786
Social Security can be saved. Scrap the cap! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 day ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/workreform@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Nautalax@lemmy.world 2 points 16 minutes ago

Per Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget scrapping the cap would postpone the trust running out to either 2054 or 2058 depending on whether or not those who pay the now higher taxes would also receive correspondingly higher benefits or if the benefits remain capped. So an extra 20 or 24 years since presently the trust is slated to run out in 2034. When the trust runs out, benefits are going to be cut to match the money coming in which would mean about ~20% reduction to benefits.

Good start and punts the issue off for another generation, but it doesn’t quite save social security all the way.

[-] Burninator05@lemmy.world 20 points 16 hours ago

While someone making millions should be taxed at 100% for SS like most of us, think about how much would be in the fund if capital gains were taxed that way as well.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Enough to lower the social security age from 67 years to 6-7 weeks gestational age. Remove the cap, include cap gains, and UBI becomes a thing.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

Well, no.

The thing is, if everyone's retired and nobody's working, there's no productivity, meaning there's either no money, or money is meaningless

It could certainly be reduced by a pretty good number of years though. Enough that you start your retirement when your body and your mind is still "all there", you get to enjoy it.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 10 minutes ago

The thing is, if everyone’s retired and nobody’s working,

Where do you get the idea that nobody is working with UBI?

UBI isn't supposed to be your entire, or even your primary source of income. The most basic concept of UBI is supposed to be enough for a roof over your head, rice and beans in your belly, and that's about it. It's supposed to cover the absolute essentials, not your entire lifestyle. It is supposed to remove the desperation of subsistence.

When a man is drowning, he'll do anything to survive. When his lungs start filling with water, he'll drown his wife and kids just for one more breath of air. When a worker is desperate, they will take any work on any exploitative terms that are offered, just to put a meal in their belly. That desperation drags down wages and conditions for everyone. The fundamental purpose of UBI is to ensure that even the most desperate among us aren't forced into exploitation, and in doing so, drag everyone down with them.

There is no shortage of labor. We have a massive excess of labor. We have so much labor available that even though everybody currently needs to work, wages are so low that nobody has any money to spend on anything but essentials. The economy is stagnating because everybody is working, but nobody is buying anything.

UBI is a long-term solution to this untenable situation.

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 20 points 21 hours ago

The people making more than 184k do not want to be a part of our society, it seems.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

Sure, and also social security is the opposite of need based as well. So those people who paid tax on a tiny fraction of their income also see the largest checks after retirement age when they need zero percent of the money. Meanwhile, people who worked their whole lives and paid social security tax on 100% of their earnings don't get enough back from social security to be able to continue to live.

[-] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago

Usually it works the other way around, where people don't start paying a tax until their salary reaches a certain level. Somehow they've inverted this to favor the rich? Why aren't people rioting?

[-] Goodeye8@piefed.social 35 points 1 day ago

Because people have finite time. Most of it goes to work, some of it goes to sleep, the remaining time gets spent on not looking like a hoarding caveman (or if you have kids, kids). So if you get an hour of actual free time in your day you probably have it pretty good. Now, do you want to spend that hour on politics or do you want to chill from your day?

Keeping up with politics is a luxury most people don't have.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 11 points 1 day ago

Right, democratic agency requires not only rights, but the ability to actualize those rights. Just like elections are meaningless if you don't have the freedom to engage with and debate political questions, so are those freedoms meaningless if you don't have the time, energy or capacity to reduce those freedoms to practice.

[-] Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 1 points 18 hours ago

Or don’t want, I stress at my job, stress about finances, stress about family, last thing I’m stressing over is what’s going on in the world. I’ll watch my very local news to see what the dog of the week is but that’s about it

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 day ago

Slow boil

[-] jtrek@startrek.website 25 points 1 day ago

Yes. The tax should be progressive where the first $x are not taxed, and the rate ramps up as income increases.

It's ass-backwards like this.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Fuck this cunt she isn't wrong but she rat fuck Sanders for her own ambitions so she can fuck off.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 5 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 12 hours ago

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.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

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.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 44 minutes 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.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

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

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours 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.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours 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.

[-] gingersaffronapricat@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

The faces around her are so expressive. I wish i had the energy to give them thought bubbles

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Imagine, for a moment, what a tiny, insignificant fraction of Elon Musk's income must go to Social Security. And yet the cunt goes on JRE to say it should be abolished.

Billionaires shouldn't be respected as human beings.

[-] rayyy@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

So? Your ruling oligarchs don't care and they tell most peons how to vote. Now get back to slaving away.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
786 points (98.3% liked)

Work Reform

17209 readers
3455 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
kat_angstrom@lemmy.world