• travysh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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.