[ahalbert2]

Imagine, for a moment, a tax that...

- ...is a flat tax of 11.7% which you don't have to pay on income over $160k

- ...is used to transfer money to individuals with, on average, significantly higher net worths than those paying the tax

- ...has a low or even negative ROI especially if you have a lower life expectancy such is the case with many PoCs, men, and those with chronic health conditions

Sounds horrible, right? Well, call it "Social Security" and apparently people will love it.

[toomuchtodo]

As of November 2023, the SSA reports that the average benefit for retired workers was just $1,844.76, or $22,137.12 per year.

It also keeps somewhere around 21 million people out of poverty.

Take the cap off income and charge the highest income brackets a surcharge like Medicare. Increase income tax on benefits based on income or wealth if so inclined. Aggressively tax the wealthiest exposed to US taxes, they have the deepest pockets.

Social Security will pay out as long as there are workers to tax with payroll taxes. Perhaps we switch it up to taxing wealth too as mentioned above.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-securit...

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-25-1...

[matrix87]

> is used to transfer money to individuals with, on average, significantly higher net worths than those paying the tax

I mean, no shit. People at retirement age will have more in savings than pretty much every other demographic

Somewhat unrelated, but if you look at the income curve and compare it to the benefits curve, the benefits curve is flatter. So it does do some redistribution from high earners to low earners as expected

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-ab...