I hear talk about means-testing SS. This is a terrible idea.

Put in the most simplistic and crassest of terms, imagine all our stereotypes about the rich are true. They're money-grubbing, mean-spirited, self-centered bastards. Well, as long as they think they're going to get some bucks out of SS--and a few more bucks, in fact, than the average recipient, then they are more likely to support SS out of self-interest. If you cut them off, they will turn vicious on you & want to kill it for everyone. It's really very simple.

And I want to add the disclaimer that I don't think all rich people are "money-grubbing, mean-spirited, self-centered bastards."

And Obama is encouraging them.

his golf money. He's a pretty good guy and not what I would consider really wealthy. He probably never quite got to the $250k, but back in the 70's and 80's may have been in the equivalent range. It wouldn't piss him off if they took it away from him. He kind of expected that anyway. Unfortunately there aren't many like him. I think it would be a big mistake. Raise the cap but let them get the payoff.

People should draw from it in proportion to what they paid into it.

The return on social security is awful for the upper brackets.

"According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, low earners earn a 5.19% internal rate of return on their contributions to Social Security, while high earners get just 0.54%. "

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/04/are_payroll_taxes_regressive

You give those rich 'bastards' (not all of them are but enough are I don't really feel sorry for them) the choice you can either accept 'means testing' or we will get rid of the exemption for the payroll taxes and everybody will pay the social security tax on all their payroll income. That way if they choose 'means testing' then it was their choice not somebody taking it away from them. Now obviously there is no way to say 'okay all rich jerks you have a decision to make at it is ...'. The idea is you start floating these as options to fix social security and do some polling, especially in the more wealthy communities, and see what the reaction is.

To some extent, SS is already means-tested, in that those who pay in the most (e.g. somebody whose income is exactly at $107K) receive proportionally less in return. If we increase the ceiling, I think adjustments should also be made to the top end of payouts, just to retains some semblance of fairness for those who pay in the most.

I don't think 'fairness' even comes into it. The origination of Social Security, as I understand it, was as an acknowledgment brought about by the depression that people couldn't be depended on to save for the old age/retirement and therefore the government would step in, by establishing the payroll tax, and make sure there was some kind of safety net for each person that put in a life of work. Each generation is paid for by the following generation. The whole idea is that social security will be there for those who 'need' it not that everybody gets their fair share. Yes the more you made the more you get, but as you pointed out probably not proportionately more. We are obviously way on opposite sides of this question because if I had my way we would raise the level of payroll that pays into social security and means test on top of that. I am really sick and tired of the well off in this country looking down their noses at people, whining about how they are being asked be pay what is a small part of their worth, comparatively speaking, as part of the social contract of being a good American and basically acting like they should be treated like some kind of royalty just because they were lucky enough to make some money. Hell while we're at it lets raise the top tax levels back to 1950's and 60's levels and before anybody says it no I do not buy the Reaganomics scam in any way shape or form.

Many who start retirement wealthy end up spending their entire savings on some medical emergency and then will need social security to survive. If means testing helps saves the SS system then we should consider it.. even the rich should agree with that.

:hi:

There is a very important distinction between collecting from a retirement/insurance program you paid in to and "getting something for nothing," which is how many excluded rich people will see it. Keep the whole "welfare" falvor out of the program. If it's means tested, then you're going to have to go through some process to show that your means are sufficiently low to enable you to collect, and it will have the psychological effect of "being on the dole." Many people who would otherwise be eligible might refuse to take it because "they don't accept handouts." You don't want to have people categorize collecting SS as a sign of poverty. "Poor old soul--she has to collect SS." We do enough as a society to humiliate the poor (the whole food stamp thing, for example) without extending the humiliation to the elderly.

especially if millions of healthy long-living "rich" folks who dont need it keep getting checks in the mail for decades. My point is, it would still be in the best of interest of the rich to make a little sacrifice to help save the system since even they may need it someday in an emergency.

Accepting the reality of global warming, raising the standards of labor worldwide, etc. Unfortunately, the system is not built to reward long-term planning. And a part of the denial system you need in order to maintain strict self-interest is the belief that calamity could befall one as obviously wonderful and superior as you.

Remember how the rich fought Roosevelt? He saved the system for them and tamed the labor movement, essentially destroying or marginalizing the further-left elements (e.g. IWW, SWP). Ever ask yourself why we don't celebrate Labor Day on May 1 like the rest of the world? It was a deliberate move to symbolize the cutting-off of American labor from the international labor movement.

but as soon as you make it means-tested it becomes a 'welfare' program and please don't forget (how could you?!) that people who are doing ok now, are far, far more likely to think of themselves as 'pre-rich' and support what's good for rich people, than to think of themselves as 'pre-poor' and support programs that they perceive as only helping poor people.

Plus, this is the one and only true "social" benefit we have in America: it's the great leveler, the thing that applies to every citizen. I do not want to start messing with that. It fits my socialist instincts.

The wolf had to be seriously at your door before you could satisfy the means test. Otherwise you couldn't get VA benefits unless you were already signed up, or met some other criteria like having been wounded in combat.

Obama fully funded the VA and raised income thresholds so that more vets can now qualify. But they can be easily lowered again to keep more vets out.

My point is, means testing can be used as a sneaky way to deny benefits to more than just the affluent. Junior and his Bush league lapdog GOP Congress passed it for Medicare. Right now it's hitting just the high income folks but it has a way of creeping up on you, just like it has at the VA.

Means testing is a bad idea for the VA and Medicare. And it's a bad idea for Social Security too.

I had to be out of work for several months before I qualified for VA health care benefits. Even then, I had to get it by asking for a hardship waiver. But I am extremely grateful to have it, otherwise I'd have no health care at all.

Spread the word with fellow vets who may have been turned away before - there is a good chance they might qualify now. And tell them to hurry, before the thresholds are lowered again.

used to bust unions as well.

it makes me sick.

people have short memories.

it is that we do not learn from history.

greedy rich people. They make the world mean.

End World Hunger. Eat the Rich.

And by rich....I mean the greedy ones.

...would rather screw the rich -- who wouldn't notice their missing SS payouts anyways -- and live in a cardboard box under a bridge themselves, if that was the price of delivering the screwing.

Tribalism, identity politics, and having a big foam 'We're #1' finger where your brain used to be, are not exclusively right-wing phenomena.

I'm not sure it wouldn't have the same disadvantages as means-testing -- so I'm just throwing this out for consideration.

Social Security benefits are already subject to income tax if you exceed a certain level of income before a certain age. I wonder if it would work to extend that system to recapture more of what goes to the genuinely wealthy.

At the very least, it wouldn't require any additional form of means-testing. All the numbers would be there on the tax forms. And it wouldn't set up embarrassing distinctions between those who do and don't receive Social Security payments.

Income taxes are a form of means-testing anyway. If your income exceeds a certain amount, the government takes it back as taxes.

To means-test Social Security recipients before sending out their checks would just be another administrative nightmare, with concomitant costs.

which many DUers have argued in favor of. This is just another way of means-testing the program and equally likely to end in the destruction of the program altogether.

This is one place where people certainly ought to benefit in some relationship to what they put in.

--investigated your savings and decided you had enough to pay for a replacement without their help? You pay money in, you get money out, period. The benefits formula favors low income people, however,and there is no reason why it shouldn't be adjusted to favor them more.