Social Security was designed to have the cost shared by worker and employer with all workers treated equally. SS provides a benefit to workers, but also to employers by supporting refreshing of the workforce.
We all know that beyond SS workers should be saving for retirement. Why shouldn’t all employers participate in those savings? Call it savings or taxes, it all goes to the same purpose.
Increase Initial Retirement Benefits by 2%
Increase Payroll Tax by 4% with employers paying 2.5% and workers 1.5% additional taxes
Social Security remains solvent for at least 75 years‼️
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“SS provides a benefit to workers, but also to employers by supporting refreshing of the workforce.”
It’s called superannuation generically, and ,specifically, in Australia. In general, encourage older, less productive workers to retire to make room for a younger, more productive work force. I believe this was the reason for the first corporate pensions (American Express, 1875).
Also the reason the military and many police and firemen can retire with 50 percent of Final Average Salary (and health benefits) after only 20 years; to maintain a younger, healthier, more productive workforce.
Another feature of Social Security is a benefit to all of us, richer, poorer, older or younger; economic and social stability, according to FDR:
“This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete. It is a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions. It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”
It’s also why I am amazed that the knee jerk reaction to “save Social Security is so often to raise the retirement age.
LikeLike
FDR couldn’t read the future when he said ” It will act as a protection to future Administrations against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy. The law will flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation. It is, in short, a law that will take care of …” He would be amazed at the deficit spending and much of it for various relief programs.
LikeLike
Yes i believe he would.
LikeLike
“FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes. How stiff? FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.
The year before, steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary.”
“Roosevelt’s relentless campaign to cap top incomes kept that debate focused on taxing the rich. Conservatives didn’t want to do that taxing. They wanted a national sales tax, as do many conservatives today. But FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never let that regressive sales tax notion get traction.”
“So what does FDR’s debt ceiling battle teach us? Maybe this: We really can have a more equal America. We just need to fight for it.”
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others
LikeLike
2% increase in initial benefits. Why so penurious with the lower wage retirees? Why not 5 or 10%?
The lower wage earners don’t accumulate any significant amount of retirement income otherwise so a boost in SS benefits is equitable.
LikeLike
It can be any percent people want to pay for. Not sure how you define lower wage vs poor, but the lower income get the higher benefit in terms of replacing working income and likely pay little or no income taxes. There could be other fair changes too, like no COLA for anyone who retires with the maximum SS benefit at the time they retire. That savings could be diverted to higher lower income COLAs. Anyone earning the maximum taxable wage cap should be able to save for retirement.
LikeLike
I’m just assuming that most lower wage folks don’t have a lot to fall back on at retirement, especially if they have a long history of lower wages. Some may have an inheritance or even a pension but that would be a much smaller number. I realize they don’t pay income taxes but that is different than Social Security taxes. I agree that anyone at the maximum wage cap should have other sources of income at retirement.
LikeLike
Why aren’t you in Washington?
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Along with that idea, there should be a raise in the income cap for the payments. There is no reason it can’t be $1M or more. To think an entertainment or sports person making more than $1M pays the same into their SS payments as the avg worker is very disappointing.
LikeLike
Why is it disappointing? Their eventual benefit is based only on the taxable wage base applied to all. In addition, the benefit formula provides a higher benefit as a percentage of earning to lower income workers. The idea you are suggesting turns SS more into a form of welfare.
LikeLike
“…the lower income get the higher benefit in terms of replacing working income…”
Andrew Biggs* says the lower pensions for low earners are sufficient because they are “used to being poor.” He, and others, also say that, even though they get a higher replacement rate, their lifetime benefit is not proportionately higher because of shorter average life expectancy. 13 years difference at the extremes, I hear. They get a higher relative return, but for a shorter number of years.
It is fitting that SS should NOT be turned into a form of welfare, however it seems that those intent on reducing or eliminating SS are also those intent on reducing other welfare and social programs. It’s called individual responsibility, even if you are not on a level playing field.
*The SS Comissioner, not the Arizona Representative
LikeLike
That sport star will get the exact max benefit that I earned from earning just over the maximum taxable wage for only a few years.
Social Security is an insurance fund, not a retirement fund. Do you pay more for homeowner’s, health, or car insurance solely based on what you earn?
LikeLike
If you view Medicare as health insurance (Medicare is the federal government program that provides health care coverage (health insurance) if you are 65+, under 65 and receiving Social Security …) then, Yes you pay premiums based on your income. While working you pay a percentage based on income and then when you turn 65 your premiums for Part B are based on income (IRMAA)
LikeLike
Keep in mind the employer’s share is paid by the employee. The actual incidence of a tax need not be what seems to be intended. See corporate taxes in this regard.
LikeLike
I love your statement “stop this soak the wealthy nonsense”.
Did the wealthy support your lifestyle of your choosing while working? No, other than maybe owning a company that provided you a job. So if the wealthy didn’t provide for you while working then why should anyone expect them to provide for you now in retirement?
LikeLike