Okay all you capitalist, social Darwinists out here, please be

[Cleita]

advised that means testing for social programs puts people at a disadvantage who need the programs the most, children, the poor, the disabled and the elderly. So what if Warren Buffett collects Social Security? He paid into it and at the maximum too, so who cares if he gets some of his money back? It's better than a bunch of Libertarian millionaires grumbling because they are paying for benefits for other undeserving people in their minds and not getting anything in return. Give them something in return. It will always be less than they put into it anyway and they can't complain about paying into a program that they also benefit from. This keeps disasters from happening like the welfare to work programs that are a burden on the disadvantaged who need these programs to work for them.

[antigop]

1. Thank you, Cleita!

:hi:

[wryter2000]

2. Well put!

Plus, if you turn Social Security into "welfare," it'll be the first thing cut.

[Cleita]

7. I can't believe people don't realize that SS works like life insurance.

It's retirement insurance. You pay into it all your life and hope there is a pay off in the end. What most people don't realize is that few oldsters actually collect more than they paid into it, (in value of today's dollars). Life insurance works the same way.

:hi:

[wryter2000]

11. Back atcha

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

3. The number of people involved and the amount they're going to get...

It's a pittance for these guys. Give it to them.

Or trade it for tax relief. Same diff.

[RB TexLa]

4. Are you saying that everyone should get all social programs? Everyone should get WIC benefits

Everyone should get housing assistance? So on and so on?

[Cleita]

6. Everybody pays into Social Security and Medicare.

They should be able to participate in the programs, just like you get roads and fire departments back for your tax money. The fire department doesn't evaluate a person's financial statement before they decide whether he's eligible for their services or not.

[Statistical]

15. No the OP is saying....

everyone should collect insurance benefit when they make a lifetime of premium payments.

You wouldn't prevent rich from collecting on a private insurance policy or annuity.
Why would you do it for SSI?

[Mike 03]

5. Applause, Kick and Rec. Eloquent, thoughtful and sensible. NT

[rosesaylavee]

8. K & R

Well said.

[MadMaddie]

9. It's amazing that it's less than 60 year ago and so many

have forgotten why SS was created in the first place.

[machI]

10. There should be means testing at the top. The people who have more should pay more

The truly rich people should pay a lot more.

[Statistical]

18. Then it is welfare and not insurance.

As soon as Republican take control it will be killed or massively reduced/marginalized and they will have the public support to do it.
Everyone thinks they will be rich someday.

SSI is not welfare. SSI is insurance. It is not different than an insurance policy issued by State Farm except it is issued by the Federal Govt and involves no profit.

SSI has survived because it is UNIVERSALLY POPULAR. Everyone contributes. Everyone benefits.

It is easy to see from a political point of how/why it has survived when so many other programs have not.
Change that and you risk losing it completely.

[Greyhound]

12. K&R , thanks Cleita. If we keep posting and talking about this, eventually

it will get through the propaganda.
:fistbump:

[ProfessorGAC]

13. OK By Me. I Don't Think Insurance Should Be Means Tested

If i win the lotto and then my house burns down, i still fully expect the insurance company to rebuild it, whether i have the money to do it myself, or not.

The other side of the argument, and not completely illogical, is that one doesn't collect on insurance unless the need exists. I don't get the money from my homeowner's policty if nothing bad happens to my house. So, i understand the argument, i just don't agree.

The "insurance" policy is that we pay in so that when we're old enough we're assured of having that income stream. Having a little extra shouldn't be a disqualifier.
GAC

[hfojvt]

14. do you have formulas to show that it is less than what they put in?

I seriously doubt if that was true under the old taxation rates and caps. I have a feeling too that it is highly likely that I, with an average wage of $11,202 will end up getting less than I paid in too. I am gonna run a spreadsheet just for kicks and giggles.

[hfojvt]

19. How soon I forget

I already ran a spreadsheet back in 2006 when my projected income was $22,924. By those calculations, if my contributions earned 5% interest, then the total value of what I contributed by 2024 would be $175,170.51. At that point I could retire and collect a whole $656 a month or $7872 annually. However, the interest on my principle balance of $175,170 at 5% would be $8,758. Meaning I am losing about $900 a year.

I also figure that I am better off retiring at 62 instead of waiting until age 67 or 70 when benefits would be higher. At 67, my benefits would be $993 a month. However, I have lost $39,360 worth of benefits by not retiring at 62. Regaining those lost benefits at a rate of $337 per month (993-656) it takes me 116 months to break even, almost 10 years. By which time I would be 77. That does not include the lost interest on the lost benefits though, which is at least $164 a month at 5%. At that rate it takes 19 years to regain those lost benefits. By which time I am 86.

Anyway, continuing the calculations, my nest egg is worth $239,273.92 if I retire at age 67 and collect the higher benefits of $11,916 a year. 5% interest on my nest egg then is $11,963 a year. I am still losing $50 a year.

In conclusion, it seems that I do not even get a decent return on my investment, much less ever get my principle back. At the end of my life, the government keeps the $239,273.92 that I paid in. It seems to be a bad deal for a person making $22,904.

[Cleita]

20. If you think that's bad, try figuring out what you will get in life insurance

when you die after age 65 compared what you paid in over a lifetime. However, in the case of SS, if you didn't pay into it, most likely you wouldn't save it, so it should be regarded as retirement security for everyone. (That extra money you don't collect back helps to pay for those who can't pay in like the disabled).

[MajorChode]

16. I don't follow what you're saying

If means testing were to determine who needs the money the most and then giving it to them, how would this same means testing adversely affect those who need it the most?

If your argument is that it will keep the people who are paying the most into it quiet, well that certainly hasn't happened. Furthermore those who pay in the most will have a hard enough time just getting back the amount that was paid in, much less any interest, so that doesn't support your argument either.

As far as millionaires go, I don't hear too many of them complaining because they either pay absolutely nothing into the program, or they pay so little of their overall income there's no significance to them.

[kiva]

17. Thanks for this, Cleita.

People who have paid into the SS system should be able to collect their pensions--that's how the system was designed. Doesn't mean that we can't raise taxes on the handful of millionaires who get those checks, but we do need to pay them the money from they system they have supported.