Is there any study which shows what will be the financial condition of Social security fund if ?

[Joel thakkar]

we increase the income cap from around $100k to $2M without increasing maximum benefits? I mean currently the maximum amount of social security benefit check is $2500 per month. If we just keep on increasing it as per inflation and not suddenly increase the max. benefit to a high number as income cap is increased?

[Hoyt]

1. Clearly that would add a bunch to the "trust fund," not sure I would agree to capping benefits.

Playing with benefit schedule, or charging a smaller percentage without increasing benefits, would be acceptable.

And, no, it wouldn't matter to me at my income level, but taking 15% of someone's income for SS and giving no additional benefits ain't right no matter how filthy rich they are.

Now, raising general income tax rates on higher income brackets needs to be considered, and is entirely different. An accumulated wealth tax is acceptable too.

[Joel thakkar]

2. It won't matter much to them

If they are earning $ 2 Million every year, it won't matter them if they get $2500 or $3500 in SS Check...

If we really had to increase the benefit, then we can increase it slightly on maximum side and increase it mostly on minimum side. In this way, poor people can get more benefit.

[Hoyt]

5. Like I said, there are better ways to take it. There are lots of poor who aren't on SS.

If we didn't have other needs - education, benefits for non SS poor, food stamps, expanded unemployment benefits, Healthcare, jobs for younger folks, and more - wouldn't matter. But that is not reality.

[eridani]

3. You could scrap the benefit cap and replace it with a very slowly ascending slope

Remember, you have to apply for benefits in person. If you're rich enough, that is probably not the best use of your time.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. I would be impacted by that

But I don't care. I've posted here and written the late Lautenberg, Menendez, and Congressman Lance that they need to tax my full income for Social Security.


Let me break it down for you - I have not paid into SS since my second paycheck in June. I receive an annual bonus each February that cause me to max out between May and July each year.

Think about that. If not for SS - then think about the number of school lunches that money could buy. . . SNAP or TANF for someone who is hungry or in the verge of being cold. Aside from being a high earner - I'm married to a man who owns his own business and is a juried artist.

We won't miss that money. Any couple whining that it will leave them penniless is point blank - lying. At that income level it won't make you blink an eye.

I'm not posting this out of arrogance - and I know there is resentment (justified as far as I'm concerned) towards the affluent, rich, and wealthy. Even though we live in one of the wealthiest counties in America - I have expanded my UU "mission" out to the food pantry out here - out of necessity. Tonight after work we will be going to Shop Rite and loading up to donate to the Flemington pantry. There is NEED everywhere.

Now if we can donate food, money, and time (I volunteer at two pantries now) - we can afford to pay more so that our elderly don't need food pantries or SNAP. This is basic folks.

It's simple and basic and Americans are suffering for absolutely no reason.


Now tax me. Get damn angry and tax me.

[alc]

6. a few studies with greatly different outcomes

Most people making $2M have significantly lower SS-taxable income. If you extend the tax to cap gains it will be significantly more revenue but there would be a big industry popping up to help people with $2M/year avoid cap gains the way Warren Buffett does.

The studies I've seen all have an agenda. Some say extend to cap gains and assume nobody does anything to avoid the tax and you end up with significantly more revenue.

Others assume it stays income-only and the more you increase the cap, the more people transfer salary income to other types of income. And it ends up a wash.

Mathematically it's hard to "fix" SS by raising the cap. It only applies to a small part of the population, and that part gets smaller the more your raise it (3% make over $250k). When you multiply by a small number (i.e. 0.03) you need a big number to come up with something significant. And the bigger you make that number the more people will try to avoid it (people with means to hire accountants and distribute "income&quot .

If you double the revenue from all of those 3% you make very little difference in overall revenue (single digit increase). Even if you collect 20x as much from them ($100k to $2M) you only increase revenue by 60% (actually, once you get to income over $1M it's much smaller than 3% so the increase is nowhere near 60%).

You get a lot more "bang" with small changes to the large number (i.e. 0.97) and most of those people can't avoid it. Not that it's right, just that cap changes are not a magic cure.