High earners/savers: How do you feel about social security?

[Anonymous]

We would prefer to not rely on it and get a refund

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people above a certain income must participate at all doesn't make sense

[Anonymous]

One of the reasons why social security has been politically popular for so long is that it isn’t, by and large, a social welfare program like Medicaid, SNAP, and welfare benefits generally. It’s still relatively progressive. I understand there are things that need to happen to the program in order to keep it fiscally solvent but I think capping benefits is a mistake regardless of whether a person will ‘need’ those funds in retirement because the less people see it potentially benefiting them; the less political support it will have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the reasons why social security has been politically popular for so long is that it isn’t, by and large, a social welfare program like Medicaid, SNAP, and welfare benefits generally. It’s still relatively progressive. I understand there are things that need to happen to the program in order to keep it fiscally solvent but I think capping benefits is a mistake regardless of whether a person will ‘need’ those funds in retirement because the less people see it potentially benefiting them; the less political support it will have.

+1
I find it annoying to pay 6.2% of the first $180k of my income in ss taxes (and spouse as as sole proprietor pays 12.4%) but at least I'll get something out of it, and I'll get more than the person who paid less into than I did. Which is fair.

[Anonymous]

Oh God, the fights we will have, if we turn social security into yet another means-tested social benefit. And really, how much money would we end up saving anyway as it starts to become a plaything for Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We would prefer to not rely on it and get a refund

+1 million

Government and bureaucrats just take take take. It’s all free money for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people above a certain income must participate at all doesn't make sense

Because it’s basically the government 401k. You pay into it with your own money and you’re entitled to get it back.

If you want to change the system and just raise taxes on everyone and then apply a means test to determine who gets money from the government in their old age, fine. But that’s not how it’s set up right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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)?

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.

I like that idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We would prefer to not rely on it and get a refund

+1 million

Government and bureaucrats just take take take. It’s all free money for them.

I tend to agree, but we do need some sort of forced pension. Unfortunately, the government will always be left holding the bag when personal disasters happen, people run out of money, and some people just act in an irresponsible manner. I think social security serves a valuable insurance purpose that recognizes a lot of faults with human nature. But I would certainly run it differently, and be more willing to allow for a wider range of returns. I would absolutely never turn it into a social welfare program. That would destroy it.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it’s fair for the government to take money out of people’s paychecks for decades, promise a certain monthly return if they live to old(er) age, and then take that promise away.

I also don’t believe that career politicians (many of whom have no private sector/real world experience and live off the government dime in a dozen ways) are the most equipped to deal with this. Hence our current dilemma.

Just give me back my money and leave me be.

[Anonymous]

I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?

[Anonymous]

I factor it in, but also plan for it to be means tested out or otherwise done away with. We are starting to lean to taking it out at 67 rather than waiting until 70 (which is only a couple of years away for us) to at least start getting something before it potentially gets means tested or disappears. I have been self employed for the last 15 years, and DH for 20 years, so we pay 12.4% into SS every year so i'd like o get something back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?

It would likely be couples who expect to wait until 70 and likely hit maximum contributions most of their life.

As an example, my parents are getting about 43K a year, one who worked his whole life and waited until 70, one would had sporadic employment and collected at 63. This represents most of their income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?

I am projected to get around $55k/year if I wait until 70 (5 years from now). I have paid in at the max level for at least 25 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?

This was my reaction. Who the heck is getting this much money from SS??

I didn't even know this was possible so likely wouldn't notice if I didn't get it.