Greenspan to Congress: Cut Social Security Benefits

[pchang]

Originally posted by Sava
with the top 1% holding something like 60% of the wealth... well, that's a lot of revenue the government is missing out on.

Removing the income cap will help some, but you have to realize that this affects only W-2 income. Much of the income of the super rich (as you define them) is not in the form of W-2 income and so would not be taxed for social security in any case.

[Sava]

Originally posted by pchang


Removing the income cap will help some, but you have to realize that this affects only W-2 income. Much of the income of the super rich (as you define them) is not in the form of W-2 income and so would not be taxed for social security in any case.

we should also remove SS tax from the payroll tax and put it on income tax...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I imagine it has something to do with the notion that the richer folks wouldn't be as much of a draw on SS in their older years, but I can't help but think that taxing one's entire income would be but one way of helping SS out.

Gatekeeper

Nope. Those who pay the most into SS get the most back in benefits. So the mulitmillionaries get as much back as the people who made $87K. I'm of the opinion that benefits should be graduated based upon need. So, the richer you are, the less you get back.

[pchang]

I used to enjoy it when during the year it looked like I got a 7% raise when I hit the SS income cap. Medicare has no such cap.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nope. Those who pay the most into SS get the most back in benefits. So the mulitmillionaries get as much back as the people who made $87K. I'm of the opinion that benefits should be graduated based upon need. So, the richer you are, the less you get back.

So we should punish people for investing toward retirement and reward someone who squanders all their money? How about graduated based on need defined by lifetime earnings, not your current worth?

[GePap]

They should raise the retirement age-simplest solution to a problem created simply becuase people are living longer. If you take that into account, the system remains solvent.

[David Floyd]

Stuie, che isn't interested in a fair plan, he's interested in a wealth transfer plan - transfering wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Stuie
So we should punish people for investing toward retirement and reward someone who squanders all their money? How about graduated based on need defined by lifetime earnings, not your current worth?

Social Security is an anti-poverty program. That's its purpose. Those who aren't in poverty do not need it.

And Floyd is slightly correct. I don't buy libertarian morality. It's evil.

[Jon Miller]

I agree that SS should be scailed back some

not in benefits, but in age

I think that it shuld start when you are 70

HJob Miller

[pchang]

SS was never about fairness or savings. It was about makaing sure old people in the US did not live in deplorable conditions. Before SS, there were many old people who lived below the poverty level, and this was considered shameful by the people of the US at that time. Since then, the scope of SS has expanded and its origins have been lost. A return of SS to its original purpose will make it solvent, but will also reduce its scope.

[David Floyd]

And Floyd is slightly correct. I don't buy libertarian morality. It's evil.

Yeah, evil, and all you want to do is to strip away everyone's property rights and personal liberty, and place both in the hands of the government (or, excuse me, "the people"). That's isn't evil at all

In any case, che and pchang have both admitted that they aren't primarily interested in an equitable plan, so I think that my point was well made.

[GePap]

And it has been made clear by many as well that your extremist liberterianism is as minority a view as they come, so thankfully your ideas will never make it to power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And it has been made clear by many as well that your extremist liberterianism is as minority a view as they come, so thankfully your ideas will never make it to power.

AMEN!

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Social Security is an anti-poverty program. That's its purpose. Those who aren't in poverty do not need it.

Unfortunately, many democrats insist Social Security is an entitlement, available to anyone regardless of need, not a safety net.

Simple solution is a combination of effects
1. Index retirement age to life expectancy when entering the workforce.
2. Remove income cap on contributions.
3. Reduce indexation for inflation by one percent per year (current method of calculating benefits overstates inflation by that much.
(edit: 4. Means test benefits on a sliding scale. Many retirees will get full benefits, but people retired on $100+K per year or so get nothing.)

We need to do this NOW. The longer you wait the harder it is to fix a long-term problem like this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In any case, che and pchang have both admitted that they aren't primarily interested in an equitable plan, so I think that my point was well made.

Different definitions of equitable, buddy boy.