The employer will also pay more in the matched amount of withholding taxes helping the system to become healthier financially.

    4.  I like the idea of decoupling from employer provided health benefits - and would help each person to realize the cost of healthcare fully and their use of it.  Nothing makes this hit home harder than having to pay for ones own health insurance. 

    ======================

    @RickS467730 wrote . . . . I’ve said in the Social Security section a few times now that I’m personally more drawn to ideas like partial privatization

    =====================

    Sounds fine to me also - in fact perhaps something akin to the Governments Thrift Savings Program for some government employees and some military.

     

    But I do not see much support for employees to like this - but that's because it would have to be their nickel directly invested into this program - OH, MY they may have to learn something and make a decision for themselves.  I mean why don’t people set up their own IRA and fund it now?  Especially if their employer does not have a plan.  

     

    Getting employers to do these “life” things for employees is for many of them a crutch - from supplying health insurance to setting up investment vehicles to save for retirement.  Many of the employees are willing to let the employer do it all - take their money, choose the investment(s) or pick the insurance plan(s); some don’t even make a choice - only checking the box of letting the employer decide. 

     

    Even when they leave the company - many of the retirement investments stay right there - sometimes not even earning anymore - WHY??

     

    In my state, legislators have been trying to set up a state plan for employers to set up retirement savings accounts for employees - these  would be funded by the employee and would be portable - but it cannot get leverage from many of the legislators.

     

    The Federal Secure Act and the Secure 2.0 Act established a retirement savings for employees - wonder how those might be going?

    =========================

    In my rather advanced age, I have become quite the cynic - maybe I have just been on boards such as this or reddit for too long and have been disillusioned - To have an open mind, one has to have one to open.  To consider workable solutions , one has to understand how the programs work to begin with and many don’t.  

     

    All I hear many times is “we want this or we NEED that”; tax the more well off to pay for it - seems to be successful nowadays, many others think there has been some shenanigans - so they should pay more for the more of us. 

     

    You can take up the shaft of change here - I’m retiring. 

     

    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