Skip to main content

View Diary: Insolvency, tax cuts, military spending and social security (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Means Testing Will Kill Social Security (15+ / 0-)

    If you want to keep the program, keeping it a program where "everyone pays in and everyone collects" is the best way to do it.  

    Turning it into a program where only the "needy" get Social Security will make the program just another welfare program where we "real Americans fork over our hard earned dollars to a bunch of lazy people who refuse to work." (snrk).

    In all seriousness, "divide and conquer" has been the strategy used by the owners of this country for a long, long time.  Benifits are only provided to those on the lowest rung of society, so working people pay and pay, while they get nothing in return.  These policies build resentment, instead of solidarity.    

    •  And removing the cap won't? (0+ / 0-)

      Either way, you collect a tax and the rich don't get a benefit from it. Economically, I don't really see the difference between means-testing social security (i.e., reducing rich people's benefits relative to their contributions) and removing the cap (which is also reducing rich people's benefits relative to their contributions). In fact, doesn't it make MORE sense to do this on the back end, means-testing at the time that the person would receive the benefits, rather than doing it on the front end by removing the cap? Someone earning a high salary in their 30s could conceivably be destitute in their 70s, so the former solution seems to be more accurate.

      •  how so? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Argyrios

        if they pay more in, they get more out.  Not as much as if they put it in an IRA, but it will still be there when they are 70.

        •  My understanding of proposals to raise the cap (0+ / 0-)

          is that such a move would not be coupled by further increasing benefits for the rich (or at least not commensurately), since that would not help to close the funding gap, and so what's the point?  

          •  No sane proposals are like that. (0+ / 0-)

            Amount of benefits in will equal benefits out, regardless of how many people those $ go to. Give or take a few million $ (since there is no way to gauge every single person's lifespan to the month) each year, and you're good to go.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that is, in fact, how it works now. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TimmyB

              It isn't the case that a person who pays twice as much in social security taxes gets double the benefit. I'm not sure what you think I'm talking about, but that is the only fact relevant for my argument.

              The amount of benefits is fixed by a statutory formula. It does not depend on how much money goes into the system. That's the whole reason we need reform, which nobody is contesting (raising the cap is a reform that people here seem to favor).

      •  I hope most folks won't be suckered by Argy's (0+ / 0-)

        argument.

        "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

        by jm214 on Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 05:46:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site