General Discussion

Dave says

(5,449 posts)

19. That's a thought.

Wed Mar 25, 2026, 03:59 PM

Mar 25

The changes made in 1983 were meant to fund social security for 75 years. We’re falling short of that original goal. I think, though, if you remove the cap, benefits are funded up to 125% for the foreseeable future.

(Now, as AI takes away large numbers of jobs, we’ll have to rethink these things wholly anew. UBI anyone? Wealth taxes?)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MURRAY: Is it true that people making under $184k pay a 12.4% Social Security tax rate? [View all] LiberalArkie Mar 25 OP

this is correct Henry203 Mar 25 #1

It is correct that there is a cap. Ms. Toad Mar 25 #4

Yeah, but the billionaire creates jobs, don't he? 3Hotdogs Mar 25 #28

There was a arithmetic error in calculating the "billionaire" percentage Ilikepurple Mar 25 #29

It is fundamentally wrong to describe the relative burden on the taxpayer as 12.4%, when it isn't. Ms. Toad Mar 25 #30

Slightly Misleading ProfessorGAC Mar 25 #2

I believe they are referring to a self employed worker, much like the billionaires are. LiberalArkie Mar 25 #7

That May Be ProfessorGAC Mar 25 #9

Nope. The percentage for a self-employed worker is 11.45. Ms. Toad Mar 25 #32

It's the assumption in the wording. haele Mar 25 #12

And the employer may reduce the wages in order to cover his/her half of the FICA. erronis Mar 25 #13

Yes. Employers' share of FICA is just another component of labor cost. Ilikepurple Mar 25 #23

Certainly Possible ProfessorGAC Mar 25 #24

15.3% for most of my adult life as a self employed person. progressoid Mar 25 #20

Not accurate in the details (albeit generally accurate in broad strokes). Ms. Toad Mar 25 #3

What is a self-employed person pay? 12.4% LiberalArkie Mar 25 #8

If I am not mistaken a self-employed person pays 12.4% payroll tax; state of stupid Mar 25 #17

Maybe so, I had to always pay the full amount. But that is what Murray was referring to when they said 12.4% LiberalArkie Mar 25 #26

15.3% - 12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare progressoid Mar 25 #21

Nope. 11.4514%. Ms. Toad Mar 25 #33

I agree with your distinction of a "billionnaire" (wealth) vs. income (wages, taxable gains, etc.) erronis Mar 25 #14

We do our best to fluff the rich and trivialize financial disparity Torchlight Mar 25 #5

Benefits are also capped Dave says Mar 25 #6

Same Page, Except... ProfessorGAC Mar 25 #10

I'd treat dividends the same as earned income Dave says Mar 25 #18

I Buy That To A Degree ProfessorGAC Mar 25 #25

They could uncap the tax until the funds had a 75 year balance. Captain Zero Mar 25 #11

That's a thought. Dave says Mar 25 #19

If the cap is raised, then the benefits should also be increased MichMan Mar 25 #37

I already pointed that out Dave says Mar 25 #39

Double it for those making over $180,000.00 multigraincracker Mar 25 #15

For 2026 Social Security wages are capped at $184,500 and it rises just about every year ... aggiesal Mar 25 #16

I don't understand the reasoning behind creating a donut hole MichMan Mar 25 #38

I was slow to realize tax code favors wealth hibbing Mar 25 #22

And if you have your own business or are a 1099 contractor, double that rate! SheltieLover Mar 25 #27

No. The rate cited IS the rate for self-employed individuals (after reducing their income to 92.35%) Ms. Toad Mar 25 #35

Yes, 12 percent taken out dlilafae Mar 25 #31

No. 6.2% is taken out for social security. n/t Ms. Toad Mar 25 #34

WTF it is going broke time to tax the rich accordingly..... Historic NY Mar 25 #36