Don't be disingenuous. If there isn't anyone paying more than they are now then there isn't any additional government revenue.
> Most folks have to pay those taxes on all their income. Why should it be any different for the folks with the highest incomes?
The way social security works is that you pay in proportion to your income and then you receive social security payments in proportion to what you paid. There is a cap on both of these. You're proposing to only remove the cap on one of them. That's the same "fairness" argument for not solving the problem by making social security payments according to need or in fixed amounts, so if you're not concerned about that fairness equation then you already have a way of solving the problem without raising taxes.
> What's more, I can say from experience that not paying SS/Medicare taxes over the arbitrary limit makes exactly zero material difference in my quality of life.
This is what I mean by tax incidence. It's not your life which is affected. You're just putting the extra money in your IRA or whatever. But at scale that has consequences for other people. What do you expect happens if you take literally trillions of dollars out of capital markets?
>What do you expect happens if you take literally trillions of dollars out of capital markets?
What a ridiculous trope.
Where do you think those fairer taxes will go? They don't just disappear from existence as you imply. Rather they get plowed right back into the economy. Into the hands of Social Security recipients (so people like your grandmother may not have to go without eating or eat cat food to survive) who will spend most of it almost immediately, and for medical/healthcare products and services.
In that scenario, will such moneys be a net positive for you personally? Probably, as millions of folks won't be starving in the streets and dying of preventable causes because their only means of sustaining themselves has been co-opted so you can have your "number go up."
More economic activity from fairly collecting existing taxes (that's what buying groceries and shoes and prescriptions is) will increase the velocity of money and grow the economy faster than the hoarding you're advocating. And "number go up" will continue.
Don't care about anyone else but you? Enjoy seeing people suffer and die for your marginal benefit? If so, come out and say it. It's at least a defensible, if evil and selfish, argument -- unlike the ridiculous one you made.
Don't be disingenuous. If there isn't anyone paying more than they are now then there isn't any additional government revenue.
> Most folks have to pay those taxes on all their income. Why should it be any different for the folks with the highest incomes?
The way social security works is that you pay in proportion to your income and then you receive social security payments in proportion to what you paid. There is a cap on both of these. You're proposing to only remove the cap on one of them. That's the same "fairness" argument for not solving the problem by making social security payments according to need or in fixed amounts, so if you're not concerned about that fairness equation then you already have a way of solving the problem without raising taxes.
> What's more, I can say from experience that not paying SS/Medicare taxes over the arbitrary limit makes exactly zero material difference in my quality of life.
This is what I mean by tax incidence. It's not your life which is affected. You're just putting the extra money in your IRA or whatever. But at scale that has consequences for other people. What do you expect happens if you take literally trillions of dollars out of capital markets?