SS Maximum contribution

[Tadpole]

The ethics of "just removing the earnings cap" are atrocious. If you consider that SS has an unearned "Welfare" component subsidizing low earners and for various beneficiaries who didn't "earn" their benefit and it also has a contributory retirement component - then - the entire burden for the "welfare" component is paid for by just upper wage earners. If the "welfare" component is a public good (I think most would agree although perhaps quibble on the magnitude), then it should be paid for from public budget. Upper middle class workers shouldn't be forced to pay the entire burden for lower middle class workers. Raising or eliminating the cap is just adding insult to injury for an existing bad funding mechanism. I don't like getting into class warfare (because I mostly don't agree with it), but the whole SS program with it's regressive payback from taxes only on "earned" income must have the .1%ers laughing at getting totally off the hook on the biggest welfare entitlement program there is.

Let's see if I understand what you are saying. The guy that "rides the cap" all his career is to subsidize the "welfare" using tax on 100% of his salary. But it unfair for the guy that makes $1M a year to pay tax on more than 13% of his salary. I say this just to show that fairness depends on perspective.

 

[scrabbler1]

My argument against raising the SS earnings cap is that it is always proposed without raising the benefits cap, as the cap applies to SS's inflows (FICA taxes) and benefits, establishing a link, albeit not the strongest one, between one's wage income and benefit checks. Raising the income cap without raising the benefit cap is saying to those who end up paying more, "Those extra FICA taxes you pay won't help you collect a dime more in SS benefits, but thanks for the extra dollars." SS already replaces a greater portion of one's wage income for lower income earners, which is fine. But raising the cap on the income side without any change on the benefits side would be establishing a zero percent bend point, something I find very unfair.

 

[CardsFan]

My argument against raising the SS earnings cap is that it is always proposed without raising the benefits cap, as the cap applies to SS's inflows (FICA taxes) and benefits, establishing a link, albeit not the strongest one, between one's wage income and benefit checks. Raising the income cap without raising the benefit cap is saying to those who end up paying more, "Those extra FICA taxes you pay won't help you collect a dime more in SS benefits, but thanks for the extra dollars." SS already replaces a greater portion of one's wage income for lower income earners, which is fine. But raising the cap on the income side without any change on the benefits side would be establishing a zero percent bend point, something I find very unfair.

Let's be honest. Most of us here have paid, and will continue to pay, more than our "fair Share" in taxes (all taxes, not just FICA). There is a portion of our taxes that funds people who don't work, won't work and look for ways to avoid work.

At least someone collecting SSI has put a minimum of time into working.

Now, I also believe there needs to be some effort to crack down on the number of "disabilty" claims on SSI. From my first hand expose, many are quite valid, and many are not.

 

[whatnot]

I am not sure if "At least someone collecting SSI has put a minimum of time into working." is correct. If a stay at home wife never worked (outside of home), she can collect 50% of her spouse's SSI benefits. If he dies before her, then she can collect 100% of his benefit. This is my understanding - so correct me if I am wrong.

 

[athena53]

I am not sure if "At least someone collecting SSI has put a minimum of time into working." is correct. If a stay at home wife never worked (outside of home), she can collect 50% of her spouse's SSI benefits. If he dies before her, then she can collect 100% of his benefit. This is my understanding - so correct me if I am wrong.

In theory, the cost of Spousal/Survivor benefits is built into the FICA withholding rate.

I'd wondered about what would happen to the benefit formula with the proposals to eliminate the wage cap. Didn't realize the plan was to, essentially, establish a zero- rate bendpoint. The 15% level is bad enough.

 

[Pilot2013]

And if we could revamp the entire system overnight, the concept has merit. In the meantime, the system we have is what we deal with.

This is what I was thinking about with my original thought. Changing the whole system is HIGHLY UNLIKELY in todays environment. I have been over the cap for a while, and although far from the left view of things, have no problem in a short term solution of raising the cap in order to avoid reducing my future benefits by ~30%. As far as raising the benefit because of raising the cap, that's counter to the whole reason of raising the cap, unless the increase is 25% of the total gain, and then you just have to increase the cap that much more...

 

[Secondact]

I hit the cap every September it seems and probably for the past 15 years. My wife, an ER'd RN, never came close even with overtime.

 

[Dog]

I hit maximum 15 years out of 41 years that I paid into SS. It was pretty much from 1991 to 2004 when I was in sales and sales management positions. I typically saved the extra $ just like I saved most of my sales comp. checks. Helped with the ER in 2014

 

[tdv2]

23 out of 30. Close on 4 the off years.

 

[kaudrey]

I hit it every year, for about the last 12 years or so.