11 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem is not the levels -- the problem is who collects it. My parents and John McCain both collect SS, but neither needs it. They get it because they paid in and so are entitled. No one leaves free money on the table.
It's a fallacious argument to say that just because a system was devised in 1935 we shouldn't rely on it now. We should rely on it until something is proposed that is clearly better. I've yet to see a proposal I regard as better than the present system.
The recent history of the financial sector makes me extraordinarily leery of any type ...[text shortened]... I see no reason to do anything more; SS has been remarkably successful by any fair measure.
The system has to be changed so that the money is reserved for people who need it.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by teleriontelerion: For whatever reason it's easier to get people to pay higher labor income taxes by framing it as a retirement program than as a welfare program.
I think a big problem is that, if the goal is too make sure that low income households can
live during retirement, then the program is wasteful. Even though the system is quite progressive, the SSA still is cutting big checks every year for high income retirees who hit the cap in contributions every year.
It would seem better to set up the same retirem ...[text shortened]... that the government does undo some of the waste in a very backwards way by taxing SS benefits.
Bingo. And it's foolish to believe that reality would change in the future.
People who don't "need" it (as defined by they aren't devoid of assets or income) are getting cut "big" checks, but only because they paid into the system sufficient monies to entitle them to those "big" checks under the rules of the system. I don't see anything terribly objectionable about this; as you said, the system itself operates progressively (one of the few things in this government that does) - so what if a fairly small fraction goes to high income taxpayers who have paid for this "privilege"?
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by telerionworkfare. no free money. except for people who are really too sick to work.
I think a big problem is that, if the goal is too make sure that low income households can
live during retirement, then the program is wasteful. Even though the system is quite progressive, the SSA still is cutting big checks every year for high income retirees who hit the cap in contributions every year.
It would seem better to set up the same retirem ...[text shortened]... that the government does undo some of the waste in a very backwards way by taxing SS benefits.
in Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers:
* military service was not mandatory.
* the right to vote was granted only to veterans.
* all citizens had the right to serve in the military, no matter what their physical condition was.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotpoint being that "no matter what their physical condition was" meant that the govt had to find/create jobs for anyone who asked.
workfare. no free money. except for people who are really too sick to work.
in Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers:
* military service was not mandatory.
* the right to vote was granted only to veterans.
* all citizens had the right to serve in the military, no matter what their physical condition was.
we should bring back the CCC for chronic unemployed.
would even be a good idea to make the govt provide jobs for all who asked, including part-time jobs for retirees. probably extend their lifespans.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm taking fairness out of the equation and asking the easier question, "If my primary concern is to insure the poor against a destitute retirement is a system that pays out checks even to workers (and in some cases spouses of workers) who earned consistently in top 20% the best way to do that?"
telerion: For whatever reason it's easier to get people to pay higher labor income taxes by framing it as a retirement program than as a welfare program.
Bingo. And it's foolish to believe that reality would change in the future.
People who don't "need" it (as defined by they aren't devoid of assets or income) are gett ...[text shortened]... ly small fraction goes to high income taxpayers who have paid for this "privilege"?
My guess is that (ignoring politics for the moment) the payroll tax revenues could be replaced by an increase the top income tax rates of significantly less than 12.4% if we eliminated payments to middle and high income retirees (who should be able to save for retirement and thus are not our principle concern). If the benefits were decent enough you'd think the poor would be on board. They'd see a substantial increase in their disposable income as would the middle class from the elimination of the regressive payroll tax. The upper income types should be happy because despite higher income taxes, the elimination of the larger (well larger for many of them anyway) payroll tax, which hit them both on the contribution and benefit side would permit them to save more.
I know it sounds like a free lunch but that's only because in some respects it is. It all comes froms reducing the expenditures of the SS by eliminating a large fraction of beneficiaries. If my reasoning here is more or less correct, then it really speaks to the size of the political frictions to altering social security.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by telerionDetaching SS revenue from its future beneficiaries is a almost certain way to kill the program politically. Raising taxes on the wealthy to fund a welfare program hasn't exactly been the way things have gone in the last quarter century. IF it was so politically easy to insure the poor, at any age, a decent standard of living than SS wouldn't even be necessary: we'd set up something like a negative income tax, fund it by higher taxes on those who could afford it and poverty would be a thing of the past.
I'm taking fairness out of the equation and asking the easier question, "If my primary concern is to insure the poor against a destitute retirement is a system that pays out checks even to workers (and in some cases spouses of workers) who earned consistently in top 20% the best way to do that?"
My guess is that (ignoring politics for the moment) the pay ...[text shortened]... then it really speaks to the size of the political frictions to altering social security.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSo basically, because most people just don't care about the poor (besides the occasional coin flipped at a pan-handler), we end up having to spend an extra $300Bill or more per year to bribe the middle class into accepting a welfare program. This is a very cynical way of looking at it. Regrettably, it's probably also an accurate way of looking at it.
Detaching SS revenue from its future beneficiaries is a almost certain way to kill the program politically. Raising taxes on the wealthy to fund a welfare program hasn't exactly been the way things have gone in the last quarter century. IF it was so politically easy to insure the poor, at any age, a decent standard of living than SS wouldn't even be nece ...[text shortened]... und it by higher taxes on those who could afford it and poverty would be a thing of the past.
So if the GOP really wanted to reduce the size of government, it would start a campaign to instill as much compassion as possible among the general public for the poor.
This would allow government to enact narrowly targeted programs that help the poor while saving lots of money by not having to give handouts to those who aren't poor. The poor would be better off. The government would spend less money. Taxes could be cut. And the increased amount of compassion might also stimulate the amount of time and money devoted to private charity on behalf of the poor which in time could replace some of the government programs and allow government to become even smaller.
Of course, this proposal makes two big assumptions:
1. That it's possible for a political party to do something that would increase people's level of compassion.
2. That the GOP really wants to enact policy that would actually make government smaller.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe middle class is being "bribed" with their own money. I don't even see why there are any complaints about the size of SS; up to now it's been funded out of the levies specifically earmarked for the program. Nothing extra has been spent at all; in fact an additional $2.3 trillion has been raised which has been used to fund other activities.
So basically, because most people just don't care about the poor (besides the occasional coin flipped at a pan-handler), we end up having to spend an extra $300Bill or more per year to bribe the middle class into accepting a welfare program. This is a very cynical way of looking at it. Regrettably, it's probably also an accurate way of looking at it.
S ...[text shortened]...
2. That the GOP really wants to enact policy that would actually make government smaller.
Bitching about SS as increasing the size of government makes no sense.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's rather pathetic. While it's probably necessary politically, the idea of bribing the middle class with its own money is a rather comical way to run a program. Wouldn't it be better if the middle class just kept that money, and we could at least save on the administrative costs of running those funds to and from Washington?
The middle class is being "bribed" with their own money. I don't even see why there are any complaints about the size of SS; up to now it's been funded out of the levies specifically earmarked for the program. Nothing extra has been spent at all; in fact an additional $2.3 trillion has been raised which has been used to fund other activities.
Bitching about SS as increasing the size of government makes no sense.
And I'm sure there's a lot for small-government types to complain about when they see all that FICA money coming out of their paycheck. Once you factor in all the deductions, for many people in the middle class, these are the only federal taxes they really pay.
12 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's rather pathetic that a few malcontents keep complaining about such a successful program. SS has overwhelming public support.
It's rather pathetic. While it's probably necessary politically, the idea of bribing the middle class with its own money is a rather comical way to run a program. Wouldn't it be better if the middle class just kept that money, and we could at least save on the administrative costs of running those funds to and from Washington?
And I'm sure there's a lo ...[text shortened]... ons, for many people in the middle class, these are the only federal taxes they really pay.
I personally don't mind at all paying a portion of my income to a program that gives retirement benefits to the elderly knowing that when I become elderly I am promised a benefit commensurate with my contributions. It's an eminently fair system.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think "commensurate" is an accurate word. While it's true that those who contribute more usually get more back in benefits, the scaling is not at all proportional. On top of that, include the SS benefit taxes mentioned earlier, and it's far from commensurate.
It's rather pathetic that a few malcontents keep complaining about such a successful program. SS has overwhelming public support.
I personally don't mind at all paying a portion of my income to a program that gives retirement benefits to the elderly knowing that when I become elderly I am promised a benefit commensurate with my contributions. It's an eminently fair system.
12 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by telerion(Shrug) Good nitpicking. You're free to substitute another word if you wish; the point being that those who contribute now to the system are assured of receiving benefits in the future according to a specific formula.
I don't think "commensurate" is an accurate word. While it's true that those who contribute more usually get more back in benefits, the scaling is not at all proportional. On top of that, include the SS benefit taxes mentioned earlier, and it's far from commensurate.