The maximum monthly payment for social security is $4873. Nobody is talking about increasing this. They are only talking about collecting more, not paying out more.
So you want to remove the “cap” on the income portion but later you want to “cap” the maximum monthly payment for SS. 💀🤡😂🤣 Commie. Tax/collect more and pay out less…except when it comes to you. 💀 Where do folks like you come from. 😂
@@spookietowne7932 But that is not a CAP, it is the amount one is able to collect if they paid the MAX into SSA every year for their whole life. Remove the Cap on FICA Earnings, and that number will become unlimited.
It is easy Josh. When the cap is eliminated, simply create a third bend point. For example, in 2025 the cap is $176,100. They could introduce a new bend point at the monthly equivalent of $176,100 = $14,675. Lets say the multiplier for AIME above the third bend point is set to 0.01. That greatly reduces the benefit for the person making 1,000,000 per year.
I literally laughed out loud when Josh said he wasn’t sure if that was constitutional. I still can’t believe he said that. Please tell me what protected group would have their rights violated.
I am also one of those lucky 6-percent. I would be happy to pay SS tax on the other half of my income if my retirement benefit increases accordingly. I could only wish for a $10K monthly SS check.
I did the same math, but I picked on Jamie Dimon 😊 My proposal was to cap the maximum SS payout at 4 times the poverty line just like the ACA subsidy cutoff. My solution to the $25,000 cutoff in the provisional income calculation never having been raised is to make all SS less than twice the poverty line tax free, and 85% of any SS above that would be regular income. This also eliminates the tax torpedo. The poverty line is adjusted for inflation and is currently $15,060 for a single person. So twice that plus the standard deduction and you have $46,670 before you owe any taxes.
In general I like this with one exception. The cap should be on the average indexed monthly earnings used to calculate SS benefits, not the actual monthly payment. People should still be able to choose between retiring as early as 62 with a 30% reduction in monthly benefits or as late as 70 with a 24% increase. Or anywhere in-between. If you cap the max benefit you penalize those of us that want to keep working past 62 and will run into the cap. Or just want to wait as long as possible to get the maximum benefit. Encouraging people to stop working and paying into the system past 62 when they would rather keep working is not going to help SS stay solvent, restricts personal choice about when to retire and would increase labor shortages.
In addition to removing the earnings cap on FICA, how about modifying the 3rd bend point to something like $7392 to $15,000 and then add a fractional 4th bend point like .0001% on everything above $15,001. Just a thought. After all, you don't have any say about how the majority of the Tax monies taken out of your checks are spent now, so this would not be any different. And really, do mega millionaires really even have a need for SSA Benefits??? Probably not... Just thinking out loud here. It may not be a perfect solution, but it would help.
If you are going to do this why not just make the fourth bend point 0% instead of pretending it isn't? Politicians love this sort of double speak but we shouldn't encourage more of it.
@@JoshScandlenwhy do you delete my comments. You keep talking about what happens if the “cap” is removed but you should realize certain illogical folks then want to “cap” the SS monthly check. Think this makes any sense. It does to the certain folks who always think they are entitled to more by simply working and earning less. Where does this “entitlement” mindset come from. The “bend” points is a perfect term. The harder studier/worker/earner gets less in favor of those who studied less worked/earned less. Talk about habit to “bend” over.
The increase of people over the SS Max goes from 6% to 20% in one year. The other problem is that the SS scheme is not sustainable. More bend points, more limits further proves the point. You might as well get a reverse mortgage.
Realistically the 6% don’t need the ss income. Should they pay more ? Maybe not but the employer should pay more. Like school taxes they benefit from a solvent system.
Most people are not in the 6% their entire career. Maybe a few years at the end of a career. And SS replaces progressively less income due to bend points. So, I disagree that the 6% don't need SS. Many do and some probably dont.
@@jeffharness4392 According to the SSA about 20% of people will hit the cap at least once in their career. To listen to a lot of people you would think Musk, Bezos and a few other CEOs are the only ones that would pay more if the cap is eliminated but its not true. There are a lot of working professionals and successful small business owners that hit the cap too. And are getting paid in taxable regular income, not stock, so they are already paying a lot of taxes.
@@jeffharness4392 And since the bend points make the benefit progressive (higher earners receive a smaller portion of what they contributed int the system) eliminating or raising the cap should improve the solvency of the system. I see no problem with someone who had $83.3K /month earning getting a much larger benefit ($14.4K/month) than the rest of us because 6.2% payroll tax on their income will be far more than what we pay. Maybe the target should be only to raise the cap to target capturing 90% of earned income being subject to payroll tax. Otherwise they are paying a high tax with with very little return.
Fair? I earned over the max many years, did well, retired at 45. I served in the Army when I was 19-22. Who was I protecting? Poor Americans? Nah. I never had more than $200 when I was 19-22 years-old. Russia, China, whoever taking over the US wouldn't have changed my lifestyle any. Poor people have no assets to protect. I was protecting wealth. Wealthy people use most of the resources in the US. So when I started earning a lot I didn't mind paying taxes because I was getting the benefits. Millions of men working hard dangerous jobs so I had sewer, water, electric, police, hospitals, etc... Me paying more in taxes so those workers could get a little more security in old age... no prob.
@@joet.7831 - I was speaking generically, not specifically about you or your financial situation. Most people who talk about wealthy people paying their 'fair share' (1) don't know that the wealthy already pay the bulk of the taxes in the US, and (2) think they are entitled to what someone else worked for. Lastly, I'm neither dense nor a troll. I'm a senior citizen who's concerned about our government's out of control spending and the left's only solution being 'tax the rich'.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The maximum monthly payment for social security is $4873. Nobody is talking about increasing this. They are only talking about collecting more, not paying out more.
So you want to remove the “cap” on the income portion but later you want to “cap” the maximum monthly payment for SS. 💀🤡😂🤣
Commie. Tax/collect more and pay out less…except when it comes to you. 💀
Where do folks like you come from. 😂
For 2025 the max SS benefit will be $5,108 per month
the great taking has many dimensions
Collecting more, alone, does not fix the impending shortage.
@@spookietowne7932 But that is not a CAP, it is the amount one is able to collect if they paid the MAX into SSA every year for their whole life. Remove the Cap on FICA Earnings, and that number will become unlimited.
It is easy Josh. When the cap is eliminated, simply create a third bend point. For example, in 2025 the cap is $176,100. They could introduce a new bend point at the monthly equivalent of $176,100 = $14,675. Lets say the multiplier for AIME above the third bend point is set to 0.01. That greatly reduces the benefit for the person making 1,000,000 per year.
Get rid of the cap and change the bend points too
Collect more to pay out more? That doesn’t fix anything.
They can always add a new bend point to reduce the payout to the highest paid folks. I like your idea about raising .32 to .4 too.
@@frankt1720 the Bend Point numbers increase every year. Up until the year you turn 62 your SS your Bend Points will be higher each year until then.
Where did you get the PVC Pipe of Knowledge?! I want one too lol
Amen! The bend points are the key to helping the folks getting squeezed. Keep the great content coming!
I literally laughed out loud when Josh said he wasn’t sure if that was constitutional. I still can’t believe he said that. Please tell me what protected group would have their rights violated.
I am also one of those lucky 6-percent. I would be happy to pay SS tax on the other half of my income if my retirement benefit increases accordingly. I could only wish for a $10K monthly SS check.
The plan is to take your money, and not give you anything for it. This seems pretty obvious.
I did the same math, but I picked on Jamie Dimon 😊
My proposal was to cap the maximum SS payout at 4 times the poverty line just like the ACA subsidy cutoff.
My solution to the $25,000 cutoff in the provisional income calculation never having been raised is to make all SS less than twice the poverty line tax free, and 85% of any SS above that would be regular income. This also eliminates the tax torpedo.
The poverty line is adjusted for inflation and is currently $15,060 for a single person. So twice that plus the standard deduction and you have $46,670 before you owe any taxes.
In general I like this with one exception. The cap should be on the average indexed monthly earnings used to calculate SS benefits, not the actual monthly payment. People should still be able to choose between retiring as early as 62 with a 30% reduction in monthly benefits or as late as 70 with a 24% increase. Or anywhere in-between. If you cap the max benefit you penalize those of us that want to keep working past 62 and will run into the cap. Or just want to wait as long as possible to get the maximum benefit. Encouraging people to stop working and paying into the system past 62 when they would rather keep working is not going to help SS stay solvent, restricts personal choice about when to retire and would increase labor shortages.
No,the benefit cap goes into affect also
I’m not sure why Josh refuses to get this. Maybe he just doesn’t want to. He mentions fairness. Our tax system isn’t fair and never has been.
@@markreid7 Oh, I think he gets it....he is just being stubborn.😠
In addition to removing the earnings cap on FICA, how about modifying the 3rd bend point to something like $7392 to $15,000 and then add a fractional 4th bend point like .0001% on everything above $15,001. Just a thought. After all, you don't have any say about how the majority of the Tax monies taken out of your checks are spent now, so this would not be any different. And really, do mega millionaires really even have a need for SSA Benefits??? Probably not... Just thinking out loud here. It may not be a perfect solution, but it would help.
If you are going to do this why not just make the fourth bend point 0% instead of pretending it isn't? Politicians love this sort of double speak but we shouldn't encourage more of it.
Josh would you please do a video on the SS Fairness Act?
Are you not subscribed to my main channel- heritage wealth planning?
@@JoshScandlenwhy do you delete my comments.
You keep talking about what happens if the “cap” is removed but you should realize certain illogical folks then want to “cap” the SS monthly check. Think this makes any sense. It does to the certain folks who always think they are entitled to more by simply working and earning less.
Where does this “entitlement” mindset come from.
The “bend” points is a perfect term. The harder studier/worker/earner gets less in favor of those who studied less worked/earned less. Talk about habit to “bend” over.
@@JoshScandlendone with you Josh. Unsubscribed from both your channels.
Go ahead and delete.
The increase of people over the SS Max goes from 6% to 20% in one year. The other problem is that the SS scheme is not sustainable. More bend points, more limits further proves the point. You might as well get a reverse mortgage.
It is sustainable. You get rid of the cap but not the benefits cap. This isn’t hard.
Realistically the 6% don’t need the ss income. Should they pay more ? Maybe not but the employer should pay more. Like school taxes they benefit from a solvent system.
Most people are not in the 6% their entire career. Maybe a few years at the end of a career. And SS replaces progressively less income due to bend points. So, I disagree that the 6% don't need SS. Many do and some probably dont.
@@jeffharness4392 According to the SSA about 20% of people will hit the cap at least once in their career. To listen to a lot of people you would think Musk, Bezos and a few other CEOs are the only ones that would pay more if the cap is eliminated but its not true. There are a lot of working professionals and successful small business owners that hit the cap too. And are getting paid in taxable regular income, not stock, so they are already paying a lot of taxes.
@@jeffharness4392 And since the bend points make the benefit progressive (higher earners receive a smaller portion of what they contributed int the system) eliminating or raising the cap should improve the solvency of the system. I see no problem with someone who had $83.3K /month earning getting a much larger benefit ($14.4K/month) than the rest of us because 6.2% payroll tax on their income will be far more than what we pay. Maybe the target should be only to raise the cap to target capturing 90% of earned income being subject to payroll tax. Otherwise they are paying a high tax with with very little return.
Fair? I earned over the max many years, did well, retired at 45. I served in the Army when I was 19-22. Who was I protecting? Poor Americans? Nah. I never had more than $200 when I was 19-22 years-old. Russia, China, whoever taking over the US wouldn't have changed my lifestyle any. Poor people have no assets to protect. I was protecting wealth.
Wealthy people use most of the resources in the US. So when I started earning a lot I didn't mind paying taxes because I was getting the benefits. Millions of men working hard dangerous jobs so I had sewer, water, electric, police, hospitals, etc... Me paying more in taxes so those workers could get a little more security in old age... no prob.
More Pablo will help on the journey to 100k subscribers.
Yes, everyone should pay their fair share.
But should they then get a higher benefit?
@ws775 They should get what they qualify for.
ROFL...define 'fair share'. It sounds like a scheme to take more money out of my pocket and put it in your pocket.
I don't know if you're dense or a troll. I'm not a high wage earner. It has nothing to do with me.
@@joet.7831 - I was speaking generically, not specifically about you or your financial situation. Most people who talk about wealthy people paying their 'fair share' (1) don't know that the wealthy already pay the bulk of the taxes in the US, and (2) think they are entitled to what someone else worked for. Lastly, I'm neither dense nor a troll. I'm a senior citizen who's concerned about our government's out of control spending and the left's only solution being 'tax the rich'.