• sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    9 months ago

    For some fucked up reason SS tax is only up to something like $165k income. So a textbook regressive tax. Ridiculous. Don’t put a limit on it. There. The shit is funded until climate change creates starvation and mass human migrations of such size that there is a break down the social structure.

    • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Aktchually… SS benefits are pretty progressive. Those with lower lifetime earnings will see a much higher income replacement percentage than higher earners up to that $165k-ish limit.

      Lifting the taxable income cap would not fully eliminate the funding gap. We’d also have to pay out more to those higher earners too. If we didn’t, it would change SS from insurance to wellfare. And that would lead to (Republican) lobbiests fighting even harder to privatize, limit, or end SS.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Plus don’t forget there are special rules for taxing social security benefits, where most recipients are not taxed but as your income increases, more of your benefits are subject to income tax. Also quite progressive.

      • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Benefits may be progressive but the funding is regressive. Actually enduring the prerequisite significantly harder life? Also regressive.

        Lifting the cap would increase funding.

        It is welfare regardless, but lifting the cap and then paying the extra revenue out to people who don’t need it would not do much, so good call there.

        We are perfectly capable of taking care of one another, so technical explanations of why people actually have to suffer because yacht construction stimulates GDP are inherently suspect.