jerseyhoya wrote: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.

Listen kid.

I'm not complaining. I'm explaining. I'm explaining to you. (Christie is probably beyond hope).

You do not understand Social Security. How it was conceived. How it has evolved. How it works.

Social Security benefits are earned. The benefits are not based principally on "need". Lots of people "need" more than the benefit they have earned as participants in the Social Security system. That's too bad. They'll have to see if they can get that extra sum elsewhere. Maybe by demonstrating need.

Social security benefits are progressive. The benefit amounts are not based on anyone's "returns" on their - and their employers - Federal Insurance Contributions Act contributions. Don't be concerned about your profound ignorance about this. Lots of people - even people who feel entitled to be in charge of things - are as confused as you are.

Social Security benefits are based on the earnings credited to people during their working careers, in jobs covered by provisions of the Social Security Act. The benefit formulas only take into account wages up to certain thresholds - hence they can be significantly lower for people whose earnings exceed the wage maximums by large amounts.

I"m sorry you don't understand the distinctions I'm drawing for you, because it makes you susceptible to being gulled by the sort of people whose don't care the least little bit what happens to you or your parents, or your siblings, or most other people like you or me. You seem happy to be oblivious to this. And that makes me sad. I wish I didn't feel that way about it, but there you are.

I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on social security and how it works. You're picking a semantic fight over something Christie said, and you are wrong. You criticize his (correct) terminology by taking multiple steps without any real basis to divine what he REALLY means, so you can attack him for it.

TenuredVulture wrote:... 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.

As with so many instantiations of "value" in our magical "market-based capitalist economic system" (which no 2 people on the street can provide you anything like a coherent definition of, much less provide the same definition of), perception plays a gigantic role in the value of the Social Security system. "Value" is itself a surprisingly elusive term, and definitions of it are far from uniform from one of us to the next, but 'integrity' is a term often used in conjunction with its definition (Perceptions of value also play an important role in keeping people from storming the offices of, say, Goldman Sachs and dragging, say, Lloyd Blankfein out to the elevator shaft and dropping him down it; people generally perceive what he & his ilk are up to every day as fair, as impartial, as subject to the same laws & rules & regulations as you or I - but I digress).

So its probably a reasonable idea, if we're going to bat Social Security reform proposals around, to recognize the program, which has been around for longer than most of us have been alive, as if it has some measure of integrity worth preserving.

Benefits in a program in which benefits are earned can be adjusted, prospectively, without inciting an unquellable riot.

Raising the age at which someone begins collecting full benefits "makes sense".

Subjecting benefits earned to a "means test" before said benefits can be collected is - out of whack. It's out of tune. It's nonsensical. It indicates that the party who has suggested such a program change understands very little about the program they feel someone's calling on them to change. At all.

But sure, sure, it's all smoke & mirrors, it's all welfare, after all everything presided over by the government that remotely contributes to social cohesion is welfare. Who cares if the ruse for hacking off benefits is called a means test?

We should all care, because if your earned benefits are different than my earned benefits in formula - it means, for all practical purposes, that we are not part of the same society. We're not "in this together".

And I have to tell ya, if that perception heads south sharply, the group with lots more people but fewer dollar bills is going to eat the group with more dollar bills but fewer people before you know it, with little but crumbs left over.

SS is in fact progressive already. Those above the 50th percent of the yearly max only receive a 15% return, whereas the 50% before that is returned at around 41%. So increasing the maximum payable amount, even while adjusting the benefit amount upward using the same formula, would increase the progressive 'penalty'. I wouldn't call that "need based" calculations, though, although it can be implied based on the lifetime earnings of those receiving a higher percentage of their pay-in.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on social security and how it works. You're picking a semantic fight over something Christie said, and you are wrong. You criticize his (correct) terminology by taking multiple steps without any real basis to divine what he REALLY means, so you can attack him for it.

He means to subject earned Social Security benefits to a "means test" - his words. He may not know what that means; you may not know what that means; but others do.

by the way, anyone who imagines that Social Security benefits are dependent on the "returns" on the contributions beneficiaries make to the Social Security system has a grasp on how it works that is less firm than they believe.

SS is a good thing - because most Americans are not capable of providing for themselves if left to their own means. I don't mind some Big Brother here.

The problem is not complicated -- monies coming in are not keeping up with monies paid out. So you cut how much it pays out, or increase the intake, or some combination.

I do think it's unfortunate that it has that "banked money" perception instead of an insurance perception. Because we the taxpayers are subsidizing some pretty cushy retirements. Soon, you all will be subsidizing my trips to Europe. Thanks in advance.

SS is already a big bite from payroll - I'd be against raising it again.

I'm all in for both raising the age of eligibility and means testing by which benefits are phased out above certain wealth/income levels.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on social security and how it works. You're picking a semantic fight over something Christie said, and you are wrong. You criticize his (correct) terminology by taking multiple steps without any real basis to divine what he REALLY means, so you can attack him for it.

He means to subject earned Social Security benefits to a "means test" - his words. He may not know what that means; you may not know what that means; but others do.

by the way, anyone who imagines that Social Security benefits are dependent on the "returns" on the contributions beneficiaries make to the Social Security system has a grasp on how it works that is less firm than they believe.

I know what means testing is. Entitlement program does not mean handout. Means testing does not mean handout. The benefits would still be earned by paying into the system. Almost everyone would still receive these benefits.

TomatoPie wrote:SS is a good thing - because most Americans are not capable of providing for themselves if left to their own means. I don't mind some Big Brother here.

The problem is not complicated -- monies coming in are not keeping up with monies paid out. So you cut how much it pays out, or increase the intake, or some combination.

The government is not 'giving' people their Social Security benefits. People contribute towards their Social Security benefits. People earn Social Security benefits.

We won't "means test" social security benefits, because means testing a benefit a person has earned doesn't make sense.

The problem IS complicated, because underlying the problem is the problem of how human labor is valued, and a number of economic forces are currently exacerbating that problem

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??

There used to be a loophole where you could collect at 62 or whenever, and then at age 70 decide whether to pay it made sense to pay it back and "undo" the decision to collect at 62. That works if you have the means to do so. I'm not sure, but I thought I read an article that said that the loophole was closed.

This articlesuggests you only have 1 year to undo this decision.

Werthless wrote:

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??

There used to be a loophole where you could collect at 62 or whenever, and then at age 70 decide whether to pay it made sense to pay it back and "undo" the decision to collect at 62. That works if you have the means to do so. I'm not sure, but I thought I read an article that said that the loophole was closed.

This articlesuggests you only have 1 year to undo this decision.

yep, at present you have the year before you are eligible for 100% benefits - your 'normal' retirement age - to turn the trick you mention

Comforting to find out at least someone around here knows something about this stuff

jerseyhoya wrote:I know what means testing is. Entitlement program does not mean handout. Means testing does not mean handout. The benefits would still be earned by paying into the system. Almost everyone would still receive these benefits.

Means testing can mean a few different things. When employed in the vicinity of a program in which beneficiaries are paid benefits if (and only if*) they have qualified for them by earning them, it means you're determining whether someone should get a benefit amount based on something other than whether they have earned the benefit or not.

If you want to trim the earnings on which you want to calculate benefits, or slow the rate at which the earnings base grows, or something like that, go for it. Do not be goofing around with deciding that someone whose income is over a specific amount will have a benefit they have earned scaled back. It's stupid. It's stupid programmatically, and it's maybe stupider politically.


* dependents qualify for dependent benefits based on the eligibility of a beneficiary as well as their own qualification as a dependent of the beneficiary

You don't necessarily "get back what you put in". You might not get back anything if you die in a fiery wreck on the last day of work before you're supposed to retire. You might get a ton more than you put in back if you manage to stick around until you're 100.

I met a congress person today in his office. We talked as he rushed to go vote on something. It was like I was in a Aaron sorkin scene.

i don't give a shit about what social security is or isn't. the bottom line is we need to redistribute wealth from the top down through to the bottom. if you want to call it class warfare then ok bring it on!!!

A concerned citizen:

Enough is enough.

“Our rights as conservative Americans are being squashed more and more everyday. Apparently if you are white (or close to it), you have a job, go to church, and own a gun… That translates into racists, privileged, bigot, conspiracy theorist. Too many of us say nothing. Well, freedom of speech isn’t just for Liberals, THEY are the ones that need to learn to “co-exist”, THEY are the ones who need to WORK to be “equal”

“Therefore, in the spirit of freedom (whats left of it) and MY right to operate MY business as I see fit:

“Guns ARE allowed at DIESELTEC, so much so in fact that we will offer a discount if you bring in your gun. (“On duty” cops are excluded because thats not their gun, thats my gun bought with my money, off duty absolutely!)

“I am a Christian. My company will be run in a way that reflects that. Dishonesty, thievery, immoral behavior, etc. will not be welcomed at MY place of business. (I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period. If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.)

“We, as a team, work hard for whats ours. We are not protected by unions or contracts. We absolutely MUST provide our customers with a service level that would make them come back or tell their friends about us. We don’t have a “right”, and we are not “entitled” to our pay. We must EARN it.

“I am not racists, you are for assuming I am, however, I am really quick to judge… if it acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

“It IS a free country and I support your right to your opinion, that being said, if you don’t like what I have to say I reserve that same right to tell you to go cry to your momma (cause your daddy would probably smack ya’, better yet, yes, go tell your dad.)”

Funny how defensive some white hetero males get when negative stereotypes are put on them.

Whoa what'd you call me sk

Whys that guy hate ducks

TenuredVulture wrote:You don't necessarily "get back what you put in". You might not get back anything if you die in a fiery wreck on the last day of work before you're supposed to retire. You might get a ton more than you put in back if you manage to stick around until you're 100.

Hmmm. So the benefits I've earned, and can be calculated by formula, are not actually linked to my contributions, in the sense that my contributions pay for my benefits.

So it works almost like....insurance. Hell of a concept

but your beneficiary gets like $1250 from the fiery crash!!