The site posted indicates that they do pay most taxes, except for FICA, for which they have a religious exemption (dear god, don’t anyone tell the Christian Nationalists about this exemption).
Any group that qualifies for the employment tax exemption already knows about it. They have to be in one of several groups that are known to have existed for several decades, and either have their own mutual benefit program or conscientiously object to the taxes for religious reasons. That list includes far right, far left, and moderate adherents.
(Sometimes clergy from mainline or popular denominations will also claim it. There is some grey area in interpreting legitimate conscientious objection.)
> There is some grey area in interpreting legitimate conscientious objection.
A ton of unnecessary gray area, and a violation of separation of church and state to give preference to certain tribes over others based on political influence.
I assume they already are. Not just from explicitly benefit reductions like increasing the retirement age, but also the decreasing purchasing power of a dollar (inflation) outpacing any cost of living adjustments. I still have 35 years to go before I can collect, but I expect the demographics will be so tilted by then, that I will see little benefit from Social Security.
In the sene that SS is a broken pyramid model that depends on short retirements and population growth, yes. However, this is not a problem the US is willing to contemplate as they would removing the payroll cap, which would become a significant national conversation.
Inflation, not so much an issue, since benefits and maximum contributions receive COLAs and theoretically wages are inflating at pace with CPI.
It would make it progressive because those proposals do not lift the benefits cap (most of them don't, at least.) But I do understand what you're saying about the flat percentage of tax taken out per dollar of income.
