It's an ass-backwards system. People making small amounts need the money now more!
It should be progressive. The first $x aren't taxed, then the next chunk are taxed a little, then the next chunk more, and so on.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
460 points (97.7% liked)
Work Reform
17362 readers
3075 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
In a fully functioning government, most people should be "profitting from" or "exploiting" the system while the top 10% pay the majority of that. The top producers, by definition, should be simultaneously the most rewarded and the most exploited in society while the bottom 50% are almost entirely "freeloading"
Its simply unsustainable any other way. A high performer born to a bottom 50% family will never make it to top 10% if the system does not function in this way, so we lose out on those "gifted" individuals to starvation or other archaic diseases
My grandparents were considerably wealthy. One year, the tax portfolio showed up in the mail and my grandmother said, "Ugh, taxes. That's terrible!" So my sister asked the obvious question: "Because taxes mean that you're losing money?" We were pretty young at the time, so we didn't fully understand what taxes were or how wealth accumulation worked.
My grandmother responded, "no, we LOVE paying taxes! If our taxes are higher, then that means we made more money last year! It's just annoying filling out the paperwork." My sister asked what it would mean if their taxes were lower. My grandmother said, "That means that we didn't make as much money, and the government takes less money from us to help people who need it. So, we donate more money in the years that we make less to make sure that people are still getting what they need."
Bonus story 1: My grandfather was in commercial real estate and was once debating with a family member about how important it is to prevent companies from converting residential zoning to commercial. The family member accused my grandfather of being a bleeding heart softie, and threw out an accusation along the lines of, "you're probably one of those people who believes that homeless people can magically succeed if you give them more handouts. You can't lift someone out of their situation by giving them things, they have to want to do it themselves."
This pissed off my grandfather who stood up to tower over this family member and said, "the last time that I bought houses for homeless people, they weren't homeless anymore. I don't know what success looks like to you, but I'd say not being homeless anymore is a pretty good start!" The family member laughed and started to retort. My grandfather interrupted him with, "it's such a shame. I was really proud of being your company's biggest donor, but now I'm concerned about who my donations are helping. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself if you just want it enough, though."
Bonus story 2: Someone once asked my grandfather why he never got into residential real estate since it's so much easier to be a landlord for people than companies. My grandfather replied, "Charging companies to exist is cool and it forces business owners to consider their true value. Charging families to live makes you a bad neighbor."
RIP to half of the greatest grandparents ever.
I genuinely believe if they made taxes an automated function requiring zero effort on the part of the taxed then almost no one would complain about them.
And the proof is that this is already how it is with every tax in America except income and property taxes. You're taxed nickel and dime all the time and nobody notices. Sales tax is the most visible and it just is for most people, to the point they get confused when they go to one of the three (?) states that don't have sales tax.
But you're automatically taxed on gasoline, your phone and/or internet bill, glass and plastic bottles, sugary drinks, hotel rooms, cigarettes, and who knows what else because the process and indeed even the amount at which those goods and services are taxed are completely opaque to most people.
Many other countries have this, and you still get people complaining, but not as many complain I guess. It's much less of a hassle in any case.
I just sign in to Skatteverkets tax portal, deceleration is already there filled in, and I just click confirm.
And tax the ultra rich. If your net worth is over ten million, regardless of your income, you should be contributing big bucks to social security and federal taxes.
Yes at 100% tax. No person needs more then 10 million to live on.
90% tax on income over 200k was good enough for America's golden age. We should try to emulate it.
no cap fr
If the poor pay relatively more than the rich that sounds like anti-social security to me
Slight modification.
For SS the employer and employee pay 50/50. So the actual number is double that.
If they lifted the cap the person making $5,176,000 would pay $731,369
I'm not seeing any issues or downsides to that, they can afford it.
Remove the cap on disability income and assets while you're at it.
As someone that's maxed out SS most of their carrier while simultaneously assuming I'll never get SS I'm looking at this a little side eye. Just seems like one last party for the boomers here.
Let’s stick with that: “scrap”. You know they’ll eventually “compromise” by raising the cap a little, putting the onus on people who earn just a little more without actually affecting the wealthy. Thats not ok. At some point wealthy people need to pay their share
Most of these direct cash distributions should be replaced with a UBI.
I would tack it to 120% of the poverty line.
Let's eliminate poverty in the wealthiest nation the world has ever known.
If you make $176K your SS payout is $5,251/mo.
If you make $5M your SS payout is $5,251/mo.
If we remove the cap on contributions, is it fair to remove the cap on payouts?
(My personal answer is no, but it is hard to argue about the lack of equity in that case. The original cap on both ends was built with that in mind)
If you're making $5M a year, you likely will never need any payout. Its the whole point of a progressive tax system. The wealthy can afford to pay more, and require less support from the state.
Counterpoint: anyone paying any amount of social security tax is part of the working class, even if they're making $5M/yr. Increasing taxes on the working class isn't going to solve wealth unequally. We need to tax wealth.
I agree we need to tax wealth, but I'm fine with removing the cap on paying into social security. The system is going to break as it is, and needs more money flowing in. And the government needs to be barred from diverting that money to other things. If it had been treated as a hands of retirement fund, we wouldn't even have this issue.
You can even esssentially take the same rule - the payout is a curve, not a flat line. People near the cap get proportionally less payout. All we need to do is continue that thought so the xurve flattens out