It was a tactical decision to turn people off of socialism/communism.

I think you'll find it's no longer needed.

we were TAXING THE EVERLOVING FUCK OUT OF RICH PEOPLE.

Tax avoidance during this period was also at historic highs. One of the perks of the payroll tax was that it collected at the point of the employer rather than being paid directly by the employee. This put the liability for missed payments on the business (which is risk averse) rather than the individual (which often is not) and shrank the labor required for administration from "everyone with an income" to "everyone who pays a salary".

Curiously, we choose not to do this for stock transactions and other big ticket revenue generating sales. Rather than demanding Wall Street assume liability for the vast number of brokerage sales the big clearing houses oversee, we politely ask that each individual stockholder report gains and losses at the end of the year. Private businesses are even worse. Rather than assessing their revenues through the major transaction arteries - banks and commodities/wholesale exchanges - we wait for businesses to self-report.

All this creates enormous blind spots in how taxation is accessed and collected in a way that practically invites business owners (especially small and low-volume business owners) to lie, cheat, and steal.

EAT. THE. RICH.

It's a great bumper sticker slogan. But I don't see any blood on your gums.

I've had the desire to write a satirical swiftian letter to the editor to a national paper talking about how to tax Americans "fairly" where every single American pays the same amount in taxes regardless of age and income. Billionaires and babies owing the same amount, some ridiculous amount like $50k per person. Then I realized some people might take it as an actual suggestion and try to put it into practice.

Was this after the green new deal?

The original name was "Horse and Sparrow" as in if we give the horse enough to eat, there will be enough undigested food in his shit for the sparrow

In America there's a contest to see how out-of-date one's economics can be. If you quote Adam Smith, they'll call you a pinko.

Social Security is supposed to be like a forced retirement account - what you pay in is what you get out of it later. It was essentially an emergency measure put into place when a lot of Americans were struggling. Since it doesn't make sense to have a payout above a certain amount, as it would be above the average cost of living, there's a cap of how much is collected per person per year.

The Republican party should embrace the word regression.

Never happen. It's up to all of us to simply start refering to them as regressives so it becomes their name.

I've started to say "conservative/regressive" every time I mention them. I'm going to keep doing it and hope others join in until there's enough of us globally to drop the conservative part since it truly doesn't apply to them.

It only trickles down to their mercenary politicians and the hatefluencers they buy to keep people ignorant and divided.

Social Securiry benefits are paid out based in how much you earned during your working years. If you earned more money while working, you get higher monthly benefits when you retire. Up to a certian point:

These benefits cap out at a certain limit. Accordingly, the social security taxes also cap out at a certain limit. Beyond that income you do ‘t get any higher Social Security benefits and you don’t pay any higher Social Security taxes.

This is because Social Security is not designed to be a progressive tax like the income tax is.

Our tax system overall should be more progressive. Maybe social security should be part of that. But it was never designed to do this.

There's a cap on how much you (and your employer) pay per SSN / year. So, for particularly high wages or salaries, the percentage goes down, for every dollar made above the cap.

Also, things like stock( option)s often made up a significant portion of compensation for high earners and those aren't subject to SSI tax at all, IIRC.

Social Security is capped at $184,500

SS tax is 6.2% for individual and 6.2% for employer.

Employee A makes $184,500. $11,439 paid by individual and $11,439 paid by employer. $22,878 total.

22,878/184500=.124 or 12.4% tax.

Employee B makes $1,000,000. SS is capped at $184,500. $11,439 paid by individual and $11,439 paid by employer. $22,878 total.

22,878/1,000,000=.022 or 2.2% tax.

So someone making a million dollars would only have to give up 1.1% to SS tax and their employer 1.1% SS tax.

They will both pay the exact same amount into SS but the percentage isn't as high because $815,500 of the million is not getting taxed.

Social Security is not designed to redistribute a ton of money from the rich to the poor. And it isn't used to fund the government so it doesn't make the rich pay their "fair share". It's intended to force people to save so we don't have a ton of poor seniors around.

Rich people are taxed up to a certain amount. So the rich and super rich pay in the same maximum dollar amount. But on the other side the benefits that they get out are capped in the same way.

It's not supposed to be like a retirement plan where you assume you're going to live on 80% of your income in retirement. It's just there to ensure you have "enough". The most money an individual can get out of social security, the maximum benefit, is $5181/month.

To be a little more accurate, Social Security Disability Insurance is redistributive by design.

The richer you are the more you take and the less you pay back into the system that made you rich. But the parasites will argue their smaller percentage paid in taxes is fine cause of their size even though it means they hoard a larger percentage of their wealth.

I'm pretty sure they are. The more you pay into the system, the more you get at retirement age. But, it's also capped. I'm assuming that's the rationale behind capping the tax.

Social security has a max payout, so it also has a cap on the taxes you pay into it.

At a surface level, it makes sense, which is why it continues.

Once you look into it even a little bit further, the max payout needs to stay, but the tax cap needs to be removed.

It is. And it's wrong. But part of how we got here is it was sold as not being a tax, even though it absolutely is.

The claim was it was a mandatory retirement investment program. Because the wealthy have their own retirements figured out they don't need their payouts to continue to scale with their income, so their payments in shouldn't scale proportionally either, under this flawed premise, since it is "not a tax."

But why it is a tax is, one, most of us will never see a payout because the program is going to collapse before most of us retire, and therefore it is NOT a mandatory retirement program. And second, all payments in and out of government are fungible, so it really is a tax and a separate retirement supplemental program, where we use language around them to pretend they are one program.

Ironically, if we took all the money that was paid into Social Security and invested it in a real portfolio (actual investment), our generation would actually get something, and current generations would be getting significantly more retirement. The issue is that because whether you like government or not, it is a money loser. It's basically designed to be one. That means using the government as an investment vehicle is in pure investment terms really really bad. Plus it also sets up a regressive tax as you pointed out.