• travysh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Ultimately the cap is because there is a max on how much you can receive per month. So they align with each other. But honestly if you’re at the point where you’re hitting the social security cap, then it’s not even going to be your primary source of retirement. In which case capping benefits but not capping contributions would hardly be noticeable, but would help keep social security solvent.

    To be clear, a maximum on monthly benefit, not total!

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Ultimately the cap is because there is a max on how much you can receive.

      Its an insurance program. The cap on how much you receive is based entirely on how long you live. If you die at age 65, you get nothing. If you die at age 102, you’ll potentially receive much more than you deposited. Same for if you’re disabled or you’re a dependent of an insured person. Paul Ryan bragged about his dead father’s SS benefits paying for his college degree, while advocating for an end to the survivor’s benefit program.

      Given that wealthier people tend to live longer, it makes perfect sense to uncap how much they pay.

      • homura1650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The monthly payout of social security is based on how much you earned while you were working, which is roughly correlated with how much you payed in [0]. However, the monthly payment has a hard cap. No matter how much you earned while working, SS will not pay you more than someone who averaged $168,600/year. Even below that cap, there is a progressive structure, where those with a lower income see a larger marginal benefit.

        [0] not exactly, as it only looks at you inflation adjusted best 35 years

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          The monthly payout of social security is based on how much you earned while you were working

          But the lifetime payout is set by how long you live. Your total recoupment is based on the number of months you receive SS. There is never an age when you lose eligibility.

          Even below that cap, there is a progressive structure, where those with a lower income see a larger marginal benefit.

          People with low incomes have a host of additional problems - higher stress levels, poorer nutrition, less access to preventative and life sustaining medication.

          This lowers their overall life expectancy and - as a consequence - the total recoupment they expect to receive from SS.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Ultimately the cap is because there is a max on how much you can receive.

      If you think OASDI is an investment…

      It’s not OASDI’s fault you don’t know what the acronym stands for.

      • travysh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        What?! How in the world did you get that out of what I said.

        There is a maximum monthly benefit. Maybe I need to go back and reword it or something, because this totally misses my point.