The latter part, I agree with, although it would hurt me. In fact, I still pay a substantial amount in self-employment tax, which until recently didn't increase my benefits a penny. I look for the ceiling to increase and also the age to move up incrementally, with increased bennys for delaying. A step process...
I’m on record in another thread advocating a phased increase in the age for full benefits. We can debate the exact schedule, but it would be something like: If you’re 50 today, your full benefit date is now age 70. If you’re 51 today, it’s 69 years, 11 months. If you’re 52, it’s 69 y, 10 m. And so forth.
We can debate the exact schedule, but the idea would be a gradual implementation. And we’ve done this before…we actually did something similar a while back when the age for full benefits was raised from 65 to 67.
This would have the obvious benefits of simultaneously (1) deferring disbursements and (2) reducing the number of years over which benefits would be paid. It would also have the temporary benefit during the phase-in of people continuing to pay into the Trust Fund, but receiving benefits at a later date than they otherwise would.
And yes, you’d also probably have to raise the minimum filing age to 65  parallel to a similar move when the full benefit age was raised to 67.
I’d also remove the cap on SSI contributions altogether.
The public would perceive it as “putting the screws to the rich guy,†which would generate a lot of appeal. But it would also raise some uncomfortable questions.
As in, would those who contributed more because of the removed (or increased) cap also receive more in benefits? If not, other than a “forget the rich people…they don’t need the money, therefore they get no extra benefits,†what’s the justification?
I know there are people with high compensation that pay little or no income tax, but they’re the great exception. Higher income levels pay the significant majority of total federal income tax receipts, and there’s a huge portion of the population that pays none at all. So high-income people would pay most of the IRS’s actual receipts
and effectively subsidize the Trust Fund with no benefit to themselves? Not exactly the principles on which the economy was founded.
Also, I think you’d see a lot of highly compensated people shift income into forms that aren’t subject to SSI withholding. If you remove the cap (my suggestion), as opposed to raising it, you’d see more of that.
My feeling is that the net would still be more money for the Trust Fund, though I can’t prove that with hard data  that’s because it hasn’t been done before, therefore, there is no hard data to be had.
Of a lot of long-term fiscal problems we face, I do think the SS issue is the most easily fixed. It will not come without some hard choices.
thehill.com
