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.
"As lawmakers discuss cuts to entitlement programs, raising the retirement age is becoming a thorny issue.
A Washington Post analysis points out how the gains in life expectancy are going to the more affluent. It complicates the debate, one source says: raising the Social Security retirement age would mean the poor would be subsidizing the benefits of the longer living, and more affluent."
If they're really poor they've likely been receiving welfare benefits which means we "rich" folks have been subsidizing them all along, including their non-taxes, tax breaks, EICs, Medicaid, WIC, free lunches, et al.
For the record, I do not consider Social Security or Medicare to be "entitlements." We paid for them.
"As lawmakers discuss cuts to entitlement programs, raising the retirement age is becoming a thorny issue.
A Washington Post analysis points out how the gains in life expectancy are going to the more affluent. It complicates the debate, one source says: raising the Social Security retirement age would mean the poor would be subsidizing the benefits of the longer living, and more affluent."
I don't know how the poor can be subsidizing the affluent if the poor pay no or next to no tax.
As for your last sentence, the poor do pay exactly the same FICA taxes on their wages as the middle class and the rich, and it is these FICA taxes which fund Social Security, not general tax revenue.
In other ways, however, the rich are subsidizing the poor with regard to Social Security because the formulas which calculate the retirement benefits return to the low wage earners a much greater percentage of their earnings than to high wage earners. In addition, the middle class and the rich are paying federal income tax on their Social Security benefits (or to be more precise, on 85% of their SS benefits) and the poor are not paying any.
So I don't know how this all balances out: One the one hand the poor do not live as long but on the other hand the rich are getting a lesser deal. It seems to me it would take quite of bit of sophisticated number crunching to see what the balance is overall.
"As lawmakers discuss cuts to entitlement programs, raising the retirement age is becoming a thorny issue.
A Washington Post analysis points out how the gains in life expectancy are going to the more affluent. It complicates the debate, one source says: raising the Social Security retirement age would mean the poor would be subsidizing the benefits of the longer living, and more affluent."
I don't know how the poor can be subsidizing the affluent if the poor pay no or next to no tax.
As noted by Esocrt Rider if they work they are paying payroll taxes even if not income tax. It is the payroll tax that goes to SS so they are contributing to SS. The issue is that if they have a lower life expectancy they as a block will not live long enough to realize the benefits of SS than the affluent with a longer life expectancy. Just like a family with a history of dying young are less likely to reap SS benefits as is a family with lots of longevity in their history. When you open Pandora's door about public funded benefits all kinds of things can come flying out. Go to just about any study on life expectancy and they will usually disagregate the data by sub groups. Take that sub group data and apply it to SS. Whether it is an issue or not is obviously one of perspective.
As for your last sentence, the poor do pay exactly the same FICA taxes on their wages as the middle class and the rich, and it is these FICA taxes which fund Social Security, not general tax revenue.
In other ways, however, the rich are subsidizing the poor with regard to Social Security because the formulas which calculate the retirement benefits return to the low wage earners a much greater percentage of their earnings than to high wage earners. In addition, the middle class and the rich are paying federal income tax on their Social Security benefits (or to be more precise, on 85% of their SS benefits) and the poor are not paying any.
So I don't know how this all balances out: One the one hand the poor do not live as long but on the other hand the rich are getting a lesser deal. It seems to me it would take quite of bit of sophisticated number crunching to see what the balance is overall.
I'm thinking the issue is less of who pays what but how it looks for politicians running for office.
I can still edit so just for the record, I don't collect social security nor will I even though early in my lifetime I paid some money into it.
I'm thinking the issue is less of who pays what but how it looks for politicians running for office.
It has everything to do with the communities they represent and how SS benefits end up being distributed in their communities when compared to others. I have alluded to this on several occassions. On average residents of Alabama have one of the lowest life expectancies in the country and residents of Colorodo one of the highest. This can play out differently in expected benefits received etc etc etc.
If they're really poor they've likely been receiving welfare benefits which means we "rich" folks have been subsidizing them all along, including their non-taxes, tax breaks, EICs, Medicaid, WIC, free lunches, et al.
For the record, I do not consider Social Security or Medicare to be "entitlements." We paid for them.
Amigo: Just a suggestion - you might want to do a bit of research regarding how much of your SS & Medicare benefits are "paid for", before you go down that pike too far.
Amigo: Just a suggestion - you might want to do a bit of research regarding how much of your SS & Medicare benefits are "paid for", before you go down that pike too far.
Granted we're likely to ultimately receive more than we put in but at issue for me in this instance is the ever-popular rich vs. poor divide that politicians, especially in this administration, love to exploit.
It seems that one thing often overlooked in these Social Security discussions ... about raising more resources by raising the SS age and limiting 'rich people,' is this: Our 'tax and spend' politicians have been 'borrowing' (aka: stealing) from Social Security for years and leaving IOU's. This is one of the many ways they manage to spend off-budget!
A major concern we should all have over all of these 'raise taxes', but, don't cut spending schemes, is this: The government/politicians have shown absolutely no spending restraint or willingness to actually cut into what has become their own 'private vote-buying pool.' Think of it this way, 'What would happen if SS taxes were doubled or even tripled next year ... and the retirement 'age' was raised to 75?' -- Would we suddenly start accumulating an excess of SS funds? --- Of course not! - The politicians would simply see it as 'more funds for them to 'buy votes with.'
[What am I talking about re: 'vote buying?' -- Well, in order to appease one's own local constituents (the only people who vote for any individual politician, ... NOT the country!) -- they must "bring home the bacon." They do that by exchanging votes with other politicians attempting to do the same thing for their local base of constituents. Meanwhile, the country and national debt become a deeper and deeper hole, with nobody really 'minding the store.' As 'Pogo' once said, "We have met the enemy ... and he is us!"]
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.
