Should social security be made progressive?

[Radical Activist]

Poll question: Should social security be made progressive?

We currently have a system that taxes people struggling to get by on minimum wage and gives some of that money to the idle rich. Social Security is the most regressive federal tax. Should we make it more fair?

[dkf]

1. Actually it is a progressive system.

You get 90% of your first $680 of average monthly earnings
32% of the amount from $680 to $4,100
15% above $4100 to the cap.

The so called catfood commission would make it even more progressive by putting a minimum amount keeping all those on SS above the poverty level even if their wages didn't qualify them for that amount.

[Radical Activist]

4. That's the payout.

Not the tax.
Still, I don't see that as being very progressive. People who were poor for most of their lives get less. Millionaires get benefits as well.

[Yupster]

14. Yes, the bendpoint formula

is incredibly progressive. The numbers the other guy posted are correct.

How do you not see it?

The fact that millionaires get something as well makes it not very progressive in your opinion?

[Radical Activist]

18. Because low-income people get lower benefits.

That's not progressive. How do you not see it?

[Yupster]

20. If I contribute one tenth of what you contribute

but get one third of the benefit you get then that's very progressive.

[dkf]

15. If you want to means test that is fine by me...

But the progressives hate that because it turns into welfare, and the top end can be brought down quite a bit.

[DURHAM D]

10. Good luck - no one at DU ever gets this.

Doesn't fit their world view.

[Radical Activist]

19. The idea

of keeping everyone on SS above the poverty level is a good adjustment. I'm not as crazy about some of their other SS recommendations.

[gristy]

2. That certainly is not a very good description of SS

[Radical Activist]

6. They are factual statements.

It's an aspect of the system that is not often discussed.

[jpgray]

3. Edit. What's the use?

.

[Radical Activist]

5. Payouts to millionaires is not progressive

when low-income workers are funding it. You're quick to make this about the commission but I'm sure we can all make up our own minds regardless of what the commission is doing. What do you think about this specific issue? Should SS be more progressive and how would you support making it so?

[jpgray]

7. Not being old, poor and afraid is also progressive

Cutting revenues is a poison pill, the sugar is that they are cut progressively. If they changed the payroll tax to be progressive AND raised the cap all the way to not having one, we might have something. Unfortunately, what will happen is that they will cut revenues, keep the cap, and use a fairness argument to justify the resulting cuts in benefits, jacking up the retirement age, further reducing benefits for early retirees, etc.--all to "save" the program after "improving" it.

Do you think Congress and/or the Commission will support and recommend for passage both a progressive re-vamp of the pay-in structure AND eliminate the cap? What do you think it will mean if they recommend one and not the other?

[Radical Activist]

9. "what will happen"

I don't believe anyone knows what will happen, and I don't let that kind of guesswork determine what I push for.

I'd like to see something like...
Exempt the first $1,000 a month someone makes from all payroll taxes.
Lift the cap on paying into the system.
Reduce or eliminate payments to those with high incomes or large liquid assets in retirement.

That would do it.

[Radical Activist]

8. Really? But you typed so much!

Personally, I thought it was very revealing that I made a post about an issue and you wanted to make it about Obama.

[OHdem10]

11. You already pay according to your income. and likewise your

payment is based on amoount paid in.

If you are asking should it be means tested so the
rich can opt out??? No, the system will not work

[Hannah Bell]

12. poll fail. it's not regressive. that's an evan bayh talking point.

[Radical Activist]

16. It's regressive.

I always smile at how you suddenly favor transfer of wealth to the rich when it comes to social security. You don't sound so much like a Marxist when it comes to a program you expect to benefit from personally.

[Luminous Animal]

13. I do not think that is the argument that we should be having at this time.

(Idle rich - hehehe- good one.)

[Radical Activist]

17. Sure, the only argument we should be having

is how everything that ever happens is the fault of that evil Barack Obama. That's more productive than writing about issues, right?

[Nye Bevan]

21. The best way to *destroy* Social Security is to try to make it "more progressive".

Social Security is *already* progressive; poor people get much more bang for their buck than rich people under the system. Yes, rich people still receive benefits, but that is what ensures that Social Security has broad political support. If you cut off benefits to the rich then Social Security will be perceived as just another welfare program and will be just as vulnerable.

[mainer]

22. Right. It's only acceptable because we're ALL beneficiaries

If we start taking away rich contributors' benefits, they'll be the first to lobby for shutting down the program entirely.