I think that Dresner is correct that such a change would be an increase in taxes and normally I would oppose any kind of tax boost. However, in this case I think it is a good idea because of an argument I once heard Milton Friedman make on CSPAN. He made the point that because there are no actual assets in the “Trust Fund” only government bonds, which are merely promises to tax people in the future, there is no real connection between social security taxes and social security benefits. Therefore, if you look at the system as two separate programs you see its true nature.

The tax program could not be more regressive. It begins with the first dollar you earn but because there is a cap the more you earn over the cap the lower the tax is as a percentage of your total income. As for the benefits program, the more you earn during your lifetime, and therefore presumably the less you need the money, the more you are paid. All of this begs the question why are those who are supposed to favor the poor and working class fighting so hard to preserve a system that so clearly favors the rich?

If we were to eliminate or increase the cap the tax program at least would become less regressive. More importantly, if the pain of the tax program were to spread upwards to the more influential there would be a greater chance that the social security system would be privatized and ownership of the money restored to the people who earned it. That is the only moral and practical course.