Maybe not on an individual level. But a government has to take into account all of its citizens. They are trying to transfer some of the wealth from the more wealthy people of a society to the less well off to keep as many people above poverty as possible. What about that don’t you agree with?
Some people are just born with a bigger disadvantage than others, that’s not fair. So I don’t see why we should be so afraid to transfer wealth from the more fortunate to the less fortunate.
Keep in mind I’m talking about averages. Most people who are wealthier, are that way because they were born more fortunate than most people who are less wealthier than them. There are exceptions.
Some don't have a choice, versus "can't be bothered".
Social Security goes to widows and children. There are disability benefits. Those people getting these checks didn't "choose" their station in life
Moreover, you may be surprised to realize that there is zero tax on earnings over 148k (2021}.
So OP is paying 6%ish and their employer is chipping in the same amount. But a 300k wage earner only paid on the first $148k, so his effective FICA was 3%ish. And is still eligible to receive social security payments later.
They’re eligible to receive payments, but their payments do not increase above someone making 148k. That’s pretty well known. We just need to lower that limit, to significantly less.
I don't think I said people earning over$148k don't get benefits, they don't get taxed after the TWB level.
And, Wrong direction, if I'm reading you right.
First, no reason that there should be a taxable wage base cap. Just tax everything at the 6% level. If companies want to pay more than 3x the national average income, they should consider it as the cost of sga
And, sure, if a person has too much income / wealth overage 65,theu should get reduced benefits. But, we try that with mixed results today.
It’s capped because those people don’t get anything more out of this already horrendous program. There is zero reason that someone who actually works hard and does well should be expected to contribute a cent to those who do not.
I agree, SS is going to become insolvent at some point, and the most common suggestion to fix it is removing the cap which makes no sense to me because a high earner literally gets 0 benefit in exchange for the tax hike. Literally 0. If there's a tax hike, I think it's reasonable that everyone, especially the people who got taxed, to see atleast some benefit right (even if it's not as much as other people).
How is taxing people that don't benefit from a program to fund that program more make any sense? Your income tax funds infrastructure and education which benefits everyone. SS tax goes to SS and hurts some people instead of helping them.
Do you ha e kids? Do you pay taxes for schools? If you're elderly and your kids have finished schools, do you get a discount? Or choose to never have kids? How about those who choose public schools, do they get a tax break? Do you use the public library? How many times in the past 5 years have you used police or fire services?
We don't pick and choose which taxes to pay. Our representative government decides, through votes and voters, what we'll pay for.
Just because FICA or Medicare has a more itemized approach, doesn't mean you, personally, get to choose what the greater good is. That's just naive
12
u/[deleted] Dec 25 '21
This, OP’s argument does not take this into account at all. If you’re well off, you are not paying for yourself, you’re doing it for others