General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA proposal would cap Social Security at $100,000. Will it fly?
A Washington think tank proposed capping annual Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples as a way to shrink a looming deficit in the retirement trust fund.
The idea might sound reasonable enough: Only the wealthiest Americans can collect $100,000 a year from Social Security, a federal program that was meant to ease poverty, not pad wealth.
But the Six Figure Limit idea has drawn swift rebukes from retirement advocates, who see any cap or cut in Social Security benefits as a slippery slope.
The March 24 paper comes from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a centrist, nonpartisan think tank in the nations capital. It suggests a $100,000 cap on the total annual benefit for a couple at full retirement age, and a $50,000 limit for a single retiree, starting this year.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/proposal-cap-social-security-100-174013004.html
Fiendish Thingy
(23,285 posts)If the withholding cap is lifted, SS will be solvent for the foreseeable future, for generations.
QueerDuck
(1,740 posts)This is the correct and most logical answer and solution.
Shrek
(4,428 posts)The promise of Social Security as originally conceived was that you'd pay in during your working years with the understanding that you'd get it back during retirement.
If people are paying more while working with no prospect of a later return then it's just a straight transfer program and would lose a lot of popular support.
ProfessorGAC
(76,787 posts)I've been hearing that for decades, but I've never heard a good reason we why.
The cap could go up on pay-in, without increasing benefits using exact same logic that justifies progressive tax rates.
I simply can't accept that the ceiling on withholding can be raised with raising the ceiling on benefits.
It's lazy, Heritage, Heartland, Cato reasoning intended to cut off discussion about upward adjustments to the cap.
Been that way since at least the 80s.
Shrek
(4,428 posts)Going from "earned benefit" to "progressive wealth transfer" requires very different arguments to those paying the taxes.
kysrsoze
(6,446 posts)Problem solved, without screwing retirees over.
bucolic_frolic
(55,220 posts)Has it ever been closely compared to annuities? For the money you put in, what do you get back? You might win if you live a long life. But plenty of people put in and die young or die before they collect. I think the payment upon death is minimal.
If they cap payments as the article states, they might consider a lump sum payment like they do if you take a retire early offer from a company.
SS was started to help people with rent, heat, food in old age. Now on average they live longer. And SS is only part of the old age problem. There's also obviously medical care and the costs of household, caregivers. It's all become very complicated with all the laws enacted over the years to pay for it. COLA was not the greatest ideas. It should have been more generous with poorer recipients, with a smaller increase for the well off. IMHO.
There. That should start a fight.
Johnny2X2X
(24,224 posts)Couple making $5K each from Social Security are not rich, this is money that is theirs and they paid into the system in order to collect.
Raise the cap on it, but keep the benefits cap the same.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,865 posts)100,000 divided by two is 50K.
Johnny2X2X
(24,224 posts)$5K per month isn't rich.
The real rich get regular people to hate the upper middle class. People close to maxing out their Social Security benefit amount worked hard, they are not the enemy. It's the people making over $1M a year from other sources that don't need all their social security, it should be means tested.