this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
394 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3276 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] travysh@lemm.ee -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

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 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 weeks 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 -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks 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.