“This bill shows that Social Security is fully affordable—as long as the wealthiest among us pay their fair share,” said one advocate.
Legislation recently introduced by a pair of Democratic U.S. lawmakers to save Social Security for generations to come would extend the vital social program’s lifespan by at least 75 years, according to a federal analysis published Tuesday.
Why?
The wealthy put in more money towards taxes that go to other things which everyone benefits from equally. The wealthy don’t get better roads just because they pay a higher tax rate. Why should they have uncapped benefits from social security? Retired folks being able to live off social security is a benefit to all of society, it’s not meant to keep people at a high income with no other inputs. The wealthy can benefit from social security just like everyone else, and payouts should be capped, but they’re currently benefiting from society at a greater rate pre-retirement so that should be reflected in their contributions today. If they want to be wealthy in retirement, then they have the means to invest and supplement their future social security earnings.
Edit: I just realized some of my statements conflicted a little. My point is just that tax contributions are not expected to deliver a 1:1 benefit to the contributor for the service that is collecting tax. You don’t put in $1 towards roads and get $1 back of road use, or $2 towards schools and get $2 of education back. We all contribute for the betterment and support of society at large. The wealthy can afford to contribute proportionally more. They are getting the benefits of their taxes back in greater proportion than the rest of us by way of their wealth, they do not make that money purely off individual effort. Supporting retirees ensures they are not a drain on society’s resources and it’s important that the wealthy contribute enough to make this possible.
This is primarily where the moral argument and thus division appear. Is it fair to ask a person to pay more than their share? I would argue no, it seems a majority here would argue yes. I’m ok with being wrong and learning, but I have a hard time shifting what I believe to be moral foundations.
edit: I appreciate you revisiting your statement and it makes a lot of sense. Something I’ll be thinking about a lot more.
Good grief. Actual adult conversation and intellectual growth on the internet. It is sad that things have gotten so bad that this sort of exchange stands out, but FWIW you are both awesome.
I think the initial divergence in our thinking is how we define a person’s fair share. The U.S. has this pervasive myth that individual perseverance leads to achievement. That is, if you work hard enough then you can get rich and that’s the result of your own efforts. I’m not trying to discount the hard work that many people put into their success, but the reality is that they are benefiting from so many different things that they have no direct control over. The family you’re born into, the physical location where you’re born, your race/ethnicity, etc. These are all more significant contributors to success than individual effort.
A prosperous society supports all its citizenry in some way, but some people need a lot more support than others, and it’s through no fault of their own. People who are individually more prosperous should expect to contribute a proportionally greater amount to support society because they’ve already reaped the benefits of that society themselves.