Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigercat
Regressive in that the more you make over 100k the less you pay in percentage-wise into the SS system. I understand why it works that way, I just find it a bit unfair, perhaps unnecessarily so.
It's a safety net for all of us, one that we are almost always required to participate in. Someone may make a million a year for a decade, and be near pennyless before 65 and still enjoy the safety net of an income from social security. I find it a somewhat inconsistent ideology, because its a system that provides the same benefits for all putting money into it, but the burden of maintaining it is not even evenly distrusted.
The problem is, social security is this way without allowing people to opt out of it. If it is to remain mandatory, perhaps the burden of funding it shouldn't be so disproportionate?
Anyway, some Democrats, mostly pretty far left like Moore, are starting to call for everyone to pay an equal percentage, so it may be a real debate sometime soon.
|
I still don't understand this. How is it a disproportionate burden? If I stop putting in money, I stop contributing to the amount I will receive from Social Security. This math is not correct, but to oversimplify it (both for simplification and because I don't know how it actually works), if I put in $100,000 to social security over my life, I get $1,000 a month in retirement. If I put in $50,000 to social security over my life, I get $500 a month in retirement. Is this not the case? Why do people need to keep contributing to Social Security beyond $103,000 in income? If they don't contribute past that, they're not taking money away from anyone but themselves. Correct?