"I mean have you read any of her proposals on her website? They are so larded with complex details and circumlocutions that they really are proposals to only look like something is being done rather than proposals to actually do something."

They were written in a foreign language...

Legalese I think...

Not one I have had the urge to learn, as it is usually associated with murderers, criminals, scoundrels, and thieves, not exactly people who can be trusted...

I wouldn't trust a person who speaks legalese with anything of any value. They would certainly steal or destroy it...

which I could totally see her doing.

I actually did laugh out loud at at that one. Those recommended diaries over there are becoming parodies of themselves. I won't even start on the now daily "inspirational" Hillary diaries from brand new first time diarists that seem as though they were all written by the same person.

Maybe I'll make him my next avatar. lol.

My understanding is that since there is a maximum benefit amount from SS we don't expect people to contribute to SS significantly more than then could theoretically receive.

There are a bunch of complicated actuarial computations involved in setting the cap but the idea is if you could on average receive 20 years of SS benefits and you would receive the maximum benefit amount of $31,668 per year - that is a total of $633,360 SS would pay you in retirement before you die.

Your contributions are 6.2% of your wages which are matched by your employer. So, if you are making $118,000 (the current cap) per year for 35 working years before retirement, you would contribute (118,000 * 6.2%) $7,316 per year for a total of (40 years * 7,316) $256,060. That is matched by your employer so the total contributions to SS made in your name would be $512,120.

So the idea for the cap is that your total contributions should not be significantly more than the benefits you could potentially receive. $512,120 contributed $14,632 per year over 35 years would easily be worth at least $633,360 with compounded interest.

If we change the cap to say, $250,000 the same calculations as above would mean you contributed ($250,000 * 12.4% = $31,000 per year * 35 working years) $1,085,000 before interest. If we did not raise the maximum benefit amount you would only receive $633,360 in benefits for your $1,085,000 contribution and people who make $250,000 per year think that is unfair.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the rich paying more. I believe the current idea is to keep the cap where it is, but remove the cap for people making more than $250,000 per year, while also increasing the maximum benefit amount. That way, people making more than $250,000 are probably contributing more than they would receive but that's how we spread the wealth around from the rich to the poor.

So there ya go, hopefully I've been helpful and also mostly correct!

There are two related peculiarities of the SS system that bear scrutiny here. One is the cap; the other is the fact that social security funding is drawn from a REGRESSIVE tax on workers. These aspects of the program - particularly the latter - were criticized by many at the time, from Congressmen to social insurance scholars and advocates to lefty-liberal magazines like The New Republic. The reason for the criticism stemmed largely from the presumption of many supporters of SS, who saw the program as part of a broader effort to transfer wealth from the oligarchy (who 'owned' it) to the people (whose labor had created it). In that context, placing the cost-burden of of the program almost entirely on the working class seemed bad policy, to say the least.

But this assumption about context leaves out something important: that it was FDR's program. We often memorialize FDR as the 'pragmatist' who was willing to adopt many approaches to solve the crisis of the Depression (and address its underlying causes), and who to that end was happy to empower his 'Brain Trust' to creative development of programs and ideas for policy. This is to some extent true. But it is also true that FDR regularly scrutinized the work of his subordinates and often changed or cancelled programs that he thought were wrong for the country. The basis for FDR's own thinking is not always clear; but in some instances his views are well known, either through his own statements or through his actions. In many cases, scrutiny of the record reveals that FDR was far more conservative in his than views than he is usually thought of. (Leuchtenberg's studies of the New Deal are very pointed about this.) So for example, FDR deliberately cancelled Harry Hopkins' CWA because it was TOO successful - it was employing so many people, he feared that the result would be to set up the government as a permanent employer of the labor force in competition with private enterprise - this he wanted to avoid.

On SS, FDR clearly had similar concerns. Above all, it appears he did not want to put government in the business of handing out "a dole". Instead, he insisted that the program be modelled like an insurance program, meaning that the insured party is responsible for paying the costs of the program. And FDR wanted to make sure also that the program was tied to WORK rather than idleness, so it would be funded by a tax on wages rather than a general tax. Placed in this context, the mentioned peculiarities of the American SS system - its funding by a regressive tax; the cap on mandatory contributions - make a great deal more sense. The aggregate person (a statistical person, not a real one) would get no more back from SS than he pays in; no need to tax above a certain level of income, because those making above that level are unlikely to need SS supplements; the amount you get out is proportional to what you pay in; etc.

[source: Mark Leff, "Taxing the "Forgotten Man": The Politics of Social Security Finance in the New Deal", The Journal of American History, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Sep., 1983)]

I realize it may not have been set up the way I wish it was, but given the huge inequality in this country, I think everyone should pay a percentage on all income - and if there was no cap, that percentage could be dropped to a smaller number for everyone.

If you are rich enough to never need Social Security, awesome for you. Consider that small percentage you contribute to it to be the price you pay for living in a decent, humane society that allows all people to survive after retirement and not work until the day they drop (not YOU personally).

It's ridiculous that the extremely wealthy think they owe nothing back to their society.