Skip to main content

View Diary: A Conversation w/ My Rich, Republican Father (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You've fallen for a GOP argument to kill SS... (12+ / 0-)
    He doesn't understand why he is geting SS and a benefit package as a former government worker when he needs none of it.

    Uh...I hate to point this out, but that's the entire point of an entitlement. It shouldn't matter what he did, in his older age he should be entitled to a set level of economic security.

    Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security in just that way, for years. The moment, the exact moment in which SS doesn't cover everyone...that's the moment it's dead. Because once you exlude anyone, the GOP will simply make that exluded group larger and larger.

    Rich people don't need SS? What's rich? How about everyone making over $250k a year -- didn't Dems set that number? How about $200k? $100k? Obviously the poor didn't pay in as much...so they should get lower benifits. And lower. And none.

    I really appreciate your sharing your story, and congrats on your wealth. I hope you use your incredibly good opportunity to do good in this world. But please, please, PLEASE, don't fall into the trap of "rich people don't need SS, so we shouldn't offer it to them".

    That's a poison pill.

    •  BBQ, your argument is spot-on (6+ / 0-)

      I think means testing is unfair.  My husband and I are by no means rich--heck, we're not even "comfortably off."  I realized this when I received  a book from our local newspaper's financial columnist about asset allocation.  It began, "If your portfolio is less than $250,000," don't even bother with asset allocation.  OK, ours is quite a bit less than that.

      We have what we have because we saved and saved  once the boys were finished with college and earning their own livings.  We don't eat out (except once in a blue moon at Subway or Anita's), we see two movies a year--if that--and so on and so on.  But by comparison with people who are so badly paid they can't save, and spendaholics who think plastic is real money, we're okay financially.  So why should we have lower Social Security benefits than people who couldn't or wouldn't save?

      They have means testing in Australia (which apart from that is a good country to live in), and I think it's very unfair to my sister- and brother-in-law, who are like us and don't spend money foolishly. It makes one wonder "Why bother, if I'm going to be unrewarded for doing the prudent thing?"

      "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

      by Diana in NoVa on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:16:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remove the tax cap of $106800 of income and tax (5+ / 0-)

      SS payments of the wealthy at a normal progressive income tax rate.
      It would inject revenue into the system and tax benefits of the wealthy away at retirement.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site