High earners/savers: How do you feel about social security?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Got me thinking about this when I saw several articles today about a proposal to cap social security benefits at $100k per couple.
https://reason.com/2026/04/09/what-if-social-security-was-capped-at-100000-annually/ The article proposes capping Social Security benefits at $100,000 per household ($50,000 per individual) to help address the program's looming insolvency in the early 2030s. This change would save about $190 billion over ten years, close nearly half the long-term shortfall, and affect only the top 0.05% of retirees—who typically have massive private savings. It argues the cap aligns with Social Security's original goal of preventing poverty in old age, rather than subsidizing lavish retirements for the wealthy, and could serve as a modest step toward broader means-tested reform. If you have a high income and corresponding high savings, do you worry much about social security? Do you factor it into your retirement plan? How do you feel about the potential increase of the wage base (currently $184,500) and about the idea of capping your future benefits at $100k (top earners can get up to $120k as a couple these days)? |
Anonymous
|
We’re very high income and have stopped considering social security at all in our retirement plan.
Not because we know it won’t be there, but because we don’t know what it will look like, and it complicates what we have control over. So we plan without it- and then will consider it a bonus if it’s there when we retire. I know we are in a lucky spot, and would not have felt this way when we made a couple hundred |
Anonymous
| I worry about it because it supports many people in my extended family and is depended upon by a huge percentage of Americans. I don't worry about it for our finances -- if we still get it I will consider it a wonderful boon but I expect they're going to means test it before I retire and we'll fall off the list of eligible recipients. |
Anonymous
| We should have enough without. I don't understand why they have a wage cap. Just take it from all wages and that will solve the insolvency problems pretty quick. |
Anonymous
| This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much. |
Anonymous
| Squeezing donut hole families, not high earners. Release the cap and tax ALL income, that would be taxing the high earners |
Anonymous
| We don't have it as part of our plan and it would be best to get rid of it and get a refund of what we paid so we can use it for something useful |
Anonymous
| I've been a fan of means-testing SS ever since I started studying tax policy over 20 years ago. |
Anonymous
| I’m 50 and it’s been in my head my whole adult life that SS would go away. I don’t know why. Maybe that was a headline when I was young and it stuck? We’re high net worth and it’s in our financial plan but it seems silly. We aren’t relying in it. Our income and savings are high and if we fall into a category someday to not get SS at all, I would think that’s fine. |
Anonymous
I mean, it seems like a fairly low pain way to preserve SS. I honestly don't factor SS into my retirement at all, so it will feel like I won the lottery or something to now get another $100k per year in free money. The huge problem with SS is that the poorest people receive the worst benefits who really need the extra money, so one economist's idea is just give everyone $40k (I think the average right now overall is like $55K?). For rich people like me, that's $40k that I never factored into anything and for the people who really need it, they are now getting like 2x or 3x what they are currently getting. |
Anonymous
| If you means test social security, I'm going to stop saving and start spending. I'm not going to continue to sacrifice now to save so I can lose part of my retirement income while others live it up. |
Anonymous
It's already means tested, just at higher levels. How is your spending all your savings now going to help? Do you mean you will start working less and earning less? |
Anonymous
You wouldn't lose part of your retirement income. You would just get a lower return on investment than people who make less money. You'd still get 100k per year (assuming you're part of a couple) which is honestly a lot of money for a retiree with no dependents. But not enough for a lavish retirement with travel and nice housing and eating out all the time, so obviously to do that you'd have to save. Social security contributions are already capped so the system already avoids taxing most of high earners income for SS. If they got rid of the cap AND limited payouts to 100k, I could see the argument for what you are talking about. But since all your income above the cap is already untaxed for SS, I don't see how limiting total payouts to a perfectly reasonable amount (but not lavish amount) would deter you from continuing to save money in your individual non-SS accounts. |
Anonymous
No, it's not means tested. PP meant that if you're going to penalize him for saving money by cutting his social security benefits, then he's going to spend through his savings now rather than have them be the reason his social security income is reduced. |
Anonymous
| If it will cap at $100k per couple, I thought about taking it early at 62 years old. |