General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSocial security to be whittled down from the top - brainwashing has begun via media
Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2026, 07:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Many articles have appeared touting the benefit fo a six figure cap to social security.
The articles all focus on hypothetical couples receiving $100,000 per year in social security benefits. They are appearing in a rash of magazines like measles in South Carolina.
The articles initially didnt mention singles receiving $50,000. They did not detail if the proposed caps would rise with inflation, or stay constant. They didnt mention the rising cost of Medicare.
Its always been the third rail but they've figured out a way to sell us down the river. Start with six figure incomes and articles about how much does so-and-so celebrity get in social security. No one feels sorry for 6-figure income earners in an economy that isnt paying well for new hires.
But yes, they are proposing a cap of $50K for singles, too. And in the more detailed proposals out of the right wing groups proposing it, it is clear that a vast swath will eventually be affected.
Funny that they are not proposing a cap on Medicare payment increases. So a $50K cap might be accompanied by a $5K or $10K mandatory Medicare expense. You dont have a choice about taking or not taking Medicare, after all.
The $50K cap is reduced by the same percentage per year before Full Retirement Age (FRA) that benefits do. So those who draw social security at 62 would be capped at 70% of $50K = $35K. I believe that an ex-wife filing on such a record might be capped at $17,500??
Footnotes are interesting:
4 The same cap would also apply to disability benefits. Although not detailed in this paper, special caps could be set for certain types of auxiliary benefits. For example, widow(er) benefits could be limited to $75,000 (halfway between the single and couple cap) and/or a secondary $87,500 cap could be applied on top of existing family maximums, mimicking the existing family maximum at 175% of the primary worker's PIA for high earners.
I shared this story with family members, and reactions were well, we have to do something and I dont think we can afford to give $100K to anyone or have cost of living increases when the system is broke.
Congratulations, right wing think tanks. Looks like youve managed to neuter the third rail. We are so screwed.
As a side note, i dont need to tell politics-savvy DU members this, but this seems once again to target the educated professional salaried class in general i.e., those in the big cities and also two-professional couples. (On edit: I removed comments about the impact of marriage on this, because I had some wrong assumptions. I still think the 2-professional couples are likely to be more negatively impacted by this, but its more complicated.)
The Madcap
(1,947 posts)My hatred of them grows every day.
misanthrope
(9,532 posts)They see those below upper middle class as disposable tools. And if you are past prime earning age, then you serve no purpose to their vision of the economy.
Lovie777
(23,232 posts)in both chambers.
Here hoping that shithole will be out, but alas, the next in line will be just as terrible.
Tim S
(270 posts)Anything else is a BS distraction. Have the oligarchs pay the same income percentage into Social Security as those who are currently under the cap. Simple as that.
Cosmocat
(15,446 posts)And run on saving SS.
Tell the actual story that it has worked as intended very successfully since its inception as a safe, reliable foundation for retirement for people who have worked for a living through out their lives, say that republicans/MAGA have always sought to destroy it because they hate working men and woman and commit to a well thought out balanced strategy to return it to solvency and allow for better COLA moving forward.
lostnfound
(17,561 posts)that shows the TRUTH about why Social Security isnt as healthy as it was 30 years ago.
This is what the billionaire-supported think tanks produce: https://www.crfb.org/projects/trust-fund-solutions
Looks beautiful.. flows quickly
seems factual and nonpartisan.
BUT. Any progressive view is absent as well as recognition of the gross inequality that has depleted the social security revenue.
Instead, they have a countdown clock to drive URGENCY and careful language that downplays what CUTS are being proposed, and does not address the reality of lowering payments while raising Medicare costs, higher inflation or higher housing costs.
Trumps con game is classic Shock Doctrine to create chaos and disable opposition so that an austerity agency can be pushed through.
They will succeed.
Unless miracles happen.
Igel
(37,568 posts)It's expanded its reach and scope numerous times.
OASI is not the OASI as envisaged at its inception.
In recent memory, both presidents and parties have done things to weaken Social Security for short-term political gain. Anything that increases outflow without increasing inflow to match, esp. when the trajectory is already to insolvency, just brings insolvency closer.
lostnfound
(17,561 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2026, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Stories needed:
Why and how the social security system health was damaged by the housing / market manipulation in 2008.
How minimum wage increases have improved solvency
How much borrowing is done for other purposes (like oil wars) and what would that look like
Consequence of immigrants who pay in but dont receive benefits
Projected year in which payments exceed current revenue, for either Old Age Social Insurance (OASI) or for combined Old Age plus Disability Insurance (SSDI)
Report: OASI. SSDI combined
2006: 2042. 2040
2007: 2042. 2041
2008: 2041. 2041
2009: 2037. 2037
2010: 2037. 2037
2011: 2036. 2036
2012: 2036. 2033
2013: 2035. 2033
2014: 2034. 2033
2015: 2034. 2034
2016: 2035. 2034
2017: 2035. 2034
2018: 2034. 2034
2019: 2034. 2035
2020: 2034. 2035
2021: 2033. 2034
2022: 2034. 2035
2023: 2033. 2034
2024: 2033. 2035
2025: 2033. 2034
wishstar
(5,831 posts)but now suggesting that a reasonable solution to financing shortfall is for higher earners with bigger payments to be subject to cap (when the highest SS payouts most likely to be capped would be those who delay filing to get higher payments.)
Recent surveys in news indicate increase in people wanting to claim benefits earlier, not later.
Among my friends and relatives, a significant number who delayed claiming their benefits either didn't live long enough to draw anything or only drew benefits for a short period of time. Early beneficiaries are usually ahead for several years.
chowmama
(1,106 posts)They need it for the war. Or the monuments. Or whatever else the malignant moron needs to make himself feel better.
If they're really vicious, they'll keep on calling it 'Social Security'. Because, you know, he's just making our country more secure. Not.
Just go ahead and start calling it a new tax. That's what it'll be, and it's against anything that the MAGAs have ever stood for. (And I use the word 'stood' sarcastically.)
Uncle Joe
(65,287 posts)more efficient, and moral to just eliminate the cap on FICA.
That would also be in standing with the Preamble to the Constitution that the government should"promote the general welfare" as opposed to a specific group.
Thanks for the thread lostnfound
RandomNumbers
(19,217 posts)especially if that first figure is a 1 and the earner has a family, and more especially if that's a combined 2 incomes and the family works (and thus probably lives) in an expensive area.
Just sayin'
Maybe won't get much sympathy from the below-6-figure crowd, and that's fair ... just consider that "6 figures" is a really broad brush when it combines just-over-6 with just-below-7 and everything in between.
lostnfound
(17,561 posts)Im in my forever home and my insurance just went from $6,000 to $9,000 this year; property taxes jumped, and electric is supposed to climb 18% in 2 years.
Im just starting retirement. Bad timing. But Ive had bad timing for everything ever since trump got in the White House.