No. So explain…why has executive level salaries changed so much compared to line employee salaries?
Would you then favor raising his S/S payments a commensurate amount?
If they raise the cap by five times, would that executive get five times as much out monthly?
The maximum monthly payment at age 62 right now is just under $3,000, if they raised the cap to a million that executive should then get $15,000 a month at age 62. I’m sure lefties would whine about that.
Not relevant to this discussion. Also, s/s was designed to keep people from being destitute (in a 1930s definition) and not to provide a sizeable retirement plan. Over the years, Congress and the Presidents have turned into something much more lucrative and raised payments and taxes to meet that.
1 Like
Well, that’s not exactly true. SS is still in business after more around 8 decades. To say raising the cap "has never worked is more than a bit of an exaggeration. It hasn’t solved all the problems, but it’s been a relatively effective bandaid for its entire life.
Apples and monkey wrenches
If it wasn’t true we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It has tripled the cap in real dollars, and raised contribution levels by over 600%, I would classify that as nothing less than an epic failure.
Yes, and I noticed KC conveniently avoided answering this portion of your question in a previous post above.
I believe he has forgotten that Social Security is not a rich-funds-poor theft scam like Welfare and Medicaid are.
Have they? My understanding is that Social Security today is not enough to live on, and that increases in benefits have not really kept up with inflation over the years.
Am I wrong about that? Could previous generations of beneficiaries not live on their SS payments alone?