ADVERTISEMENT

social security

This is not true at all. When SS was founded America found itself in the grips of the great depression. There will millions of Americans that were literally starving and many where older Americans. The goal of SS was to allow these older Americans enough money to live on until death. It was helped along by a much lower life span at the time and very few people that were eligible to retire in the early years. The ratio of worker to retired was 7/1, today the rate is 3/1 with a longer life span. The gap between wealthy and the average American was also much lower than what it is today. This idea the unless the wealthy get back what they pay into a system its welfare is very dangerous to our country. The rich are not hurting for anything, they can afford to pay more into a system that will hurt them a little to help millions of their fellow citizens.

None of that refutes my statement.
 
This is not true at all. When SS was founded America found itself in the grips of the great depression. There will millions of Americans that were literally starving and many where older Americans. The goal of SS was to allow these older Americans enough money to live on until death. It was helped along by a much lower life span at the time and very few people that were eligible to retire in the early years. The ratio of worker to retired was 7/1, today the rate is 3/1 with a longer life span. The gap between wealthy and the average American was also much lower than what it is today. This idea the unless the wealthy get back what they pay into a system its welfare is very dangerous to our country. The rich are not hurting for anything, they can afford to pay more into a system that will hurt them a little to help millions of their fellow citizens.
It isn't a question of getting back what they paid; the key is that there is a linkage between what they paid and what they get back. If you break that link -- and one way to do it would be to remove the cap on taxable earnings but leave a cap on benefits -- you've opened the door for the stampede.

The thing that's changed most about Social Security is the attitude toward being on the government dole. That was an extremely negative thing in the '30s, and continued to be seen as something to avoid until things started changing in the '60s.

Congress would never have approved SS if not for the linkage, and a great many Americans wouldn't have accepted it, either.

Now there is essentially no stigma attached to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
Being on SS is not being on the government dole, the person has paid into the system, generally for 30 or more years. This is not a handout, and I do not know of anyone that receives SS considers it a handout. They all think they earned it, and they are correct. How would there be a stampede if we took that cap off the current system. To qualify you still have to pay I believe 10 years into the system, as to the thinking of Congress in the 1930's, America has changed, people are living longer, and unless we as a country are ok with having our elderly suffering, we must change the system. Taking the cap off and keep the maximum payout on, hurts the least amount of people, and they can afford it the most. May not be fair, but like the Right says, "life is not always fair"
 
Raise the cap to a bazillion dollars and cap benefits at current rate. Do this for about a decade and then worry about it again in 2120.

With mad math skills like yours, I'm just not sure you're the right person to solve this issue Bean...
 
Being on SS is not being on the government dole, the person has paid into the system, generally for 30 or more years. This is not a handout, and I do not know of anyone that receives SS considers it a handout. They all think they earned it, and they are correct. How would there be a stampede if we took that cap off the current system. To qualify you still have to pay I believe 10 years into the system, as to the thinking of Congress in the 1930's, America has changed, people are living longer, and unless we as a country are ok with having our elderly suffering, we must change the system. Taking the cap off and keep the maximum payout on, hurts the least amount of people, and they can afford it the most. May not be fair, but like the Right says, "life is not always fair"
If that was a response to me, I don't think you understood my point. I agree being on SS is not being on the dole -- but it WOULD be if some of the changes proposed as "fixes" were implemented, specifically eliminating the earnings cap but not the benefits cap.
 
If that was a response to me, I don't think you understood my point. I agree being on SS is not being on the dole -- but it WOULD be if some of the changes proposed as "fixes" were implemented, specifically eliminating the earnings cap but not the benefits cap.

Yes, I was responding to you.. How would it be being on the Government dole. The people that paid in would not be receiving more money, taking off the cap and keeping the current cap on would only insure that they continue to receive the benefit that they have already paid into. The wealthy may think its welfare, the 98% of Americans will believe its what they earned by paying into the system for 10 or more years.

I have also been wondering if the maximum amount paid out is really a cap or is just the amount that you can receive since SS collection stops at $ 118,000 or so, and after that you no longer pay the tax. Those high dollars earners stop paying into the system an that is the reason they are allowed to only get what $2300 or so when they start to collect. If we are going to fix the system, we would have to limit the amount a person is allowed to draw back out of the system, to say $5,000 a month. The wealthy will hate the idea, but its the only way to save the system for the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joelbc1
Yes, I was responding to you.. How would it be being on the Government dole. The people that paid in would not be receiving more money, taking off the cap and keeping the current cap on would only insure that they continue to receive the benefit that they have already paid into. The wealthy may think its welfare, the 98% of Americans will believe its what they earned by paying into the system for 10 or more years.

I have also been wondering if the maximum amount paid out is really a cap or is just the amount that you can receive since SS collection stops at $ 118,000 or so, and after that you no longer pay the tax. Those high dollars earners stop paying into the system an that is the reason they are allowed to only get what $2300 or so when they start to collect. If we are going to fix the system, we would have to limit the amount a person is allowed to draw back out of the system, to say $5,000 a month. The wealthy will hate the idea, but its the only way to save the system for the rest of us.
Taking last things first, I don't know how they calculate the maximum benefit, but it would make sense to see what the benefit for five years of maximum contributions is and set that; on the other hand, if they were going to do that, it would automatically cap itself so an artificial limit on benefits wouldn't be necessary.

Back to the first part: What is the only difference between Social Security and a typical welfare program? It is that Social Security benefits are based on money contributed by the recipient (or spouse or dependent). If that is no longer the case, Social Security is just another welfare program.

That's the philosophical problem. The practical problem is that the only restraint on Congress now is the need to link benefits to contributions. Take away that link, and in a short while -- I'd say maybe two or three nanoseconds -- there would be a clamoring for increased benefits based solely on need; it just wouldn't be "fair" to give someone more money than someone who needs it more, just because one person contributed a lot more over the years.

This is notoriously dangerous ground for people who value fiscal sanity, anyway, because (1) seniors vote in greater numbers than other age groups, and (2) the negative effects of increasing benefits are far enough down the road that a member of Congress doesn't have to worry about them.
 
The better question is why payroll taxes aren't applied to unearned income. I think that would go always to fixing the system.
 
That either creates a mathematical problem or a political problem.

If you eliminate the cap on contributions, to be fair you would have to eliminate the cap on benefits. Which mathematically means you've solved nothing.

If you eliminate the cap on contributions, but keep the cap on benefits, you have a political problem because there is a legitimate problems with fairness.

Perhaps a compromise would be to eliminate the cap on contributions, and also eliminate the cap on benefits; but for folks who are getting huge SS benefits adjust the calculation so the benefit-per-contribution is lower as contributions rise. This is just a little bit unfair, and it would unfairly hit people who can easily afford it.
Eliminate the cap on contributions but lower the percentage after $150,000. Let them pay a lower percentage on all earnings, and raise the cap on benefits at a lower rate.

What was the percentage of $125,000 wage earners when the cap was put in place as compared to now. Honest question, I have no idea.
 
The "Deal" part of the "New Deal" was that you were saving for your OWN retirement, not robbing the rich to pay for the poor. That's why you have to work and earn money to get any Social Security checks in the first place.

Reneging on that "Deal" would be a betrayal of massive proportions.
So, someone making $125,000 a year is rich? Good to know.
 
Because, as it told to that it is a fund for our retirement, then the million dollar salary person would be getting an insanely huge monthly SS check. SS tax is like income tax where the money just goes where ever Congress wants. SS tax is supposed to go back to all contributors on par with what they earned over their working life. Your monthly check is supposed to be limited by what you put in.

Wow, someone actually knows how it works.
 
Keep taxing the people who are already paying the taxes and pretty soon we're Greece or some other bankrupt country. The math doesn't work for infinity.
 
ADVERTISEMENT