IF the RICH did not get Social Security.... I'd go for that

what does a billionaire need social security for???

THE 400 OR 10000 RICHEST AMERICANS. CEO'S, OWNERS OF OIL COMPANIES.... YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

That way Obama can actually KEEP a commitment he made in the election and not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k.

And... Then it would have no f'ing donut that would also be an administrative mess, and everyone would pay an equal "flat tax" (shouldn't the Republicans be happy with that?).

And... Those of us making less than $250k would get a tax cut that would help boost the economy too!

And... With the costs of payroll tax not focused on those making the cap and less in companies, there will be less incentive to incur added costs by raising the wealthy execs salaries that much more, and also less incentive for them to target those making the cap or less for layoffs if the payroll tax costs are distributed more evenly.

MANY problems solved! But of course the wealthy and corporatists don't want to do any sharing now do they! F'ing b*stards!

NEVER!

That's why it's called an "entitlement." It is YOUR money, you paid into it, no one is giving it to you for free. Rich or not, the government made a deal with you. Of course, that doesn't seem to matter for us peons anymore. The only deals the government appears to want to honor are Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

.

are defined in legislation. Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid are also entitlement programs that you have not paid for.

As far as Social Security it has a compentent of redistribution (welfare) built into it. Their are three percentages for determining your benefits which means someone with an average lifetime earnings over $45K to $50K is subisdizing the system.

The real crime in the S.S. system is that it tells anyone making more than $105K that they no longer have any duty to subsidize the lower earners beyond the $105K. That is wrong.

from.

If a person who has paid into SS is very wealthy, do they really need the "security"?

If their life situation radically changed, and they didn't have the vast wealth they'd accumulated any longer, that money that they'd paid in would be available to them.

My Late father paid into SS all his life, and didn't begin to collect on what he'd paid in. I've known others who have collected far more than they ever "paid" into the system.

Dick Cheney shouldn't be receiving social security benefits imo. Neither should John Kerry. If they really needed the 'security' it would be there for them, but they don't NEED it.

:shrug:

I've never liked or agreed with the term "entitlements" when it came to programs which every single person SHOULD be able to count on when in need of it.

As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted.
In a casual sense, the term refers to a belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.

So I guess our pols and our media are always speaking of Social Security using the legal term.

Regardless, I agree it surely does grate on one's nerves!

I thought a "right" was something everyone was endowed with.

the reason I wanted to mention them is because another DUer had made me aware of the legal term before.

No. I haven't had coffee yet.

But thank you for buying the Republican line that Social Security is a form of welfare for the poor.

Just what we need.

Social Security is not the (or even "a") problem.

Social security reform is all about setting up the conditions where rich people never have to pay taxes.

Which arguably take this program outside of JUST being a retirement insurance plan. That means that those making the cap and under are asked to pay disproportionately MORE out of their income to help provide a safety net ("welfare"?) program to these people who obviously need it than those making more than the cap. Is THAT RIGHT? F NO!!!

Old age, survivor's and disability insurance. It's no more welfare than your car insurance is.

Yes, the benefit formula gives a better deal to the poor, but it's still insurance and it's still not welfare.

I have been supportive of raising the cap, but now I realize that making this argument feeds the idea that SS is broke and needs drastic reform. It is not and does not.

If a kid's mom dies and social security sends the kid a check for X years is it reasonable that we all reach into our retirement accounts to help this boy or girl --- well not all of us --- most schoolteachers in California, Texas and many other states do not contribute to social security.

That's not a reasonable policy is it?

Shouldn't we all be in the universal program of social security?

As soon as you use means testing for SS, it has become a welfare program not
an entitlement. And you know what happens to welfare programs

The brilliance of SS for over sixty years is that is for everyone. Everyone pays in,
and every one receives a benefit. Also remember that even though the rich and
not so rich receive the same checks, anyone with income over 25K single
or 32K married must pay full income tax on the SS proceeds. So quite a bit of their
check is returned to treasury.

A sharp and pithy post. :thumbsup: :hi:

Turning Social Security into a welfare scheme is the surest way to end the program as we know it.

I've never understood why some professions are not in social security anyway.

That would be one easy fix.

Make the universal program universal.

public workers. Their pensions as middle income earners are a much better deal than the S.S. system. Actually the state of California makes a killing because its contribution to the state pensions is much lower than it would be if those employees were under S.S.

it had all of these middle class teachers and state workers paying into the "universal" system.

Why are they not in anyway?

Doctors would love to have their own pension instead of FICA but they aren't allowed to, only teachers and other state workers.

Because my state does not have any out.

And it used to be Federal Employees too, but they are no longer exempt. Do you see "how much better SS is now" that they pay in?

Exactly, you don't even notice.

The largest groups that are out are most public school teachers in the two largest states. I think there are about 15 states altogether where most teachers are not in social security. Those are the groups I'm most familiar with.

Is there anyone who knows why these workers are treated differently than everyone else?

I can think of two reasons why they do:

1. The states are obligated to fund less than they would otherwise under the S.S. system. I know this is a fact for California teachers since I recently studied it. It is something like 2% versus the 6.2% they would otherwise have to contribute.

2. The state pension is a much better deal than Social Security for anyone making anything over $30 to $40K (that number might even be lower).

To maximize return on Social Security you would want to work about 10 years under the system making something like $31,500, and the remainder of your time under a system without Social Security. At the end you and your employer would have paid approximately $39K into the system, and you will receive $8.1K/yr from 67 until you die. If you have a spouse never under S.S., he/she will receive $4K/yr until he/she dies.

Lets say you work 45 years for $31,500/yr. You and your employer would have paid $176K into the system, and you would get $15K a year and your spouse would get $7.6K/yr. You pay 4 times as much as the other scenario and only get less than 2 times the benefit.

Lets say you work 45 years making $105K/yr. You and your employers payment would be $586K, and your/spouses benefit would be $26K/$13K.

If you and your spouse work for $105K/yr for 45 years, then the payments would be $1.2M while the benefit would be $26K/$26K.

These facts are why they put limitations on double dipping pensions with Social Security. They also demonstrate why it is unfair to cap the program at $105K. Thank goodness for those two income families making between $50 to $105K/each that are carrying the system.

We already have a form of needs testing in Social Security based on income using the tax code.

All calculations assume no inflation. Your earnings are adjusted each year by a factor that considers inflation as well as benefits. How good the formula is could be a topic for discussion.

and no doubt it is a much better system for the retirees than social security.

Of course the opposite is also true. By letting these middle class workersd out of the social security system you put additional strain on it.

Any profession with mostly middle class or above employees would be far better off creating their own systems rather than staying in social security. Doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers would all love that alternative, but none of them get it.

My suggestion is for the universal program of social security to be universal. Bring every employee into it whether they be public, private, coal miner or science teacher.

That change alone would take a great burden off of social security.

If you think they are working hard to get rid of it now, imagine how much harder they will work at it if they aren't getting anything from something they are paying into. FICA deductions are the only ones without tax loopholes and they have to pay them up to $106,000 of their yearly income, not much I know, but something.

Many wealthy people do not collect their Social Security voluntarily because they know they don't need it. There is nothing you can do about the greedy ones.

affordable healthcare and sucking the system dry.

i love how my inlaws get the SS and ok with us being cut out, as they continue to receive, without needing and telling the poor to pull up by bootstrap.

Have them invest more…

After all, they got the cash

program, that is why you should not do that. Instead the caps should go away.

I DO have an issue with the cap...it shouldn't stop at 108,000.

Bring another nightmare of "means testing" into the picture -- no fucking way.

Determining whether somebody is "worthy" is such a Republican way of thinking.

that when benefits are means-tested, it's rarely just the billionaires who are excluded. It usually ends with their being denied to all but the poorest. Better than nothing - but you can be pretty poor and still be excluded.

Also, the rich or at least upper middle class tend to be the most vocal and powerful in defending benefits that affect them. Benefits that are only given to poor people are easier to cut without too much protest.

That is why a universal welfare state is better than what in 19th century Britain was called 'the Poor Law', even if some people take advantage who don't really need to. 'Services for the poor' often end up as poor services, or are just taken away.

to the program and decreases support opening it up for cuts, privatization, etc.

underfunded.

Moreover, we cannot make policy to pander to the rich. :puke: