Geoff, you've been a member for 19 years?... Second post?

^^^ I noticed that too. Geoff's a mad man!

Only a complete buffoon would pay any extra into SS.

DC has proven itself to be the worst steward of capital, known.

At this point, the only thing that makes sense is a policy of deliberate capital destruction.

Either to ensure the government remains relevant, or some kind of Ivy League Level of Stupidity, or just pure hatred for people who the market likes better than the failures in the bureaucracy and elected office.

quote:

At this point, the only thing that makes sense is a policy of deliberate capital destruction.

What exactly do you mean?
Who's policy is "deliberate capital destruction"?

Almost all of them. SS is a prime example of it. If you invested the same amount taken from you, you’d have a very comfortable mkt funded retirement and a significant amount of generational capital

Obamacare is, essentially, just straight wealth reduction, which most of it being taken as cuts for cronies etc. (health insurance is, really just a wildly inefficient payment processing system, at this point.)

Death tax, on average, costs more revenue than it generates - so it cannot have any purpose other than capital destruction.

The “war on poverty” programs cost a staggering amount per person assisted.

The “broadband” program which never connected a single customer, etc.

OK, yes, now I understand. That’s true about just about every government program.

Obamacare caused me to not have health insurance at all.

George W. Bush had a plan to allow people to invest their Social Security in the market and keep their employer match. All of his teams' ideas on the subject of SS reform were treated as heresy.

Americans Want Affluent to Foot the Bill for Social Security Fix

Means testing garners strong support in Reagan National Economic Survey asking how program’s looming shortfall should be addressed

As we await the release of the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, a new survey reveals that means-testing Social Security has “bipartisan supermajority support,” including among high-income respondents.

While the annual Social Security Trustees Report is expected to be released sometime in June (last year’s report was released on June 18, 2025), the most recent analysis of the financially troubled entitlement program from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would become insolvent in 2032 and trigger automatic benefit cuts that could amount to 24%. That means someone who receives a monthly benefits check of $2,000 would see it drop by $480 to $1,520.

The Reagan National Economic Forum Public Policy Survey, released this week by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, asked Americans how they think Social Security’s shortfall should be closed to prevent benefits from being cut when the program is no longer to pay out full benefits in 2032.

According to key findings from the survey, Americans want the affluent to foot the bill for entitlement reform.

“Means-testing Social Security has bipartisan supermajority support, including among high-income respondents. 71% overall, including 60% of those earning more than $200,000 per year, prefer cutting Social Security benefits for high-net-worth retirees over either raising their own taxes or cutting current retirees’ benefits across the board,” the survey’s “Key Findings” states.

“Means-testing Social Security has bipartisan supermajority support, including among high-income respondents.”

The survey shows there is widespread agreement—including among the affluent—that means testing is preferable to broad-based tax increases. When asked to choose between having their taxes increased by $1,500, having existing retiree benefits cut by $5,000, and cutting benefits to moderately high-net-worth retirees by $15,000, majorities uniformly choose the last option: 71% endorse this approach, including 75% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 66% of Republicans. Even 60% of those currently earning more than $200,000 per year prefer this to other options.

One recent proposal from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) advocates for a “Six Figure Limit,” which would cap total annual benefits at $100,000 for a married couple and $50,000 for an individual retiring at the normal retirement age. This idea appears to be gaining traction, with recent polling showing strong public support for capping benefits for wealthier retirees before slashing payments.

When given the choice to either raise taxes or cut benefits to address the immediate shortfall, Reagan survey respondents prefer the former by a two-to-one margin and is the preferred course of action among all partisan and ideological groups. Voters ages 18 to 29, however, were in favor of reducing benefits to existing workers; voters age 45 and higher all prefer to raise taxes.

Overall, the survey found support for specific and viable policy actions—reducing benefits, increasing taxes on current workers, raising the retirement age, and simply adding to the national debt—was lukewarm. The most popular of these options, raising the retirement age, had only 26% support.

About 40% of comments in the survey propose increasing taxes on the wealthy or corporations, or lifting the Social Security tax cap (under which only the first $184,500 of an individual’s wages are subject to Social Security taxes).

Other findings included that only 17% of comments suggested the shortfall was due to mismanagement or theft, and 13% want to reduce spending on national security and defense priorities to bolster entitlements.

In an interview this week with FOX Business, Dan Rothschild, director of the Center for Civics, Education, and Opportunity at the Reagan Institute, said, “Americans fall into two different camps: those who want to do something about it and those who want to push this off to the next generation.”

He noted a significant number of people surveyed did not want to make any changes at all, apparently driven by the perception that Social Security and Medicare troubles are the result of waste, fraud and abuse—which he dismissed.

“Not that it’s a problem inherent to a pay-go-system like this,” Rothschild said. “I see a massive gap between the way that Americans understand the way that entitlement programs are funded and the way that entitlement programs are actually funded.”

https://401kspecialistmag.com/...utm_campaign=weekend

Not Even Uncapping Payroll Tax Can Save Social Security, Tax Foundation Says

June 26, 2026 • Tracey Longo

Can Congress save Social Security simply by raising payroll taxes on higher-income Americans?

Not according to Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, who said in a new blog that a bipartisan proposal from Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, to eliminate Social Security's payroll tax cap would amount to one of the largest tax increases in decades while still failing to restore the program's long-term solvency.


To shore up the trust fund, the Warren-Moreno proposal would eliminate the payroll tax cap, currently set at $184,500 of wages in 2026, requiring higher-income workers to continue paying the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on earnings above that threshold without increasing their future benefits.

The quest for “fixes” comes as Social Security's financial outlook continues to deteriorate. The latest Social Security Trustees Report projected that the program's main retirement trust fund will be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032. At that point, Social Security would be able to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress intervenes.

Durante said the Warren-Moreno proposal sounds simpler than it actually is.

"While the proposal would generate substantial revenue, it would not fix the program's long-run insolvency," Durante said. Instead, he argued it would "impose a steep tax increase on higher earners, weigh on growth and depart from the program's original earned-benefit design."

According to the Social Security Administration's own analysis, eliminating the payroll tax cap without increasing benefits would return the program to annual surpluses for only about three years. Annual deficits would resume after that, and the proposal would close only about 67% of Social Security's long-term funding gap, leaving roughly one-third of the shortfall unresolved.

"The latest Trustees report shows that by the fourth quarter of 2032, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be able to pay only 78 percent of scheduled benefits," Durante noted. He added that Social Security's 75-year funding shortfall now totals about $25 trillion.

Durante also warned that the proposal could carry significant economic consequences.

He estimated that removing the payroll tax cap would reduce long-run gross domestic product by 1.5%, eliminate about 1.8 million jobs and raise about $3.2 trillion over the next decade on a conventional basis. After accounting for slower economic growth and taxpayer behavioral responses, however, the revenue gain would fall to roughly $1.5 trillion, he said.

The Tax Foundation also estimates the proposal would amount to the largest federal tax increase since the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, equal to about 0.83% of gross domestic product. As a result, in some jurisdictions, business owners could face combined marginal tax rates approaching 60%, creating incentives to shift compensation into fringe benefits or retirement contributions rather than taxable wages.

Durante also questioned whether the proposal would fundamentally change the character of Social Security.

The current system maintains a link—although an imperfect one—between payroll taxes workers pay during their careers and the benefits they receive in retirement. Lower-income workers receive higher replacement rates than higher-income workers, preserving the program's progressive structure while maintaining its earned-benefit design.

"Uncapping the payroll tax without adjusting the benefits ... would sever that link," Durante wrote. "Social Security would look less like the social insurance program it was designed to be and more like a conventional welfare program."

Rather than concentrating additional taxes on roughly 7% of workers whose earnings exceed the taxable wage base, Durante suggested broadening the payroll tax to include forms of compensation currently excluded from Social Security taxes, such as employer-sponsored health insurance.

He estimated that eliminating the payroll tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health coverage would generate about $1.8 trillion over the next decade while reducing long-run GDP by only about 0.2%—a significantly smaller economic impact than eliminating the payroll tax cap.

For financial advisors, the debate underscores how quickly Social Security has moved from a long-term policy issue to a more immediate retirement planning concern. With the trustees projecting trust fund depletion in just over six years and the program's long-term funding gap worsening by 16% in a single year, pressure is building on Congress to act.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/no...02ce404ce3-245236327

quote:

Not Even Uncapping Payroll Tax Can Save Social Security

No, but it's a start.

Congress needs to make some hard choices and, yes, it may affect their reelection chances. But, you all are there to do a job for the American people.

quote:

The current system maintains a link—although an imperfect one—between payroll taxes workers pay during their careers and the benefits they receive in retirement. Lower-income workers receive higher replacement rates than higher-income workers, preserving the program's progressive structure while maintaining its earned-benefit design.

"Uncapping the payroll tax without adjusting the benefits ... would sever that link," Durante wrote. "Social Security would look less like the social insurance program it was designed to be and more like a conventional welfare program."

This was sold to the American people as sort of a forced retirement savings program, not a welfare program.
If you break the link between contributions and benefits, you must admit that it's a welfare program.

It was a welfare program from the start. It was sold as a Retirement Savings plan. Almost immediately it became a tax. And the first recipients received exponentially more than they "deposited". Of course, many "paid in" and received no benefit.

I reviewed my statement a couple weeks ago. I have paid in over $300,000 in my 39 years of working. The NPV of my payments if I wait to age 70 and live to 87, is $275,000 today. That assumes I save in a 4% interest account. SS is a terrible investment. But the unwashed masses have no idea what NPV is or that SSA is providing them about half of what they would get if it was an actual investment account invested only in US Debt.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

This was sold to the American people as sort of a forced retirement savings program, not a welfare program.
If you break the link between contributions and benefits, you must admit that it's a welfare program.

Contributions and benefits are already substantially non-linear. It is already similar to welfare. Those who pay very little in will get a significant % payout, but the more one has paid in the lower the percentage return. Furthermore, SS benefits get income taxed at a very progressive rate, such that those who were mid to higher earners will pay much higher taxes in retirement, effectively reducing their SS even more. Medicare premiums also get scaled up aggressively with income.

Uncapping the payroll tax would be just the next level up of highly progressive taxation. Since the actual payroll tax is ~15%, it would be a huge tax increase for high earners. Without a doubt people will find alternate forms of compensation to avoid the tax.

It's a case where the letter of the law says it is one thing, but the politicians have always described it as something different.

While working, it annoyed me that taxes were taken out of every paycheck. The government consistently promised me a future payout which could be estimated on assumptions of my future earnings and inflation. I, along with pretty much everyone except the uber-wealthy, said it sucked but I have no choice but to plan around the taxes and the future payout.

As a retiree, my perspective has clarified a bit. I did my part for 50 years, paying in. Now I expect the government to honor their promises even though they were verbal promises. I am not going to starve if my SS goes to zero, but a lot of people are going to be tossed into poverty. They'll end up on actual welfare and Medicaid.

Congressmen are facing a career ending situation. They'll each be trying to position as a savior as the system crashes.

I hope it leads to retirees and working adults all voting the bastards out.

quote:

Originally posted by armedprof:
It was a welfare program from the start. It was sold as a Retirement Savings plan. Almost immediately it became a tax. And the first recipients received exponentially more than they "deposited". Of course, many "paid in" and received no benefit.

I reviewed my statement a couple weeks ago. I have paid in over $300,000 in my 39 years of working. The NPV of my payments if I wait to age 70 and live to 87, is $275,000 today. That assumes I save in a 4% interest account. SS is a terrible investment. But the unwashed masses have no idea what NPV is or that SSA is providing them about half of what they would get if it was an actual investment account invested only in US Debt.

George W. Bush wanted to partially privatize SS, in an optional way, over time.
That was the right idea, but he didn't put much into selling it. It was widely attacked by the left, and he dropped the idea.
Perhaps Trump will propose partial, or optional privatization again.
I'd rather have an actual account, in my own name, that I could invest than a promise of future payments.