(Headline article below) What’s interesting is that you paid into Social Security with the promise they would pay you in retirement the money you paid in.
Social Security is funded primarily through dedicated payroll taxes collected under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Employees have 6.2% of their gross wages withheld for Social Security, while employers match that contribution by paying 6.2% themselves on each worker’s behalf. Self-employed individuals pay the full 12.4% tax themselves. In 2023, payroll taxes are collected on income up to $160,200, with any income above that amount exempt from Social Security tax. The Social Security payroll tax rate and wage base limit typically increase slightly each year to keep pace with wages and cost of living.
And how much of the money you paid in will you on average collect after retirement in your lifetime?
In dollar terms, Urban Institute estimates show:
- A low earner contributing around $160,000 would receive lifetime benefits of around $135,000
- An average earner contributing $370,000 would receive $350,000 in lifetime benefits
- A higher earner contributing $680,000 would receive $450,000 in lifetime benefits
So while benefits are tied to earnings, Social Security is designed so lower-income workers will receive benefits replacing a higher percentage of their lifetime contributions.
https://www.restonyc.com/how-much-does-the-average-person-pay-in-social-security-over-a-lifetime/
The wealth transfer was from you to the government, and on average you don’t even collect all that you paid into the system, not even considering investment growth (there is none), but they want to limit it because you have savings or investment income. The government just wants to steal from you, and this was always supposed to be a fund but they spend the money, with current workers covering the system payouts. You would have been much better off keeping that money and investing it yourself. And the promise to pay Social Security to people actually increases the unfunded liability of the country by a significant amount, as over the next 75 years, Medicare and Social Security is unfunded by $78.3 trillion. The OCGFC are going to need to kill a lot more people then they did with the scamdemic, which with treatment protocols, the gene therapy, and sending sick elderly patients back to the nursing homes, did manage to remove quite a few Social Security recipients from the roles. But then that was a test, though still killing a lot of people because they have damaged immune systems with turbo cancers, myocarditus, pericarditis, neurological disorders…
https://retirement.media/proposal-would-cap-social-security-benefits-for-wealthy-retirees-heres-what-it-might-mean-for-you/
By Patty Atwood
A new proposal circulating in Washington is reigniting a long-standing debate: should wealthy retirees receive the same Social Security benefits as everyone else? While no changes have been finalized, the idea of capping benefits for higher-income couples is gaining attention—and raising important questions for current and future retirees.
At the heart of the proposal is a suggested cap that would limit Social Security benefits to $100,000 annually for married couples with significant income. Supporters argue that the system was never intended to function as a wealth transfer to the affluent. Instead, they say it should prioritize those who rely on it most for day-to-day living expenses.
For many Americans, Social Security serves as a financial backbone in retirement. It helps cover essential costs like housing, healthcare, and groceries. But for higher-income retirees with substantial savings, pensions, or investment income, the benefits may represent a smaller piece of their overall financial picture. That distinction is driving the conversation behind this proposal.
Critics, however, see things differently. They argue that Social Security is not a welfare program but an earned benefit. Workers pay into the system throughout their careers, and the expectation has always been that they will receive benefits based on their contributions. From this perspective, introducing income-based caps could fundamentally change the nature of the program—and potentially erode trust in its long-term reliability.
There’s also concern about the broader implications. If benefits are capped for wealthier retirees today, could similar adjustments follow for other groups tomorrow? For those planning their retirement decades in advance, uncertainty can be just as impactful as policy changes themselves.
Still, the proposal reflects a growing urgency around Social Security’s financial future. With demographic shifts, longer life expectancies, and fewer workers supporting each retiree, the system faces well-documented funding challenges. Policymakers across the spectrum agree that changes will likely be necessary—though they differ sharply on what those changes should look like.
For retirees and those nearing retirement, the key takeaway is this: flexibility matters. While Social Security will likely remain a foundational part of retirement income, relying on it as the sole source of support has become increasingly risky. Diversified income streams—such as personal savings, investments, and possibly part-time work—can provide a stronger and more resilient financial plan.
It’s also a good time to revisit your own expectations. Understanding how your benefits are calculated, when to claim them, and how they fit into your overall strategy can make a meaningful difference. Even if proposals like this one never become law, they highlight how quickly the retirement landscape can shift.
Ultimately, whether or not benefit caps become reality, the conversation itself is a reminder: retirement planning isn’t a one-time decision. It’s an ongoing process that benefits from staying informed, adaptable, and prepared for change.