this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
484 points (97.6% liked)
Work Reform
17329 readers
3710 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They pay social security taxes on the first 184k/yr. They do not pay taxes on that part of their income above 184k.
They do, actually, receive social security checks, regardless of income or need, beginning at (or possibly before) the age of 70. Since they've been paying in the maximum, they are receiving the maximum benefit, $4152 per month, rather than the median benefit of $2083 per month.
You are wrong on both counts.
Further, there is a very strong correlation between income level and life expectancy. The median worker is typically collecting that $2083/mo benefit until age 76. But the median life expectancy of the wealthy is 9 years longer: They are typically collecting that $4152 benefit until age 85.
The people you are talking about are the ones posing the very highest drain on the system.
Liar liar pants on fire. You can delude yourself and try to deceive the community all you want. You will continue to be wrong though.
Reading your arguments, you're claiming that if I earn $184,499, I owe $22,000 in social security tax, because I don't put a zero on line 9 of page 9 of the self employment tax deduction worksheet.
But if I earn $184,501, the IRS is going to give me a $22,000 refund for exceeding the social security wage cap.
By your argument, if I'm actually making about $120,000, I should just claim to have earned $184,500. After paying taxes on the missing $64,500, I'd still come out ahead.
It’s isn’t an argument, it is the tax code.
Show me a financial advisor making the same point I just made. If the tax code says I can get a $22,000 refund simply by claiming to have earned $184,500 instead of a lower number, every financial advisor in the country will have done the math on what I just estimated. There should be a range of income that a taxpayer should never claim.
If what you are saying is true, either do the math yourself, or find the financial advisor who has done the math, and tell me the break even point. The exact point where the additional taxes I pay (by falsely claiming greater income) will equal the ~$22,000 of social security tax you think the government will refund me.
If this were actually true, it would be the largest tax loophole accessible to the middle class. This supposed loophole approaches the value of a small car, each and every year.
Do me a favor: run that worksheet on $174,500 income, $184,500 income, and $194,500 income. Show me that the final self employment tax deduction for each of those three scenarios supports your argument.