Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heres a good way to means test social security. If you are poor expecting welfare and free social security - they have to check if you own an iphone or ipad.
If you do then you don't get the gov't money. Maybe gov't should look at if the poor really are in desperate need of the money. I'm not buying it
Depends. I submit that the people means testing would impact are not the types who will alter their life's financial goals because of the possibility they won't get a couple grand per month when they are elderly.
Which is what? 1~2% of retirees? Means testing is either going to be irrelevant (only apply to 1~2%) or its going to eat middle-class benefits.
Heres a good way to means test social security. If you are poor expecting welfare and free social security - they have to check if you own an iphone or ipad.
People's social security benefits are determined by what they've paid into the system, how is whether they own an iphone at all relevant?
Social security isn't welfare, its a gigantic retirement insurance program that happens to be run by the government.
Those who currently call it welfare are using hyperbole. While SS has certain welfarish aspects, it is basically not welfare because we have to pay into it in order to qualify to receive benefits, and the benefits do go up in rough (though not exact) relation to the amount we have paid in.
What "welfarish" aspects does social security have? Social security is really no different than any other insurance, is auto insurance welfarish as well?
A civilized nation needs to have the rich pay 6x the taxes towards social security? I think if we all payed the same taxes and got the same benefit, at least in proportion to our earnings - then that would be fair.
Right now we have a redistribution of wealth is this civilized enough?
I think this is about fairness to people who work and taxpayers. Right now the middle class is already funding the retirement of the poor, so I'm not sure what more you want.
The posters can't seem to figure out that SS is already progressive and the demographic trend is not a blip due to the baby boomers.
By your definition, the Huns and the Visigoths were civilized. Those who could gain wealth and power kept it all to themselves and denied the fruits to the weak and foolish, which seemed perfectly fair to them. They kept the underlings alive only so they could exploit them as labor, to create greater wealth for the powerful. Perfectly fair.
When I think about this it comes down to what the purpose of the programs is, and it is my understanding they were designed as a social insurance, a safety net for the elderly, disabled, or survivors. Does a wealthy retiree need a social safety net?
If it was means tested would it be based on income or net worth? How would the limits be set? More importantly, are there enough wealthy people receiving benefits where implementing something like this would make any difference in the programs?
Its not another welfare progrma. its a pool that must be paid into and funded byt eh pool;no other moeny can be sued. There are welfare programs for just what you want to turn it into. There are housing ;food stamps ;medicaid for that.For most this is a supplement to a retirement ;not a retirement program itself.No it should be left alone not turned into another welfare addition.
Which is what? 1~2% of retirees? Means testing is either going to be irrelevant (only apply to 1~2%) or its going to eat middle-class benefits.
That is what I don't know. I have no idea whether the group that would fall into a reasonable means testing cutoff would have any impact on the viability of the program.
What "welfarish" aspects does social security have? Social security is really no different than any other insurance, is auto insurance welfarish as well?
I guess you didn't bother to read my entire post, as short as it was, so I'll repeat: Low wage earners receive a higher percentage of their payroll taxes as benefits than do high wage earners. In addition, normally, 85% of Social Security retirement benefits are subject to federal income taxation, but low-income recipients get special treatment of their SS benefits and do not pay taxes on them. In these two ways, the better-off are subsidizing the less well-off. That's how Social Security differs from auto insurance. Now one can view that difference as good or bad depending on one's philosophical outlook, but it is naive to claim that SS "is really no different than any other insurance". (But I do agree that SS is basically insurance; the facts force us to the conclusion that it is insurance with a difference.)
Despite Medicare being linked to Social Security in certain ways, it is a separate program from Social Security. Different portions of Medicare coverage are funded and treated differently. Part A (hospitalization) is indeed insurance like auto insurance, and it is funded through payroll taxes, and the poor do not receive extra benefits. By contrast, Part B (doctor visits, lab work, and the like) is funded by a combination of general tax revenue (not payroll taxes) and premiums paid by enrollees. These premiums are in five tiers and go up based on one's adjusted gross income from the IRS tax return. So Part B of Medicare is indeed welfarish. With auto insurance, do you pay more for the same coverage if you are well-off? No, no, no and absolutely not.
I guess you didn't bother to read my entire post, as short as it was, so I'll repeat: Low wage earners receive a higher percentage of their payroll taxes as benefits than do high wage earners. In addition, normally, 85% of Social Security retirement benefits are subject to federal income taxation, but low-income recipients get special treatment of their SS benefits and do not pay taxes on them. In these two ways, the better-off are subsidizing the less well-off. That's how Social Security differs from auto insurance. Now one can view that difference as good or bad depending on one's philosophical outlook, but it is naive to claim that SS "is really no different than any other insurance". (But I do agree that SS is basically insurance; the facts force us to the conclusion that it is insurance with a difference.)
Despite Medicare being linked to Social Security in certain ways, it is a separate program from Social Security. Different portions of Medicare coverage are funded and treated differently. Part A (hospitalization) is indeed insurance like auto insurance, and it is funded through payroll taxes, and the poor do not receive extra benefits. By contrast, Part B (doctor visits, lab work, and the like) is funded by a combination of general tax revenue (not payroll taxes) and premiums paid by enrollees. These premiums are in five tiers and go up based on one's adjusted gross income from the IRS tax return. So Part B of Medicare is indeed welfarish. With auto insurance, do you pay more for the same coverage if you are well-off? No, no, no and absolutely not.
Good point social security taxes are used to subsidize the poor's benefits. The wealthy pay in more to social security as taxes and get less benefits.
Wealthy who earn 106K per year have their contributions counted towards 15% of their benefit and the poor get a whopping 90%.
So all those people arguing that the rich are gaining at the expense of the poor is ridiculous.
People's social security benefits are determined by what they've paid into the system, how is whether they own an iphone at all relevant?
Social security isn't welfare, its a gigantic retirement insurance program that happens to be run by the government.
I was being sarcastic. Why is it that the so called poor have iphones and cable TV? Do you get the point, these people could be saving towards social security and buying their own health care but they don't.
Because the gov't and the wealthy are subsidizing their lifestyle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll spell it out as carefully as I can:
