Usually it works the other way around, where people don't start paying a tax until their salary reaches a certain level. Somehow they've inverted this to favor the rich? Why aren't people rioting?
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
484 points (97.6% liked)
Work Reform
17329 readers
3129 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
Because people have finite time. Most of it goes to work, some of it goes to sleep, the remaining time gets spent on not looking like a hoarding caveman (or if you have kids, kids). So if you get an hour of actual free time in your day you probably have it pretty good. Now, do you want to spend that hour on politics or do you want to chill from your day?
Keeping up with politics is a luxury most people don't have.
Right, democratic agency requires not only rights, but the ability to actualize those rights. Just like elections are meaningless if you don't have the freedom to engage with and debate political questions, so are those freedoms meaningless if you don't have the time, energy or capacity to reduce those freedoms to practice.
Or don’t want, I stress at my job, stress about finances, stress about family, last thing I’m stressing over is what’s going on in the world. I’ll watch my very local news to see what the dog of the week is but that’s about it
Slow boil
Yes. The tax should be progressive where the first $x are not taxed, and the rate ramps up as income increases.
It's ass-backwards like this.
Fuck this cunt she isn't wrong but she rat fuck Sanders for her own ambitions so she can fuck off.
While someone making millions should be taxed at 100% for SS like most of us, think about how much would be in the fund if capital gains were taxed that way as well.
Enough to lower the social security age from 67 years to 6-7 weeks gestational age.
load more comments
(17 replies)
The people making more than 184k do not want to be a part of our society, it seems.
That's fine. The tree of liberty could use some refreshing.
Sure, and also social security is the opposite of need based as well. So those people who paid tax on a tiny fraction of their income also see the largest checks after retirement age when they need zero percent of the money. Meanwhile, people who worked their whole lives and paid social security tax on 100% of their earnings don't get enough back from social security to be able to continue to live.
The faces around her are so expressive. I wish i had the energy to give them thought bubbles
load more comments
(1 replies)
Framing social security this way is dangerously misleading. Yes, the amount you put in is capped, but the amount that you get to take out when you are old is also capped. I fully believe that taxes need to be progressive, but social security is not a tax, it’s a retirement fund.
Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax.
It is a tax. That is a fact. That sentence is literally from the social security website https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/how-is-social-security-financed.html as of August 15th 2026.
Unlike most other taxes, you only benefit from social security if you've paid into it. And the amount you receive is proportional to the amount you put in. Practically, it's far closer to a retirement account or pension than a tax.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Imagine, for a moment, what a tiny, insignificant fraction of Elon Musk's income must go to Social Security. And yet the cunt goes on JRE to say it should be abolished.
Billionaires shouldn't be respected as human beings.
So? Your ruling oligarchs don't care and they tell most peons how to vote. Now get back to slaving away.
Per Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget scrapping the cap would postpone the trust running out to either 2054 or 2058 depending on whether or not those who pay the now higher taxes would also receive correspondingly higher benefits or if the benefits remain capped. So an extra 20 or 24 years since presently the trust is slated to run out in 2034. When the trust runs out, benefits are going to be cut to match the money coming in which would mean about ~20% reduction to benefits.
Good start and punts the issue off for another generation, but it doesn’t quite save social security all the way.
view more: next ›