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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. If we want to raise taxes for broader redistributive purposes (including funds needed for the government to sustain its social security commitments), then let's do that through legislative processes, through which we can decide what categories of individuals and entities should contribute more. But people contribute to SS with their own money and have a reasonable expectation that they will get it back (without substantial redistribution at that level).

Imagine if your employer provided a pension you contributed to and then changed the rules of the game such that your payments were reduced while less financial well off employees continued to receive their full payments. As SS is an earned right, not a social welfare benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

We paid over $600k in federal income taxes in 2025 on about $1.7M income. We are not the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happens on every thread about SS. People think they have paid into some kind of savings account and they are owed the money back. THAT'S NOT HOW SS WORKS.

The money that current workers pay in, supports current retirees (/disabled people). Your Social Security checks will be coming out of the deductions from paychecks of the people who are still working/paying in when you retire. There's not a big pile of money that you personally contributed to, tied to your SSN, waiting around 35 years for you to start withdrawing from it.

The first generation of people to receive Social Security never paid a dime into it. It's not a return on investment, it's a social program funded by current workers to keep old people from living in poverty.

This, plus all the people who think it would be fine to get rid of social security altogether for high earners since "they don't need it" and don't understand the whole point of the program is keep us from having millions of destitute elderly people in this country which would become a totally untenable situation very quickly. Social security is how most elderly people have homes and can feed themselves even after they are too old to work full time. We have to have some kind of plan for these folks, it's not like they just disappear after 65. Social Security and Medicare are what keep the US from being a total dystopia.

Also our taxes constantly pay for things we don't want. I don't want the war in Iran and didn't want the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq either, and yet the vast majority of my tax dollars over the 30 years I've been working have gone to pay for those wars. The idea that some tiny fraction of my taxes go to keep elderly people from being put out on the street to die (and coming with the promise that when I am old, if something were to happen to ruin me financially, I too would get some minimal income to keep me from becoming homeless or starving to death) is really not a source of upset for me.

Interesting how many supposedly high earners don't understand these basic notions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I wish they would just tax all earnings instead of having a cap there - that would also solve the problem!

Will it though (serious question)?

The ultra high net worth and above folks derive far more from investments and capital gains that aren’t subject to SS taxes.

it’s so discouraging when all
people understand and can focus on are the high W2 people when it’s the Form 1041 people who are the problem. Until Americans understand what and who the problem is this will never get fixed. We are so ignorant we kinda deserve this.

This. The people with earned income are not the problem.

Did you know the Uber rich take loans against their stock to live off of and don’t pay any taxes at all?

Yup. Buy Borrow Die. And here theses people are fighting over scraps on thru table and think more taxing of W2 wage slaves is the answer when high earning w2 wage slaves are already being milked dry, completely missing the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

You don’t math much do you? This is why we have the problems we have. Country full of ignoramous. I’m
not even going to waste my time explaining why their population size doesn’t matter. Dummies gonna dummy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We pay significantly more in federal tax than most people make in a year so no we don’t feel like we need to pay more or that we are not paying our “fair share.” Our effective tax rate this year was 33% so it’s not like we are avoiding taxes.

Agreed! For those of us who are HNW/UHNW and our wealth is from Income, we pay more than our "Fair share" and changes like this would affect us greatly. Happy to pay taxes for society, but not at 60%+ (overall taxes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m saving enough to retire at 45-50 and I’m counting on at least 75% of social security expected income starting at age 67. It’s not going away. The number might change but it’s foolish to not plan on getting some amount. The country would collapse if SS goes away: I’m talking riots and political violence.

Similar. We know it will be less but we expect something. Honestly we figure it will mostly go toward our Medicare supplement payments that we will be assessed based on income. Once spouse will receive the max and the other spouse will take 50% of the spouse because it will be more than their own.

Same for us! And yes, it will mostly go to medicare, as medicare with a gap plan and prescriptions plan will run us $1200+ per person due to our income in retirement. Despite having paid $500K+ into medicare over the years (that's an estimate, it's likely higher). So we have more than paid our "fair share" and the share of 1000s of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I wish they would just tax all earnings instead of having a cap there - that would also solve the problem!

Will it though (serious question)?

The ultra high net worth and above folks derive far more from investments and capital gains that aren’t subject to SS taxes.

it’s so discouraging when all
people understand and can focus on are the high W2 people when it’s the Form 1041 people who are the problem. Until Americans understand what and who the problem is this will never get fixed. We are so ignorant we kinda deserve this.

This. The people with earned income are not the problem.

Did you know the Uber rich take loans against their stock to live off of and don’t pay any taxes at all?

Even the WSJ editorial board thinks something has to be done about the fact that the ultra, ultra wealthy don't really pay that much in tax.

The don't believe in a wealth tax, but at the same time, they think the super wealthy need can't just fight every proposal or that's where it's headed.

We cannot just tax on someone's wealth yearly, unless you are going to give refunds for decreases in wealth (and that would just get too complicated). But I do agree, if you take loans against your wealth you should have to pay taxes on that. But I don't agree with taxing your entire wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

But most plans would simply tax those who are already paying 50%+ (to fed and state) more! They wouldn't touch those UHNW who get their "income" from loans against their wealth. So let's tax those loans, but even then only the loans. You cannot simply tax someone because they have wealth that is growing and nothing else. We already pay on that with Cap Gains (if mutual funds) and when we sell them (stocks and Mutual funds)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

You don’t math much do you? This is why we have the problems we have. Country full of ignoramous. I’m
not even going to waste my time explaining why their population size doesn’t matter. Dummies gonna dummy.

The super wealthy aren’t going to save us here. Taking more of their money isn’t the solution. And I don’t feel entitled to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

We paid over $600k in federal income taxes in 2025 on about $1.7M income. We are not the problem.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

We plan to tax at 62. Might as well maximize how much we get. We can reinvest what we get and if we live to 78+ we will definitely be ahead (possibly earlier). Given all the discussion of proposed changes we figure might as well get what we have put in before they take a portion away from us