Skip to main content

View Diary: Why is "touching Social Security" in any manner a bad thing? (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you remove the cap without indexing benefits (11+ / 0-)

    to the higher incomes allowed, SS permanently departs from the insurance model, and becomes a redistributive handout, which is an anathema to what SS is supposed to be.

    SS is as politically secure as it is because people feel like the money is theirs, not largess from the rich.

    We have means funded through general revenue to do redistributive welfare, some even administered through the SS trustees. That's where we need to be focusing any non-insurance model reforms.

    The fact is, SS doesn't need the revenue from a removed cap. The cap should be raised to regain 90% of wages, as it has traditionally done, but we shouldn't turn SS into welfare. Either the cap remains, or top earners get massive SS checks.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:01:21 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But if we maintain the curve on the progressive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim M

      (small p) nature of the program, the ubber wealthy would have to make payments into the program that would dwarf the massive checks they would get out later.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:31:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have relatively little problem with that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rsie, JesseCW, fuzzyguy

        My main problem with the "remove the cap!" cries is they buy into a "SS is in crisis!" meme, which is, frankly, bullshit.

        Given healthy economic growth, there never will be a long-term shortfall.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:55:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And the benefits package isn't progressive, it's (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fenway49, fuzzyguy, denise b

        regressive.

        The terms "progressive" and "regressive" mean "y is faster than linear with x" and "y is slower than linear with x", not "good for the poor", and "bad for the poor".

        Income tax owed grows faster than linear with total income. It is, therefore, progressive.

        SS's benefits grow slower than linear with contribution. It is, therefore, regressive.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:57:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site