Well, it can be raised, but then the payouts must be raised commensurately, so raising the cap doesn't improve solvency. I believe this rule dates back to the act's passage like 90+ years ago (under Roosevelt). Or I could be entirely wrong and/or misinterpreted what I read. But I'm pretty sure it cannot legally be gotten rid of entirely. Certainly not right now, at the behest of Democrats, for obvious reasons. Pretty sure it would take at least 60 Dem senators to pull it off if it were possible at all, and a very different SCOTUS makeup as well

What you receive is based on income, but it isn't directly proportionate.

People with lower income receive relatively larger payouts compared to what they paid in. People with higher incomes have a lower return on their "investment." That was the basis for the (recently eliminated "Windfall Elimination Provision." If you received income you didn't pay SS taxes on (state employees, federal employees, etc.), your income may look in the calculation like you were a low-income worker - which bumped your payout up relative to your income.

(In the sense of the structure, it is an entitlement program. You have to pay in, but you aren't entitled to a payout that is proportional to what you put in. This article has a graph that illustrates the concept that payout is not directly proportional to the amount you paid in: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2009-01.html)

So removing the cap doesn't inherently mean the maximum per person payout has to change. It wasn't intended to cover all retirement needs - it was intended to make sure that everyone had some income during retirement.)

If left to me, I would simply remove the income cap and leave the rest alone. KISS.

I just added detail, since a lot of people aren't aware that lower income folks actually get proportionately more from social security than they contributed.

So, could what I thought I had read have meant that the total amount paid out needed to rise if the cap is raised, even if the 'maximum single person payout' didn't change? Not that I'm against the idea, but I could swear I read from a reasonably reliable source that raising the cap won't help overall solvency of the system, like maybe a certain % of what's taken in always has to be paid out, something like that?

It's not dollar for dollar, or even close to it, but if the cap is lifted, then maximum payouts will have to be lifted as well.

But it still needs to be done (lifting the cap, that is), as it would still be a net gain for the Social Security system.

Don’t change the maximum payout. After a certain point is reached, and although still paying in, payout can be capped at, say, $4000/month.

Through both houses of Congress and signed by the President?

jobs, deficit/debt reduction, research, and much more.

At some point, whichever party is in charge will enact some small increase in FICA tax and cap to kick the can down the road a few more years.

I thought you were referring to Donnie showing up at some function with that stupid red hat

I didn't wear anything red during the first Taco Don administration, and I'm abiding by that this time around, too.

I may need a new car sometime in the next year or so, and I won't buy a red one.

That'll solve the problem until I die in the next, say, 10 years or so.

After that, you're on your own.

good luck with that

DUers were saying that back when Bush suggested privatizing social security.

segregation, the illegal detention of Japanese-Americans, ignoring the Holocaust and the creation of the military industrial complex. They also set the retirement age at 65 which was higher than the life expectancy of 62 at that time. They also took out the healthcare component out of SS. So can we please stop pretending that being a “Roosevelt Democrat” is some perfect democrat that anyone should aspire to.