Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

[X Factor]

Means testing for Social Security benefits came up in a discussion Stillballin' and I were having. Personally, I don't support it. Thinking it would make a good poll question, I Googled the term to find a good article that would describe what in entails. Lo and behold, I found this article where three Republican senators are proposing this very thing.

Two freshmen -- Tea Party Republicans Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- joined Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who has been working on this issue for more than five years.

*snip*

The senators also proposed "means testing" for Social Security benefits, meaning the reduction of benefits for wealthier Americans.
Under their plan, seniors making over $43,000 a year would have their monthly benefits reduced by $300 to $400 by 2032.
This year is the first year in which Social Security pays out more than it takes in, because people are living longer, and the huge wave of Baby Boomers is starting to hit retirement age.

*First Read - GOP senators: Raise retirement age, 'means test' Social Security

So, what do you think? Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

 

[StillBallin75]

I'm going to avoid giving a straight yes or no answer because I don't feel those describe my position. I think my position is best described as, "It may be deeply unfair to some, but it also may be inevitable if we don't want SS to go bankrupt."

 

[X Factor]

I'm going to avoid giving a straight yes or no answer because I don't feel those describe my position. I think my position is best described as, "It may be deeply unfair to some, but it also may be inevitable if we don't want SS to go bankrupt."

Sounds like a "maybe". :mrgreen:

 

[rathi]

I am in favor of both means testing and raising the retirement age. SS needs to be changed to handle the demographic changes in our society. Medical technology has extended the lifespan so a lot more people are on SS, but also has made it practical to continue working later in life.

 

[X Factor]

I am in favor of both means testing and raising the retirement age. SS needs to be changed to handle the demographic changes in our society. Medical technology has extended the lifespan so a lot more people are on SS, but also has made it practical to continue working later in life.

I disagree. Technically the money you pay in is yours already, you should get out what you pay in.

 

[Serenity]

yes i support it in theory.

whether or not i would support the criteria used to asses it is a completely different matter though, and that could influence my yes answer.

 

[X Factor]

yes i support it in theory.

Why do you think it's a good idea?

 

[Kandahar]

I disagree. Technically the money you pay in is yours already, you should get out what you pay in.

No it's not. Social security is a tax-and-spend program like any other, not a retirement program where your payments pay for your benefits. I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on this very matter.

I support means-testing. The purpose of social security is to prevent people from living in poverty during old age, and the wealthy have no risk of doing so. We are going to need to trim the growth of social security to get our long-term deficit under control, and this seems like a reasonably painless way to do it.

 

[cpwill]

i've already posted how i would overhaul the system; but along with raising the retirement age, this seems like an obvious measure to take.

 

[Serenity]

Why do you think it's a good idea?

because i grew up in a civilized society that understands there are always going to be people who require assistance and i see no need to pay out benefits to those who do not need them.

 

[X Factor]

No it's not. Social security is a tax-and-spend program like any other, not a retirement program where your payments pay for your benefits. I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on this very matter.

I support means-testing. The purpose of social security is to prevent people from living in poverty during old age, and the wealthy have no risk of doing so. We are going to need to trim the growth of social security to get our long-term deficit under control, and this seems like a reasonably painless way to do it.

So, just so I understand your position, somebody pays into SS their whole working life. The more they earn, the more they pay in, thereby depriving them of that income that they earned, then, if they are financially responsible enough to not be entirely dependent on SS, when they retire they should actual get less or nothing? That about sum it up?

because i grew up in a civilized society that understands there are always going to be people who require assistance and i see no need to pay out benefits to those who do not need them.

Even if they're the ones who paid into it their entire working lives?

 

[Serenity]

Even if they're the ones who paid into it their entire working lives?

key factor is need. if they need it then they should receive it. if they don't then they shouldn't. it's not their very own personal savings plan that they can draw on when they retire irrespective of their circumstances.

 

[X Factor]

key factor is need. if they need it then they should receive it. if they don't then they shouldn't. it's not their very own personal savings plan that they can draw on when they retire irrespective of their circumstances.

SS payments are not based on initial withholding?

 

[cpwill]

again, if we allowed personal accounts; all those working poor would be retiring millionaires, and we wouldn't be having this discussion...

 

[X Factor]

again, if we allowed personal accounts; all those working poor would be retiring millionaires, and we wouldn't be having this discussion...

Sorry, CP, I haven't seen your post on how you'd overhaul the system. What personal accounts are you referring to?

 

[rathi]

I disagree. Technically the money you pay in is yours already, you should get out what you pay in.

That is nice and idealistic, but not the reality of how social security works. People with jobs pay the money to old people until they get to retire themselves. In the good old days, most people died before they got much money back. Current demographics mean that the current system will run out of money in the future.

 

[X Factor]

That is nice and idealistic, but not the reality of how social security works. People with jobs pay the money to old people until they get to retire themselves. In the good old days, most people died before they got much money back. Current demographics mean that the current system will run out of money in the future.

It's not just "nice and idealistic" it's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, the only way to get anything out of SS would be to make financial decisions during your life that would ensure you didn't actually have anything by the time you retire. I just can't believe that's what we'd want to encourage.

If it's going to run out of money on the future, it's because it's over-extended and you cannot fault/penalize the people who are actually paying into it. Well, I mean, I guess you can, but it doesn't make sense to do so.

 

[celticwar17]

:yt you got to think about the negative incentive this would give to the public, as for all social programs you gotta be careful of the incentive you are creating.

 

[cpwill]

Sorry, CP, I haven't seen your post on how you'd overhaul the system. What personal accounts are you referring to?

go to the "social security fix" thread in the polls forum.

 

[X Factor]

:yt you got to think about the negative incentive this would give to the public, as for all social programs you gotta be careful of the incentive you are creating.

I just don't think some people believe that there are many people only too happy take advantage of "the system" who are not so much a victim of circumstances as they are victims of their own choices.

 

[rathi]

It's not just "nice and idealistic" it's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, the only way to get anything out of SS would be to make financial decisions during your life that would ensure you didn't actually have anything by the time you retire. I just can't believe that's what we'd want to encourage.

If it's going to run out of money on the future, it's because it's over-extended and you cannot fault/penalize the people who are actually paying into it. Well, I mean, I guess you can, but it doesn't make sense to do so.

The point of social security is to prevent seniors from falling into poverty. Fairness is a pipe dream. A means based test brings in the revenue will needed in the future to make that happen. If you don't want a means based test, how do you propose to get the extra revenue? Tax future taxpayers extra? That isn't fair either.

 

[X Factor]

The point of social security is to prevent seniors from falling into poverty. Fairness is a pipe dream. A means based test brings in the revenue will needed in the future to make that happen. If you don't want a means based test, how do you propose to get the extra revenue? Tax future taxpayers extra? That isn't fair either.

So, is this really the best argument in favor of means testing? Sure it's unfair and sends the wrong message, but this is all we could think of? I'm not criticizing you at all, btw, I ask in all seriousness. Maybe that really is the best argument, but it doesn't seem like a good one to me.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Means testing for Social Security benefits came up in a discussion Stillballin' and I were having. Personally, I don't support it. Thinking it would make a good poll question, I Googled the term to find a good article that would describe what in entails. Lo and behold, I found this article where three Republican senators are proposing this very thing.



*First Read - GOP senators: Raise retirement age, 'means test' Social Security

So, what do you think? Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

I support completely refacing the entire supposed retirement program.

Private accounts, with simple and complex options, full market selection for those that take the complex route.

 

[Kandahar]

So, just so I understand your position, somebody pays into SS their whole working life. The more they earn, the more they pay in, thereby depriving them of that income that they earned, then, if they are financially responsible enough to not be entirely dependent on SS, when they retire they should actual get less or nothing? That about sum it up?

Yep, that's pretty accurate. SS is supposed to be a safety net, not a retirement plan. It's just like unemployment benefits: If you pay your unemployment tax for your whole life but never lose your job, should you get a refund? Of course not. These programs are public insurance programs to prevent poverty, and it's incorrect to view it as "your" SS money. Like any other government program, you pay taxes based on your income and you're eligible for the program if and only if you qualify.

Means-testing is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. Some cuts are going to have to be made in SS somewhere (or taxes are going to have to be raised), so it makes sense to cut them in the places where they're the least harmful. And providing people with income just because they're old, even if they don't need it, is well outside the scope of social security's reason for existence.

 

[Kandahar]

It's not just "nice and idealistic" it's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, the only way to get anything out of SS would be to make financial decisions during your life that would ensure you didn't actually have anything by the time you retire. I just can't believe that's what we'd want to encourage.

All social safety net programs encourage that to some extent. But society has decided that the cost of moral hazard is worth the benefit of not having extreme poverty. And while SS might have some effect like that on the margins, it's unlikely to be very significant, since getting a subsistence wage from SS/Medicare is still not nearly as financially rewarding as saving for one's retirement. Additionally, people don't know how long they are going to live or what the government's SS policies will look like in the future, so it's difficult to plan for SS in the distant future.

Besides, I'm not talking about means-testing SS for the middle class. But I'm thinking if your income is above $100K it should probably be reduced, and by $200K it should probably be phased out entirely. So we aren't talking about creating a moral hazard for the people teetering on the brink of poverty, we're talking about the moral hazard of only saving enough for retirement to collect $95K per year instead of $105K. As such, I don't think it really matters a great deal if a few people who have already saved that much choose to spend some of their money so that they would still get their full SS benefits.