You're viewing a single thread.
At least in principle, social security is a mandatory way of saving for retirement, not simply a tax. In that context, it makes sense that contributions are capped since payouts are capped.
Then why are CEO's even paying for it?
Because it's cheaper for them than actual social safety nets.
Right, but it's not really and hasn't been for a while. It's at best a ponzi scheme and a lot of us have been left holding the bag.
It's time to make it what it always should have been, a little touch of socialism so that people don't die/go hungry/end up homeless when they are too old to work.
How many years has social security been around? Pretty long running Ponzi scheme. Who's been left holding the bag right now?
It's the shittiest way possible to save for retirement.
But have you seen my Beanie Baby retirement fund?
Hey, there are a few beanie babies that are actually worth something now. That said, they're only worth something because they're rare, most people that had them didn't keep them in an acrylic case for 30yrs, and iirc their value is ironically tied to manufacturing defects.
It's actually not. A lot of people do absolutely nothing for retirement, which is infinitely worse.
Social Security is not "a mandatory way of saving for retirement," that's a bullshit way of looking at it. You are not putting money into an account, and getting that money back when you retire. It 100% is a tax. Tax is not a bad word. It's a social safety net, payouts should be capped, but contributions should not be (or if they are, it should be much much higher).
That's how functioning societies work. They take care of their old and infirmed.