> think we should take it as a given that that percent cannot be reduced. The people will not vote for less money in their pocket, even if it means more money in their pocket

No voting, true. Either a Bukele strongman type, or bloodshed; execute all of them and take their stuff

denlillaapan

I believe social security tax is ~12% of wages (employer and employee each pay half).

I am not convinced that any system to only take care of poor old people could actually be delivered for less by this government (not just this administration).

Paying 12% of society's wages seems really high for helping out the old people.

As the article points out: it's pretty much untouchable. It's more than 20% of annual spending in the US budget. I think we should take it as a given that that percent cannot be reduced. The people will not vote for less money in their pocket, even if it means more money in their pocket.

The best we can hope for is that they reduce benefits without increasing the amount that tax rate for it.

Politics_And_Law

econ

There's No Justification for Social Security. Abolish Immediately (TDE, Savidge)

I believe social security tax is ~12% of wages (employer and employee each pay half). 

I am not convinced that any system to only take care of poor old people could actually be delivered for less by this government (not just this administration). 

Paying 12% of society's wages seems really high for helping out the old people.

As the article points out: it's pretty much untouchable. It's more than 20% of annual spending in the US budget. I think we should take it as a given that that percent cannot be reduced. The people will not vote for less money in their pocket, even if it means more money in their pocket.

The best we can hope for is that they reduce benefits without increasing the amount that tax rate for it.