... "we're going to have to renege on our promise to the American worker."

How far would that get Chris Christie?

Now how to be brief??

There is greed, arrogance, something in this country or in the human make-up. Anyway, some of the statements I have heard from people with incomes above the median strike me as greedy whether they are or not. Ezra is correct. The people impacted most by the benefit decrease due to rises in retirement age are those that, on average, have much shorter life spans and, on average, received lower salaries while working. The bend points in Social Security help transfer a little bit from the top to the bottom (everything being equal). It's easy to visualize that raising the age is really a move to eliminate as much possible the bend points that help the poorest since they are most dependent on SS and most likely to receive the brunt of the cuts in benefits. (In case anyone does not know - the reason this is true is because there is a reduction in benefits for each year prior to the retirement age.)

This is where the greed or begudgement or something comes in. Since this is a worker's program, it really has little effect on a rich person. Sure, they pay into SS but, let's see how much. Let's see $110,100*.062=$6826.20. So if you make $110,100 this is what you pay. It is also what you pay if you make $200,000 or $1M or $1B. I hope everyone sees that this has little to do with income for the rich either in the taxing or the benefit phase of the program. It is just not that much money compared to their wealth. Also note that the guys below that $110,100 cap are the ones that have the most skin in the game.

The Peterson types target the people above the second bend point. Think of a bend point as a change in the % of working income received on a yearly basis. Their story goes something like this - if you invested that 6.2% in your own name you would make a killing from your investments, your return would be greater than SS so you chullen and grandchullen would get the fruits of your success. With the youngest workers they simply tell them they will be paying for their parent's retirement but get none of their own. I think a study of the crashes and who ended up with a greater share shows just what happens or rather can happen without a safety-net. Peterson, and company are just today's snake oil salesmen. But, if you don't care about your fellow Americans, you love their story.

Since SS isn't that much money for anyone, it is obvious that a further reduction in benefits doesn't make sense. I know they talk like retirees get rich on Social Security but it's not true and there is no room to reduce it. (Note the diffence in the 1990 increase in the amt of SS taxed and a cross the board rise in retirement age. The former affects the higher income recipients most and the latter the lower income recipients. Remember the bend points!)

So what oh what can be done? Well, a good discussion for after the election since much good work is out there. But for now, there is a suggestion that that $110,100 can be raised and that last bend point lowered. What this does is increase the amount of taxable income and decrease the benefit for people above the second and third bend points. (There also is a suggestion to tax all income but without raising benefits.)

I didn't mean to turn this into a ramble but I think I have mentioned several things that are used to undermine the future of the most stable defined benefit in the country. The workers pay for this. It belongs to them. It has run a surplus that that lowered taxes. (OK, taxes were lowered too much but that is for the later discussion.) To the extent that borrowing from the worker gave the investment class more tax money to take home, they were able to invest. Now they don't want to pay the principle back. I say go after estate taxes. In this way you don't raise taxes on your younger workers. (Commission Ball, a member of the Reagan year commission, was an advocate of measure such as this.)

Oh well, after the election, complete with links instead of rambles. So consider this a theory. They don't want to share the wealth, not even the part they borrowed. It is essentially a theft and not a transfer. It was never a transfer; it's the workers money. Look at the maximum taxable income.

Oh, the horror.