Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?
Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?
Anonymous wrote:I never heard of anybody getting 100k plus. Is that married couples where both were super high earners?
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 like that idea.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.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people above a certain income must participate at all doesn't make sense
Anonymous wrote:We would prefer to not rely on it and get a refund
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.