884
Social Security can be saved. Scrap the cap! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Framing social security this way is dangerously misleading. Yes, the amount you put in is capped, but the amount that you get to take out when you are old is also capped. I fully believe that taxes need to be progressive, but social security is not a tax, it’s a retirement fund.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax.

    It is a tax. That is a fact. That sentence is literally from the social security website https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/how-is-social-security-financed.html as of August 15th 2026.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Unlike most other taxes, you only benefit from social security if you've paid into it. And the amount you receive is proportional to the amount you put in. Practically, it's far closer to a retirement account or pension than a tax.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Social security is not a retirement fund.

    If I have an actual retirement fund that I contribute to every month for my entire adult life, and I die the year before I retire, the entirety of that retirement fund goes into my estate. It is ultimately bequeathed to my legal heirs.

    If I die a year before collecting social security, my heirs will get nothing of what I paid in. The government keeps that money, and pays it out to other social security beneficiaries. (I am not married, and my children are over 19 and not disabled.)

    A pension, maybe, but Social Security is in no way comparable to a retirement fund.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    A pension, maybe, but Social Security is in no way comparable to a retirement fund.

    By that logic, a pension is in no way comparable to a retirement fund, which is a rediculous statement that no one would agree with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    A pension also means different things depending on where you are.

    In my country, your pension comes from multiple parts. The national pension has a "citizens pension" portion that everyone gets, then the next bit depends on how many years you worked. Then there's something that's sort of our equivalent of a 401k and that's called a voluntary pension fund.

    I'd never heard of a pension being paid by your employer until I started hanging out online. Seemed ridiculous, as they could just go out of business or something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    A pension is not a retirement fund either, from the perspective of the worker and the worker's family. A pension is paid to the worker for the remainder of the worker's life, regardless of the amount the worker has paid into the fund. If they put in 20 years worth of payments and live 40 years, they collect 40 years of payments. If they live only two months, they only collect two months of payments.

    I would agree that social security is comparable to a pension or retirement insurance, in that the payout is not necessarily commensurate with the pay-in.

    A 401k is a fund. If the worker puts in 20 years of payments, and only lives two months, the worker's heirs receive 19 years and 10 months worth of payments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    401ks directly replaced pensions for most Americans. It's disingenuous to claim they're "in no way comparable."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Yeah? Cars replaced horses for most Americans.

    The mechanism of operation is so different that they cannot be considered the same thing. Even though they are used for similar purposes, they are not reasonably comparable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Umm... No? The monthly amount you receive is based on your earnings, yes. However (And please correct me if I'm wrong) the benefit continues until the death of you and any qualified person (spouse, ex spouse, minor children, disabled children, disabled parent) who survives you. You and/or they could be collecting that benefit on your 150th birthday.

    Alternatively, if you die before retiring, without qualified survivors, social security pays nothing to you or your estate.

    It's not a "fund". That is a pension, or a retirement insurance program. The taxes that pay for it are premium payments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Social security is a social safety net, not a personal retirement fund. That's what my pension, 401k, etc are for.

    When social security was instituted with the retirement age of 65, the average life expectancy was 63. It was only "retirement" income for people who had lived longer than expected and would otherwise be living on the street - especially since so many had lost their savings in the Depression - but retirement savings wasn't its primary purpose.

    But people started living longer and stopped saving (either because they knew they had social security coming, or because we suck at planning ahead, or because corporate America sucks donkey balls and people are always living paycheck-to-paycheck) and it became something it wasn't meant to be.

    It should provide income for retirees who have no other income, but like other social programs it should be based on need. Super rich people should pay into jlot just like everyone else, but they shouldn't be able to collect it because they don't need it and it's not intended to take the place of personal savings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    I disagree with the "based on need". That's "means testing", and converts the program from a simple social entitlement program into charity. It immediately builds in resentment for "successful" people being compelled to support "failures". Means Testing is the underlying problem that creates and systematically oppresses the poverty class.

    Social security should be provided equally to every person of "retirement age", regardless of need or whether they have actually retired or are continuing to work.

    Social Security should be moving toward becoming Universal Basic Income.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent