That’s for both individuals and employers. At least for those reaching the annual limit (up from $72,600 to $132,900). An increase of $7,477 per year.
(no message)
I would also means test... even though this might eliminate my own monthly benefits. It is not and never has been a pension plan... it is and should be an entitlement for the elderly poor.
It has always been a pension plan, whether that was its theoretical purpose or not. Means testing could be an incredible moral hazard. If there is means testing, then it has to be an "F-you" amount before you lose benefits. I'd agree that someone with $20,000,000 is assets does not need the money. But someone who has scrimped and saved to get $1,000,000? Shoot, in conservative investments that's only going to be 30k to 40k per year. Why bother saving if SS will pay around that much for those that don't save?
SS is not nearly as in the hole as Medicare, but it is getting there. To address this, I'd Increase the retirement age by one month, for each of the next 24 years. There are studies that show how much this will save, and it is way more than you think.
Medicare is the real problem. It's already underfunded and the tax does not have a cap.
If Citizen A chooses to work hard, sacrifice, save, and invest well on an average professional salary to end up with $1.5MM when he retires at 65 (he worked longer than he wanted to, just to be safe), then the government says that he's too "wealthy" to get any of the S.S. benefits that he's paid into for nearly 50 years, while Citizen B (who didn't save nor invest well, while spending more on expensive rent, travel, and vehicles) retires at 62 and gets full S.S. Benefits due to his lacking wealth and subsequently enjoys the same basic retirement lifestyle as Citizen A, how in the world is this fair?