To be precise, social security maxes out at around the income of the 93 percentile of income

https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.

It wouldn’t _have_ to, that’s a political decision not a mathematical requirement.

But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out

	▲	scarface_74 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		In that case it’s no longer about social security it’s just a 12.4% marginal tax increase (employer + employee).

▲

ceejayoz 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.

No? Why would it mean that?

▲

scarface_74 5 days ago | parent [-]

Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire. Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?

▲

quickthrowman 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because they likely already have more than enough and have been blessed by society/civilization as a top earner who will enjoy a comfortable retirement without any social security, and they’ll be better off if other people that didn’t earn and save as much are able to retire without being destitute in old age.

That perspective could be someone who is willing to say “You know what, I already have enough, let’s make sure the floor is raised for everyone.” Someone who believes more in individualism would probably disagree with that perspective.

▲

scarface_74 4 days ago | parent [-]

You think someone making just over $175K (the current social security taxable maximum amount) is able to save enough to ensure a comfortable retirement?

▲

quickthrowman 3 days ago | parent [-]

I would hope so, I make half that right now and will be able to save enough for a comfortable retirement but I save almost half of my income.

	▲	scarface_74 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I love when people say that “I live in East MiddleOfNowhere Nebraska with no kids and I can save half for my retirement”.

▲

ceejayoz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Currently, the amount you put in social security over the years determines how much you get when you retire.

Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay.

> Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?

Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.

▲

scarface_74 4 days ago | parent [-]

So you want to raise the marginal tax rate by 12.4% (employee + employer) without the person getting any benefit?

> Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.

And educated children, police, roads, etc benefit society and we were all at one point kids who could take advantage of public education, I don’t even have a problem paying more in taxes for universal healthcare that will reduce my + employer expenses on my healthcare.

But paying an extra 12.4% for what was suppose to be a retirement account that I don’t get any benefit from and reduces the amount I can save toward my own retirement is a bridge too far. Since 2018, I’ve been slightly above the increasing social security maximum. So it’s not that I’m one of the 1%.

▲

rkomorn 4 days ago | parent [-]

Pet peeve/nit, but social security is not a retirement account.

Our taxes are a way of funding current retirees' (and other SS recipients') benefits, not a way of funding our own individual future benefits.

The fact that paying more in increases our future benefit doesn't make it a retirement account.

▲

scarface_74 4 days ago | parent [-]

It very much is. The more you put in the more you get out. From a financial accounting standpoint, the money you put in goes in a “trust fund” that is constantly borrowed against. It was never suppose to be that way. Social Security taxes is not allocated for current retirees. It just goes in the general budget.

	▲	rkomorn 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is not a personal account where what you put in is yours. You don't have a balance that runs down to zero if you live too long. "The more you put in the more you get out" is only because that is how your benefit is computed. It is not because there is a certain amount of your money somewhere. Related: your benefit is calculated on your 35 highest income years, not the total sum of your contributions. [1] Other thing worth noting: the AARP page about SS myths that literally says: "Myth #7: Social Security is like a retirement savings account." [2] The trust funds for social security are used to pay for everyone's current benefits and the rest is invested [3]. The fact that it's supposed to remain solvent still doesn't make it a retirement account. Yes: it feels like a retirement account because you pay in now and (hopefully) cash out later. But that is only a feeling. And finally, I started my GP comment with "nit" as one of my first three words because I understand the distinction is somewhat hair-splitty, but it is still real and relevant to how we think about it. 1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/11/11/social-securi... 2- https://www.aarp.org/social-security/myths-misconceptions-ex... 3- https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/describeoasi.html