I am guessing $80K came about much the same way the IRA cap of $3M. And that can be adjusted, I would think. To me, big questions are Does SS needs fixing? If so, what is the best way to limit the benefits? Three ways I see: Tax it more heavily, Increase the full retirement age, or Reduce the benefits for people above certain income. Do you see any other way?
I would think many people would be angered by having to wait until age 69 to get full benefits. Certainly if thatâs all you have, waiting two years and having to delay retirement affects many people.
I found this part really interesting.
âVirtually all Social Security recipients today get back more than they put in, according to data from the Urban Institute. A typical two-income couple earning average pay who turn 65 in 2020, for example, will have paid $634,000 into Social Security but will get back $1.02 million in benefits, after adusting for inflation. In fact, nearly everybody who enters Social Security by 2030 will get back more than they paid in. If anybodyâs getting ripped off, itâs younger people paying to fund programs for their elders while money for other priorities runs outâŠâ
Honestly, we shouldnât be getting more than what weâve put into it. That doesnât make sense. No wonder it is running out of money.
Maybe a better way of looking at this is how much did we individually put into SS and that is what we should at least feel entitled to get back. Forget the rates, years, etc.
They keep raising the income at which FICA is paid. I suspect theyâll just keep doing that.
As far as 80K goes, if itâs per couple, youâll see a lot of old farts getting divorced. 
Though itâs all rhetoric.
Say what??? If I had kept that $634K put in over , say, 35 years of employment and invested it myself, It would be worth a WHOLE lot more than $634K, and probably a whole lot more than $1.02 million.
That brings out rather heated debate whether we get back more from SS. Whether we do or not, I am sure no one would insist we have a comfortable old age at our childrenâs expense. That makes it a moot point.
Seriously, you think the government can handle investing? Ha - they cannot even get out of debt! They are printing money to keep things going! I seriously doubt they even invested it.
Yes, I think it is worse for our children who have to pay SS and they already know they wonât get any. That stinks!
Thats exactly my point, newjersey17. Just because they dont know how to make money doesnt mean we shouldnt have the right to do so with our own money,. We should have the choice to put into social security or invest it ourselves. Weâd have opted out eons ago. Some state and government workers used to get to do so and use their own employers system. There have been movements to let people opt out.
âSay what??? If I had kept that $634K put in over , say, 35 years of employment and invested it myself, It would be worth a WHOLE lot more than $634K, and probably a whole lot more than $1.02 millionâ
Just using a general investment calculator, rounding things out, if you got only a 1%.return all that timeâ764K. 2% would be 935K. Should you have gotten a whopping 5%, 1.787 million. A lucky 10%-- 5.85 Million.
Promote Marlboros 
My main fear is that the minute a dollar of extra cash is realized, politicians will be dying to throw around 2. So until thereâs demonstrated discipline in removing the Ponzi aspect, ie., the group born in the 1950s puts in enough to fund the expenses of this population, Iâd rather go with the starving the beast approach. Adjusting retirement age to life expectancy similar to how benefits are linked to inflation should also be used.
I believe the SS money is going out faster than what is going in now. There is nothing to invest. The difference between $600k and $1M is a lot of money (almost 2x). That is why SS is running out. They are paying more and more because people are living longer. So that is why they said they are paying out more than what we put into it. Itâs just a huge mess.
Yes of course. They donât invest the $- they spend it elsewhere (or in this case in payments to recipients). Yes it needs to be fixed. But not by screwing the people who have funded it for the past 40 years.
âI believe the SS money is going out faster than what is going in now. The difference between $600k and $1M is a lot of money (almost 2x). That is why SS is running out. They are paying more and more because people are living longer. So that is why they said they are paying out more than what we put into it. Itâs just a huge messâ
Has all that money not been invested in a single thing, ever? Pension funds invest, everybody invests. Nobody, and no agency just sits on money at 0% interest. What have they been doing with the excess that theyâve had all those years?
Oh! I forgot! Spending it on other stuff. Pretending itâs being protected, while actually using it to help with the budget for other stuff. Bring back the lock box!
SS is largely a pay-as-you-go system. There is generally little or nothing to invest.
For a while we have been collecting a bit more than we have been paying out, in order to have money for the bubble when the boomers retire. This surplus was âinvestedâ entirely in special government bonds, and the money used to fund the daily operations of the government.
To actually âredeemâ the surplus, the money either has to be borrowed from someone with actual money, or be taken from other tax revenues, or printed.
People get upset when SS is framed as a welfare program, because theyâve been told they are investing in a âpensionâ that will give them an income. But itâs nothing like a pension, really.
SS is an annuityâŠand other things.
Welfare is a bad word.
People use the welfare word to try and dismantle SS. Some people want to turn SS into a welfare program to divide the population, cause SS to lose support, and end. Wall Street would love to get their hands on SS.
The fewer people that collect SS, the fewer people that will want to continue SS.
The program announced today, if enacted, would move SS closer to a welfare system.
This thinking is what makes it so hard to change anything about it.
Itâs not an annuity. There are no âaccountsâ, no investment, you have no legal right to collect anything, except what Congress grants you. If Congress ended SS tomorrow you would have no recourse except to vote the bums out of office.
Sure, welfare is a somewhat loaded word, and itâs not pure welfare in that itâs not purely need-based, but the benefit isnât linearly related to what youâve put in, either.
I donât want SS dismantled, but itâs not sustainable either right now. Somethingâs gotta give.
SS is an annuity to the people who are going to collect.
SS doesnât necessarily need to have large investments to protect itself as long as there is the power to tax.
Warren Buffett is a genius but he canât tax you. He needs large investments.
SS can be fixed but it is going to take some changes. The longer we wait, the bigger the changes. We can do several different changes that affect different people. We can also take money from the general fund. The general fund didnât have any problem taking from SS when SS was running large surpluses.
Yes⊠Who is in power is important. Christie may not be the guy to protect SS. 
We also have to realize that most of the elderly population is dependent on SS.
I have friends who are millionaires and social security helps. Rates are pretty low these days. As a person gets older, risk becomes a bigger and bigger issue. An elderly person canât just be invested in stocks. I promise over the next 30 years the US stock market is going to have a major drop of over 30 percent at some point. (I was in the risk business).
SS is not going broke.
We have to decide what our priorities are as a country.
Couldnât read your link, dstark. Think its at my end though.
Itâs pretty obvious SS is tied to productivity and wages of those currently working.
More jobs here in the USA and higher wages. Whatâs not to like?
Sax, alng the lines of what you addressedâŠ
The way we pay people can have a large affect on SS. You are rightâŠ
I donât see a rush to do the following.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/gravity-payments-raise_n_7061676.html