Reply #13: You can't do one without the other

[MajorChode]

If you eliminate the cap, then that means those who contribute more than the present maximum will be entitled to more benefits as well. Giving them more benefits diminishes the benefit of raising the cap in the first place. I suppose you could simply cap benefits, but guess what? You have described a "means test".

The thing about it is, SS already effectively has two "means test(s)". If you have over a certain amount of income, your SS benefits are taxed which reduces your benefit. That is one way SS is means tested. Another way is the more SS taxes you pay, the less benefit you receive for your money. That is the other way SS is means tested.

So the bottom line is SS is already means tested. Making it more so is really just a question of degree. So there really is no risk, as you say, because it's already being done. Furthermore any risk you allege assumes the rich have an undue influence over the country, which may reflect reality but is no less bullshit. The rich already get much more than a fair shake in this country. Expecting them to support the elderly who are poor to a greater degree is not asking all that much, especially when you consider that the lower and middle classes are already shouldering that burden almost exclusively right now.

Another thing that needs to be addressed with SS is that not ALL income is subject to SS. Income from investments is NOT subject to SS. Business owners figured that one out and greatly use it to their advantage. Let's say you own your own business. For your salary(wage) income, you must pay 6.2% FICA plus the employer's share of FICA which is also 6.2% for a total of 12.4% (up to the SS maximum income). At $100K that is over $12 thousand per year. But what if you incorporated your business? So now your business is a corporation. So now the "corporation" pays you $1K per month "salary" for which you pay 6.2% and the "corporation" pays 6.2% for a grand total of roughly $1,500. The "stock" you own in the "corporation" pays dividends of $88,000 of which you pay zero SS. You have now lowered your SS tax by almost $11,000 per year, and it's all perfectly legal. Doing away with this loophole would put a lot more money into the SS system and do away with an unfair advantage that many receive.