Social Security

[MrPots]

China also has an empire.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's the wrong thing to do. How would you lie having a means test applied to you where the government said that your income from other sources was too high so too bad for you! You're going to get reduced benefits or no benefits at all? Not only is this morally wrong but it's unnecessary. The health of SS can be maintained without imposing a means test.

It's morally wrong?

John, you are starting to scare me.

Can anyone get Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid? All have means tests. All are unhappy who do not qualify.

If you want to worry about moralities first worry about sending 22 year old's into the world with 4 years of debt. Worry about the morality of continuing to make healthcare unattainable to millions, worry about morality of the price of prescription drugs that the government pays for.... while funding many of the studies.

How are you justifying a tax that is effectively regressive in nature and then claiming the ones who benefit from it's structure, since it's inception, need their emotional state guarded? God forbid something be perceived not fair to them, how would they ever deal!

To borrow a line from you, this is insane.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by MrPots

Rich people no longer have to be responsible...for anything. .

QFT

it needs to change

cap on social security, capital gains taxes, ever lowering rate of withholding... for what is not hide or disguised, legally or not.

I can't believe some are championing the new millenia robber barons.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by MrPots

China also has an empire.

As does Russia.

[icenine]

I think means testing for a system everyone is forced to pay into would so negative as to make a whole section of our society against such social welfare programs in general, which would be bad for America and Social Security.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

It's morally wrong?

John, you are starting to scare me.

Can anyone get Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid? All have means tests. All are unhappy who do not qualify.

Those are entitlement programs. The people who receive these didn't pay into a fund for 40 or 50 years in order to receive Food Stamps, Welfare or Medicare commensurate with their previous contributions.

Social Security is an earned benefit, not unlike a sort of government annuity. People (over a certain age) receive benefits the amount of which is determined by the amount they paid in over their working lives. To means test an earned benefit is basically cheating people out of some or all of the compensation for the money they've paid in.

It astonishes me that you can't see the difference here.

If you want to worry about moralities first worry about sending 22 year old's into the world with 4 years of debt. Worry about the morality of continuing to make healthcare unattainable to millions, worry about morality of the price of prescription drugs that the government pays for.... while funding many of the studies.

All of this is totally irrelevant to a conversation about Social Security.

How are you justifying a tax that is effectively regressive in nature and then claiming the ones who benefit from it's structure, since it's inception, need their emotional state guarded? God forbid something be perceived not fair to them, how would they ever deal!

It's not really a tax in the conventional sense that the taxes go to fund government services. Social Security payroll deductions are basically invested by the government on your behalf as insurancce against poverty i n old age. It's in essence a retirement insurance premium. I justify it on the basis of the direct financial benefit that accrues from that payment.

I can also justify it on the basis that the premium is assessed on the basis of earnings. The more you earn, the more you pay so, actually, it isn't regressive. Sales tax is regressive since everyone pays their 8 or 10% on whatever they buy so it disproportionately impacts people with low incomes.

Yes, I realize there's an earnings cap on the amount that people pay into Social Security. What you seem to be overlooking is that there's also a cap on benefits. The benefits one receives are based on what one pays in.

[Oerets]

I'm against means testing but in favor of increasing the cap on contributing to a higher level.

This is a forced system so a percentage based on the years and pay in should be the same for all no matter your net worth. Just with the increase in wealth and medium income so should the cap keep up.

Increasing the age? No they should lower it!

Barney

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Increasing the age? No they should lower it!

Barney

There are persuasive arguments on both sides of this. The argument in favor of increasing the retirement age is that the system was never intended to provide benefits for 10 or 20 years as it does now because people live longer. When Social Security was introduced, average life expectancy was much lower. The government was figuring on only having to pay for a few years.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

The argument in favor of lowering the retirement age is that, by doing so, we create more vacancies for young people entering the work force. this can be critically important during a period such as this one when young adults are graduating from college buried in debt and unable to find a job.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Those are entitlement programs. The people who receive these didn't pay into a fund for 40 or 50 years in order to receive Food Stamps, Welfare or Medicare commensurate with their previous contributions.

Social Security is an earned benefit, not unlike a sort of government annuity. People (over a certain age) receive benefits the amount of which is determined by the amount they paid in over their working lives. To means test an earned benefit is basically cheating people out of some or all of the compensation for the money they've paid in.

It astonishes me that you can't see the difference here.



All of this is totally irrelevant to a conversation about Social Security.



It's not really a tax in the conventional sense that the taxes go to fund government services. Social Security payroll deductions are basically invested by the government on your behalf as insurancce against poverty i n old age. It's in essence a retirement insurance premium. I justify it on the basis of the direct financial benefit that accrues from that payment.

I can also justify it on the basis that the premium is assessed on the basis of earnings. The more you earn, the more you pay so, actually, it isn't regressive. Sales tax is regressive since everyone pays their 8 or 10% on whatever they buy so it disproportionately impacts people with low incomes.

Yes, I realize there's an earnings cap on the amount that people pay into Social Security. What you seem to be overlooking is that there's also a cap on benefits. The benefits one receives are based on what one pays in.

Social Security is an entitlement program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement) and is a conventional tax in that it's been around for a long time. I'm astonished that you don't understand this.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There are persuasive arguments on both sides of this. The argument in favor of increasing the retirement age is that the system was never intended to provide benefits for 10 or 20 years as it does now because people live longer. When Social Security was introduced, average life expectancy was much lower. The government was figuring on only having to pay for a few years.

That's a bogus argument that is being pushed by the Oligarchy who want us peasants to toil in the traces till we drop dead.

The main reason the average lifespan was so much lower back in the old days was due to the high rate of infant mortality and deaths from Childhood diseases. When you put a while bunch of zeros and single digits into the mix it tends to bring the average way down. People who made it to 65 back then had almost as many years left as they would today.