"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:09:12

A more fundamental problem is that all of the proceeds of what would be a massive tax increase on top earners get spent on a single purpose — increasing benefits for mostly non-poor elderly — rather than on other, more pressing priorities. And, as Swagel puts it, “you can only frack that well once.”

but Charles Lane, and you, and Christie, wouldn't want tax increases on top earners no matter the purpose. It's not an actual criticism if you don't want that anyway.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:09:18

How relevant to the discussion is the fact that as originally conceived, SS was supposed to pay out benefits over a fairly short period of time--you retired at 65, and typically died a few years after that. Thus, if you paid into the system over a working life of 45 years, and collected benefits for 5, it would probably be accurate to consider the program a redistributive program. Now, however, those assumptions don't hold up so well, since people live longer. (And note--you can't simply compare overall life expectancy here, but rather you need to consider how many years people will be drawing social security.)

One thing that might help is if we encouraged people to smoke more.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:53:16

TenuredVulture wrote:Since 70 is currently full retirement age for SS, is there any reason at that point to delay taking benefits if I'm still working?

No

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:58:58

pacino wrote:
A more fundamental problem is that all of the proceeds of what would be a massive tax increase on top earners get spent on a single purpose — increasing benefits for mostly non-poor elderly — rather than on other, more pressing priorities. And, as Swagel puts it, “you can only frack that well once.”

but Charles Lane, and you, and Christie, wouldn't want tax increases on top earners no matter the purpose. It's not an actual criticism if you don't want that anyway.

I think it's true that neither Christie nor I would favor increasing social security taxes on rich people to improve social security's finances even if part of a larger compromise. I don't know about Lane. He's one of those centrists with heterodox opinions who used to work at The New Republic back when it was interesting and not a poor imitation of Salon.com.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:11:01

drsmooth wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Since 70 is currently full retirement age for SS, is there any reason at that point to delay taking benefits if I'm still working?

No

Oh, man. 20.5 years to go. It's going to be fucking awesome turning 70. And all those discounts on top of that! And dinner at 4:30!

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:18:16

retirement is 67, so youd only have 3 years of it, right?

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:24:06

Benefit amount is fixed once you start collecting, right? So if you opt to (numbers for example purposes only) take a 70% payment at age 65 (5 years before full retirement age), once you hit 70 you still only collect that 70%, right? Whereas if you wait until age 70, you get 100% forever??

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:27:47

full retirement is 67...you can take it at 62 but have a permanent cut.if you delay your benefits you can continue to add (edit) on past full retirement, but only once you hit 70 there is no 'benefit' to working besides more money from your job; i.e. you'll be putting money into SS but not getting any extra out.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:36:22

jerseyhoya wrote:Is he saying they're getting a handout? (No)

Saying his vocabulary is all wrong and then getting his vocabulary all wrong.

The text of Christie's New Hampshire speech calls Social Security an entitlement program many times. here's just one instance:

Chris Christie, New Hampshire 4/14/15 wrote:Now, the problem is that Social Security is, of course, the largest entitlement.

Perhaps he did not actually read the speech aloud there; I wasn't present.

The term entitlement has been employed in connection with Social Security benefits since its inception, and inaptly applied by all kinds of people and organizations with respect to the program. Christie, like many 1% bootlickers, uses it to conflate Social Security with "handout" programs - programs more suitable for means testing:

Chris Christie, New Hampshire 4/14/15 wrote: I propose a modest means test

"Means tests" are typically employed in benefits provisions of welfare programs, sometimes referred to as "handout" programs (most often by those same 1% bootlickers). They are not typically employed in calculating benefits payable from earned benefit insurance programs. Christie wants to treat social security benefits as if they are unearned - as if they are a handout.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:47:56

Bucky wrote:Benefit amount is fixed once you start collecting, right? So if you opt to (numbers for example purposes only) take a 70% payment at age 65 (5 years before full retirement age), once you hit 70 you still only collect that 70%, right? Whereas if you wait until age 70, you get 100% forever??

You're eligible for 100% of your earned benefit at your 'normal' retirement age (the vocabulary of retirement plan terms could only have been concocted by legions of tone-deaf actuaries), which for some of us boomers, as TV's remarks indicate, are on a sliding scale based on your birthdate, for dates between 1938 and 1960. As pac notes, the max normal retirement age is 67, for anyone born in/after 1960.

(public service announcement)
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE AT 65 REGARDLESS OF YOUR NORMAL RETIREMENT DATE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES
/psa

You're right that once you begin collecting benefits at any date earlier than your normal retirement date, your benefit is not increased (except for any cost of living adjustments that are made to the base). There are very narrow circumstances in which you can stop collecting SS benefits when you begin collecting before your normal retirement date, but they aren't worth going into, because you're never going to do that.

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:51:22

just my luck, we'll have invented some sort of immortality and youth pill and they'll close down Social Security since people could live forever

wouldn't that just suck

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 13:57:41

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Is he saying they're getting a handout? (No)

Saying his vocabulary is all wrong and then getting his vocabulary all wrong.

The text of Christie's New Hampshire speech calls Social Security an entitlement program many times. here's just one instance:

Chris Christie, New Hampshire 4/14/15 wrote:Now, the problem is that Social Security is, of course, the largest entitlement.

Perhaps he did not actually read the speech aloud there; I wasn't present.

The term entitlement has been employed in connection with Social Security benefits since its inception, and inaptly applied by all kinds of people and organizations with respect to the program. Christie, like many 1% bootlickers, uses it to conflate Social Security with "handout" programs - programs more suitable for means testing:

Chris Christie, New Hampshire 4/14/15 wrote: I propose a modest means test

"Means tests" are typically employed in benefits provisions of welfare programs, sometimes referred to as "handout" programs (most often by those same 1% bootlickers). They are not typically employed in calculating benefits payable from earned benefit insurance programs. Christie wants to treat social security benefits as if they are unearned - as if they are a handout.

He calls social security an entitlement program many times because social security is an entitlement program. It is what it is categorized as by the CBO and the federal government and whatnot. It is silly to criticize someone for calling social security an entitlement program because social security is an entitlement program.

by **Doll Is Mine** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:14:34

If Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee run, the Democratic debates will be must-watch television.

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:27:55

Geez, "entitlement" is a funny work, just like "literally". People have come to use it for exactly the opposite of its definition:

en·ti·tle·ment
inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt/
noun
the fact of having a right to something.
"full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the amount to which a person has a right.
"annual leave entitlement"
synonyms: right, prerogative, claim; More
the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
"no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement"

So by DEFINITION, SS is exactly an "entitlement"; but as the more common political use of the word (the last definition there) it is not.

So I hereby classify the word "entitlement" as a "weasel word".

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:35:55

jerseyhoya wrote: It is silly to criticize someone for calling social security an entitlement program because social security is an entitlement program.

It's not silly to call out someone using the term entitlement program inaptly in a way intended to equate a program in which benefits must be earned with programs in which benefits are computed based principally on need.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:43:08

But let me explain why it's silly for Christie, and 1%ers, to get all in a lather over cutting benefits, or applying means tests to benefits, that they themselves have earned, in a program in which benefits are only paid out to beneficiaries (or dependents of beneficiaries) who have earned them.

It suggests that they themselves are confused - are unclear - don' understand - what it means to 'earn' something.

Almost as if they are unaware what earning something requires. As if they themselves have not earned what they believe they have, or are so casual about it that they wouldn't really mind - might not actually be aware - of others arranging social circumstances so that stuff they, the 1%ers, have (but haven't clearly earned - they aren't sure themselves!!) is more equitably shared among others more 'entitled' to it.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:43:25

pacino wrote:Wanna go third party?

I'm gonna declare my candidacy any day now.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 14:44:05

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote: It is silly to criticize someone for calling social security an entitlement program because social security is an entitlement program.

It's not silly to call out someone using the term entitlement program inaptly in a way intended to equate a program in which benefits must be earned with programs in which benefits are computed based principally on need.

He didn't use the term inaptly. He used it as it is used by the government, anyone who speaks American English, etc.

Medicaid is also an entitlement program, and it is one in which benefits are computed based principally on need.

The present social security system pays out in a way that is based on need, with lower earners receiving a vastly higher return on their social security taxes due to how the benefits are calculated than higher earners.

Your complaints are nonsense.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 15:46:03

I'm not expected to live to 70, so no sweet handout for me

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 16:10:38

In normal English usage, entitlement is not a synonym for handout. Not even close. An entitlement is something you're entitled to--have title to--own. More or less. Like, the bank is entitled to timely mortgage payments.

I don't see why entitlement is a bad word. I think it's a lot more honest than describing SS as a Ponzi scheme.

However, it is redistributionist. In general, it redistributes money from people who have relatively short lives to those who live a long time. On that basis, I don't see how reducing benefits for those who have big piles of retirement money (though again, I don't think it's politically wise and it's not really fair to reduce them all the way to zero) is a horrible injustice. And, I see how it amounts to the same thing more or less to increasing the income levels that pay SS taxes.

In either case, the rich either get a little less, or pay a bit more. Since many old people already have tons of money (and I'd guess that gini coeffecients are higher among the elderly than younger people (consider--savings, more likely to have a solid retirement plan, and the possibility of white collar workers working well past traditional retirement age will combine to make them quite comfortable as they age and if they've paid off their mortgage and other stuff, well, they're just winning!) I think it's a useful starting point.

Look, the reality is that there's no way the solution can be to make up any shortfalls out of general revenue. So, you're going to have to increase inflows or decrease outflows, and it needs to be done in a sustainable fashion.

Otherwise, we're looking at truly disastrous ideas like "privatizing" the thing.

Archived

"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)