My math is correct. You just don't understand subtraction apparently. If I give you $20 and ask for $15 back, the cost to me to give you $20 is $5, not $20.

Based on the costs of the Social Security Administration's overhead, we're talking about a 0.07% cost of administration.

As for a change of behavior of the wealthy, we're talking about a 10% increase in tax burdens on the top 10%. If you were earning $1 million per year, what kind of drastic behavioral change could we expect from you $600,000 after taxes instead of $700,000? Studies looking for optimal tax rates show that behavioral changes of the rich don't kick in till around 60-70% effective tax rates, not 40%. It's like you're worried about turning up the thermostat in your home out of fear your blood will reach the point of boiling.

Additionally, if you have such a problem with raising taxes on the owners of capital, to pay for the lost incomes of those whose jobs are replaced by capital itself in the form of hardware and software, what is your preferred solution to that economic reality? What is your answer to technological unemployment?

Also, don't bother claiming that economists don't like this idea. It has plenty of support among economists, including Nobel prize winners including both Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek in the 20th century, and a growing list this century.