Is it fair to means test Social Security?

[Dark Angel]

I don't think it's fair to means test Social Security, because even higher income people have paid into the system for years. Just because they may not need the Social Security is not valid cause to deny it to them, I don't think.

I do think that they should be able to opt out of receiving Social Security, but I do not think that it should be mandatory.

As I have pointed out in the other tax thread circulating around General Discussion, we are going down a dangerous slope if we means test social security. What will people think when the government starts reneging on more promises?

I mean the government has already screwed veterans over many times, under many different administrations. As it stands now, Veterans making more than 25 or 30k a year(can't remember which) have to pay for their health care, if it's not service connected. THIS IS RIDICULOUS! Veterans, at ANY income level, should be entitled to FREE HEALTH CARE FOR LIFE! FREE HEALTH CARE! TAXPAYER FUNDED! Some on here, I believe, would like to make upper income veterans pay more. I don't think that's fair.

I would also like to add that some future recipients of Social Security are also veterans, and while it does not have much to do with this, it does have something to do with it. The government should not renege on its promises to SS recipients. The government can find other sources of revenue. It can raise INCOME tax rates, and it can increase the estate tax. It can raise the FICA cap. But it should NOT reduce benefits. Why not? Well, here's one reason: THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF IT.

Sorry if that seemed like a rant. I just am stunned by how many people think it's fair to take away people's hard-earned Social Security. And it is hard-earned, it's not inherited.

Thanks for listening, and I welcome your thoughts, friends.

[Dark Angel]

1. kick

kick

[Dookus]

2. Nope... it's not fair

but nothing is.

If we're going to save Social Security, we should impose means tests.

Nothing about taxation is inherently fair. Some states pay more than they get back, others get back far more than they pay. There are a thousand instances of such "unfairness".

What's "fair" about welfare? Or Medicare? Or military spending.... etc. etc.

The wealthy get a lot of benefits for the taxes they pay. In fact, I always argue that they don't pay near enough. If the decision is between making sure millionaires get their SS checks, or the whole system going down, I'll cut off the millionaires and not lose much sleep.

[Dark Angel]

3. Ok

Does your philosophy apply to higher income veterans, too?

[Dookus]

8. Yes

What does being a veteran have to do with SS? John Kerry will live very well without it.

[Dark Angel]

13. Not for SS

For veterans health care, brother. I think veterans should be able to get free health care before anyone else does. I would prefer that everyone have health care, but if that cannot be done, then veterans should at least get free health care. Veterans were PROMISED IT.

Veterans going into Nam were promised free health care. Now they're treated like shit. Politicians say, "If we have the money, then maybe we can take care of you." Fuck that. That's unacceptable. These people put their lives on the line, and we should take away Congress's health care until they give every veteran free health care, service connected injury or no service connected injury.

I'm very passionate about this issue, in case you couldn't tell. It's because I volunteer to help veterans.

[Occulus]

15. I view that free medical care

as payment denied for services rendered. You were, after all, a soldier, member of the military, and (I believe) also considered an employee.

Do military personnel get W-2 forms, or are they something else?

[Dark Angel]

16. I am not personally a veteran

Just a passionate advocate for veterans. I don't know about the W-2's.

[Dark Angel]

5. And I think you fail to distinguish some things

Medicare and welfare are perfectly fair. They are public services, and I think that anyone 65+ should be able to get Medicare(if they paid in, etc), and everyone should receive an income subsidy from the government(welfare). I don't believe in income level caps for these benefits. If these are community programs, then everyone should get a piece. It's only fair.

[Sulldogg]

10. If everyone gets an income subsidy...

Why take the money in the first place to give it right back?

[Dark Angel]

11. Good question

They could just take a tax credit instead.

[tobius]

24. are you saying you would deny medicare to someone who was not able

to "pay in"?

[Sulldogg]

7. Just a question.

Please don't flame me, but if you had your way, what would your effective tax brackets look like?

[Sulldogg]

4. They can reduce...

benefits without renegging. They can say, everyone below some arbitrary age, say 50, you are going to get your benefits calculated in this new manner or push the eligibility age back.

I'm not sure what we should do, but I don't see it as raise more money/reneg dichotomy. The program has changed little since its inception, and has done little to keep up with a changing America.

Something has to be done, this affects me directly. But I do feel that any change shouldn't affect those currently receiving benefits or those too close to retirement to significantly change their behaviour.

[SheilaT]

6. Personally, I think it should

be means tested, but I'm not terribly worked up about that needing to happen. And I don't think it will, if for no other reason than to protect it. If too many people are removed from the SS system through means testing, it will become a benefit for the poor and will get cut out from under them, like anything else.

I absolutely agree that medical care should be free.

I wonder how many truly wealthy people simply don't bother to file for social security.

[strategery blunder]

9. Get rid of the cap on how much income is taxed

for Social Security. Give recipients who are about to retire benefits based upon how much of their income went into the system. (Rich people who only paid 1% of their income into Social Security because of the cap should not receive benefits as if they paid the full 7.65% over their lifetimes.)

Right now, because of the cap, rich people don't pay nearly the same percentage of their income into the Social Security system as poor/middle class people do.

Edit: added "who are about to retire" and "Rich people...their lifetimes."

[Sulldogg]

12. If you do that

The poor will get almost nothing back, since they pay little into the system.

[strategery blunder]

19. Do the poor get much back, anyway?

nt

[Sulldogg]

21. More than they pay n/t

[Cleita]

14. I agree with you a hundred percent.

I think though that there shouldn't be a cap on SS collected, which means rich people will probably pay more than poor people in their lifetimes and we shouldn't care if they get some back. I actually have a lot to say on this issue, but I can't right now.

You are right though.

[Dark Angel]

17. Thanks

nt

[punpirate]

18. Let's keep in mind...

... that all the sudden talk about reduced benefits, means testing, etc., is a result of enormous tax cuts, principally benefitting the wealthy.

If there weren't a deficit, and a general retreat on the part of this administration and a Republican-controlled Congress from progressive taxation, this discussion probably would not be taking place.

Root causes, y'know?

Cheers.

[Sulldogg]

20. Not true

The current system, in the very near future will not be sustainable. The number of people paying in compared to the number of people receiving benfits started out at 42 to 1, and the system was an easily maintainable thing, now it's 2 to 1 and will at some not so distant point be less than 1 to 1. With life expectancy getting pushed back, people are staying on it longer and longer and there won't be the income ot pay for it.

[Cleita]

22. The not sustainable argument is BS.

Look at the billions being pissed away in wars. Why is war always sustainable but tax money returned to the people who pay it all of a sudden not sustainable?

Prove it to me. I am a number cruncher.

[punpirate]

23. Not true, eh?

The current estimates are that the system doesn't go negative until about 2038, at which time, most of the baby-boomers will be dead.

And, it's only at that time that SS (which is only one part of issue here) must begin to draw down on its fund--which the Bush administration is trying to eat up as quickly as possible through deficits and then default on, if they can keep Republicans in office long enough. The SS trust fund now stands at $1.4 trillion, and is expected to grow beyond that point through about 2020.

But, SS is not the only issue, as I said. Veterans' benefits, for example, are paid out of the general fund, and the only way to make up for those deficits, and many others, is a return to a genuinely progressive taxation system, which has been eroding for thirty-odd years.

Here's some bottom-dollar stuff to consider. Since 1983, all Americans have been paying an incremental amount into the Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid fund which was intended to be borrowed from the general fund for budgetary purposes and paid back with supposedly increased tax revenues later. The only way to pay that amount back is from general tax receipts. Since 1983, the share of total tax revenues paid by corporations has declined from about 24% to about 12% in 2002 (some estimates for 2003 put that amount at about 8%). Here's another item to consider: that failure of corporations to pay their fair share of the tax load trickles down to the states, which use the federal system on which to base their taxation. Tax revenue losses at the federal level are mirrored at the state level, and those revenue losses are eventually made up by cuts in services and increased taxes at the local level.

You've been listening to too many Republicans--this is precisely the line they've been pushing as a means of privatizing the SS system, and, in the process, making a shitload in fees for Wall Street on the government's dime.

Here's a good overview of the hype and the reality:

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/030504.html

Cheers.

[Festivito]

25. Life is unfair. I can see a scenario.

That was Jimmy Carter.

That people should receive back as a percentage of the full SS amount they paid.

So, say, people making $100,000 pay 99% of the 15.3% SS/MC, so they should get 99% of the full amount of their SS check. People making $1,000,000 per year pay 1.5% of their income to SS and should get 1.5% of their full-amount SS check.

SS is already a regressive tax on the poor for the poor (and the disabled) so the rich won't have to contribute. The rich only receive the benefit of not having to donate to charities in order to keep an unsightly poor from their eyes.

It's already unfair. What could be worse.

[bemildred]

26. Is it fair for poor old people to eat dog food?

Fix that problem, and I will be more than happy to reconsider
whether unfairness to old rich people in the SSI system is a
burning issue.