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.
"Means testing" is testing whether or not you have means without the benefit. It is testing to see if you really need the assistance. Just making it taxable if your taxable income is over a given threshold is not denying the benefit to you because you don't need it. It might put some money back into the general fund but it still comes out of SS; it does nothing to adress any future shortfall. It is a step in the direction of means testing, maybe. I am not "questioning that federal income taxation of SS benefits constitutes means testing" - I am just not pretending it does in any meaningful way.
The first "up to 50%" portion of taxable SS benefits are returned to SS. The portion from 50% to 85% is sent to Medicare Part A.
"Means testing" is testing whether or not you have means without the benefit. It is testing to see if you really need the assistance. Just making it taxable if your taxable income is over a given threshold is not denying the benefit to you because you don't need it. It might put some money back into the general fund but it still comes out of SS; it does nothing to adress any future shortfall. It is a step in the direction of means testing, maybe. I am not "questioning that federal income taxation of SS benefits constitutes means testing" - I am just not pretending it does in any meaningful way.
Sure, it's not denying the entire benefit to you, just part of it. What hair-splitting! Whether the revenue recovered is sufficient to "adress any future shortfall" is not the point. The recovery is more than negligible, and it constitutes means testing.
Great find NBP. The article is great. I can remember that time well and this name, House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Dan Rostenkowski, Democrat of Illinois, was all over the news the following years. I wonder where he is now........
Rostenkowski died 5 or 6 years ago. He was indicted, along with several others, for misusing funds for running his Congressional office, was convicted and spent several months in federal prison.
Rostenkowski died 5 or 6 years ago. He was indicted, along with several others, for misusing funds for running his Congressional office, was convicted and spent several months in federal prison.
I must have been sleeping when that came across the news (death). I knew about the convictions. I figured he did a little time but got out of jail and moved to Panama or something.
we are being taxed on SS benefit income with AGI exceeding NNN but less than MMM. I am pleased to be able to afford and pay this tax.
You should be too.
YSSMMV
I agree. I like not having to pinch pennies in my retirement.
I understand, but there seems like they are proposing even stricter means testing.
"They"?
You will always find people who think the rich shouldn't receive any public benefits even if they've spent their lives paying into the system? In my opinion, that's class envy. If you look at the numbers, there aren't very many truly rich retirees. You could give them zero Social Security and zero Medicare and it wouldn't change the overall cost of those programs. I've done the math. I'd have to live well into my 90's to collect, inflation-adjusted, what my employers and I have contributed to the Social Security program. Social Security is already progressive. Low income people receive back far more than they contributed. Rich people receive far less than they contributed and pay Federal income tax on the benefit. Medicaid premiums are also means tested. A wealthy person has paid huge amounts of Medicaid tax into the program over their career and, on average, will never see a payback on what they contributed. Low income people end up getting far more in health benefits than what they paid into the system.
You have the dogmatic Tea Partiers who want to abolish the safety net completely. You have the far left who think that all rich people are evil and should be punished for it. Personally, I think the system is OK as it is other than the nutty Federal income tax policy on Social Security that should have been indexed to inflation 20 years ago. I think the retirement age needs to creep up a year or two. Change the 62/67/70 ages to 64/69/72 to align with how much longer people live today. If you're disabled and can't work, we have SSDI for that. If there are age discrimination problems in the workplace, address those.
Geoff,
Not all of us that tilt left think rich people are evil or have class envy. Some of us are just looking at the numbers and seeing that wealth has become very concentrated (less than a hundred families have more wealth than the bottom half of the population combined) and continues to become more concentrated and realizing that this can't go on. I don't mean just for emotional reasons, I mean mathematical. A large middle class is not the natural result of capitalism; it is a product of carefully regulated capitalism. I think we need to put some of the regulations back in place before it spins completely out of control. I am not for programs that redistribute some wealth (the rich can still be plenty rich; I am not for having everyon have the same amount) purely out of compassion or thinking it is just the right thing to do; I am also for it because there is no other way to fix the problem. I guess compassion does play into thinking it is a problem for many people to starve or live in squalor when there is more than enough to provide for all while still rewarding hard work and ingenuity and having ultra rich, well to do and a large middle class.
the flip side is no one should be penalized for being successful while others failed .
i know i want every penny i am entitled to from social security with no reductions because i took control , made things happen and may have grew more wealth then someone who didn't do what i did .
the flip side is no one should be penalized for being successful while others failed .
Therein lies one of the biggest problems; many feel that any adjustment that diminishes their wealth or ability to amass it by any amount at all is a penalty. I don't know how it is possible to fix the system without doing that. I really wish I did because I want to keep all I have also. I want to pay as little tax as I can so I get more money. It is at odds with cold logic about what has to be done to address the problem though. I am not sure how much longer we can keep kicking the can down the road. Maybe another generation, but probably not two.
you know how it works , whatever needs to be done should be done at a level that excludes me .
it is always take from the guy above me , he has to much .
personally, my feeling is stop getting us in meaningless wars all over and divert the money to social security and medicare where it is needed . things can be funded very easily . it is our doing in the mid-east that allowed isis to even take hold . but this is another topic .
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.
