There is also no mechanism to reduce your social security retirement benefits if you don’t need them. My father worked for a very wealthy woman who tried to refuse her benefits because she didn’t need them and thought giving them to her was wasteful but she discovered there is no legal mechanism to refuse them. She used to donate her check to a variety of charities every month.
From other articles I've read, eliminating the cap on withholding would put a lot more money into the system. As a well to do, but by no means rich, retiree, I'd also support a reduced or eliminated benefit payment to retired individuals with significant other (non-SS) income. $500,00/annually seems like a good arbitrary cutoff.
Check out the podcast Optimist Economy- Keds (Katherine Edwards) breaks down in one of the episodes social security and why it’s never missed a payment even during Katrina, why it’s the best social safety net in the world and if we (congress) tweaks just a few things like the payroll cutoff, it will be even better. She’s a doctorate of economics.
Great breakdown of where the money actually goes and why “broke” is misleading. Thank you, Andrea! I learned a lot.
The fixes on the table (raising the payroll cap, trimming benefits, pushing back retirement age) are all variations of squeezing more out of a system that was designed for a country with very different demographics and wealth distribution than the one we live in now. They might buy us another decade or two, but they don’t address the deeper question of why the wealthiest country in human history keeps having this conversation in the first place.
I’ve been writing a series on constitutional reform, and one idea I focused on was whether we could shift the culture around taxation itself.
Right now, minimizing your tax burden is treated as savvy. “Good” accountants are like status symbols. But what if we flipped that? What if contributing more than your share was something people bragged about? A civic legacy, like having your name on a university building, except the building is your country’s solvency.
There are lots of ways we could do this, but let’s imagine a public recognition system… call honorees something like “American Dream Architects” maybe? Where people who contribute significantly through a wealth-based civic investment get honored in a meaningful, visible way. Names in public records, a national registry, and receiving annual impact statements showing exactly what your contribution funded, all focused on indisputably worthy causes like ensuring Americans can afford basic survival. You’d be playing into the same ego and legacy impulse that already drives massive philanthropic giving, except directing it toward coordinated national priorities instead of whatever cause happens to catch a billionaire’s attention that year.
And on the benefits side: the article mentions that even billionaires currently collect Social Security. Right now, people don’t have a choice to refuse the money, and the choice to not collect those benefits would be treated like that of an insane person who leaves free money on the table. Perhaps choosing not to collect benefits could play into this idea of being recognized for contribution. A kind of civic honor for people wealthy enough to say “I’m good, let someone who actually needs this have it.”
And then obviously these ideas would have to be paired with reforms that would focus on getting taxpayers to trust their government to spend the funds wisely. That’s probably the toughest nut to crack, and something I want to research more.
I realize these ideas sound grandiose, and probably naive to think we can just will ourselves into what’s basically a complete reversal on our current culture toward taxation. But I’d point out that Social Security itself was considered radical and unworkable when FDR proposed it, and now it’s one of the most popular government programs in American history. We’re running out of room for incremental fixes. Every year we spend debating marginal adjustments is a year closer to benefit cuts that will push real people below the poverty line. At some point the cost of thinking too small becomes a lot less fun than the risk of thinking too big.
If you’re interested in thinking about this more, and a 2-part essay is your cup of tea, here are my thoughts on our money problems and some solutions on how to resuscitate the American Dream. Good morning! 😌☕️
There is also no mechanism to reduce your social security retirement benefits if you don’t need them. My father worked for a very wealthy woman who tried to refuse her benefits because she didn’t need them and thought giving them to her was wasteful but she discovered there is no legal mechanism to refuse them. She used to donate her check to a variety of charities every month.
From other articles I've read, eliminating the cap on withholding would put a lot more money into the system. As a well to do, but by no means rich, retiree, I'd also support a reduced or eliminated benefit payment to retired individuals with significant other (non-SS) income. $500,00/annually seems like a good arbitrary cutoff.
Check out the podcast Optimist Economy- Keds (Katherine Edwards) breaks down in one of the episodes social security and why it’s never missed a payment even during Katrina, why it’s the best social safety net in the world and if we (congress) tweaks just a few things like the payroll cutoff, it will be even better. She’s a doctorate of economics.
What about investing SSI monies in the stock market?
Also I am under the impression that Congress borrowed against SSI monies at one point. Is that true?
Great breakdown of where the money actually goes and why “broke” is misleading. Thank you, Andrea! I learned a lot.
The fixes on the table (raising the payroll cap, trimming benefits, pushing back retirement age) are all variations of squeezing more out of a system that was designed for a country with very different demographics and wealth distribution than the one we live in now. They might buy us another decade or two, but they don’t address the deeper question of why the wealthiest country in human history keeps having this conversation in the first place.
I’ve been writing a series on constitutional reform, and one idea I focused on was whether we could shift the culture around taxation itself.
Right now, minimizing your tax burden is treated as savvy. “Good” accountants are like status symbols. But what if we flipped that? What if contributing more than your share was something people bragged about? A civic legacy, like having your name on a university building, except the building is your country’s solvency.
There are lots of ways we could do this, but let’s imagine a public recognition system… call honorees something like “American Dream Architects” maybe? Where people who contribute significantly through a wealth-based civic investment get honored in a meaningful, visible way. Names in public records, a national registry, and receiving annual impact statements showing exactly what your contribution funded, all focused on indisputably worthy causes like ensuring Americans can afford basic survival. You’d be playing into the same ego and legacy impulse that already drives massive philanthropic giving, except directing it toward coordinated national priorities instead of whatever cause happens to catch a billionaire’s attention that year.
And on the benefits side: the article mentions that even billionaires currently collect Social Security. Right now, people don’t have a choice to refuse the money, and the choice to not collect those benefits would be treated like that of an insane person who leaves free money on the table. Perhaps choosing not to collect benefits could play into this idea of being recognized for contribution. A kind of civic honor for people wealthy enough to say “I’m good, let someone who actually needs this have it.”
And then obviously these ideas would have to be paired with reforms that would focus on getting taxpayers to trust their government to spend the funds wisely. That’s probably the toughest nut to crack, and something I want to research more.
I realize these ideas sound grandiose, and probably naive to think we can just will ourselves into what’s basically a complete reversal on our current culture toward taxation. But I’d point out that Social Security itself was considered radical and unworkable when FDR proposed it, and now it’s one of the most popular government programs in American history. We’re running out of room for incremental fixes. Every year we spend debating marginal adjustments is a year closer to benefit cuts that will push real people below the poverty line. At some point the cost of thinking too small becomes a lot less fun than the risk of thinking too big.
If you’re interested in thinking about this more, and a 2-part essay is your cup of tea, here are my thoughts on our money problems and some solutions on how to resuscitate the American Dream. Good morning! 😌☕️
https://anewbillofrights.substack.com/p/the-right-to-a-fair-shot-27-part
https://anewbillofrights.substack.com/p/the-right-to-a-fair-shot-part-two