• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

Would you support means testing for Social Security Benefits?

  • Total voters
    29
Forget the fantasy that Social Security exists to provide a defined benefit for everyone, it's nothing but a welfare program just like any other.

People are whining that they put all that money into the system and now they're not going to get any back...where are they when the crack ho' cashes her welfare check? It's their money being disbursed, it's not the crack ho's until it's in her hands. Social Security is just one more expense among all the burdens imposed by strangers on the wage earner.

The Ponzi Scheme is failing, people need to give up the fantasy that they're going to get their share. If those people had had any sense they'd have been demanding the government get out of their wages so they could invest that 15.4% in the equity markets. Almost everyone would have become a millionaire, and they would be giving their children an estate, not a 100 trillion dollar tax bill.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any way you slice it it's going to be unfair to someone or other. It's just a question of what has the most benefits and the fewest costs from a macroeconomic perspective. Means-testing is certainly toward the top of the list.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who pays into SS that doesn't qualify for it? Aren't payments supposed to be based on initial withholdings? That right there is different than other taxes. Most other taxes, you'll never see again, but with SS you're supposed to.
 
Kandahar said:
Any way you slice it it's going to be unfair to someone or other. It's just a question of what has the most benefits and the fewest costs from a macroeconomic perspective. Means-testing is certainly toward the top of the list.
Click to expand...
You talk about fairness as if there are two competing interests and one or the other has to be treated unfairly. That's not the case. The only fair thing is to get what you've put into it. How is getting paid less because you put in less unfair?
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
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?

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

what i pay in taxes goes to welfare - should i be getting something from TANF?
 
X Factor said:
Who pays into SS that doesn't qualify for it?
Click to expand...

Three groups that readily come to mind are people who have not yet reached the retirement age, people who die before reaching the retirement age, and illegal immigrants. The federal government can limit access to other groups as well, like those who earn more than ~$100K per year.

X Factor said:
Aren't payments supposed to be based on initial withholdings? That right there is different than other taxes.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how it's currently set up. But there's no reason it inherently must be that way. I would support continuing to base it on initial withholdings for those below $100K, and basing it on current income beyond that.

X Factor said:
Most other taxes, you'll never see again, but with SS you're supposed to.
Click to expand...

But that's viewing it from the perspective that there's a government bank account somewhere that has "your" SS tax dollars. Your tax dollars fund benefits for current recipients, and future tax dollars will fund your benefits when you qualify. In that sense, it's no different than most other government programs like unemployment, welfare, or subsidized student loans: You pay taxes to fund those programs, and at some point you may or may not qualify to receive benefits from them.
 
X Factor said:
You talk about fairness as if there are two competing interests and one or the other has to be treated unfairly. That's not the case.
Click to expand...

There is no way that everyone will be treated "fairly" (whatever that means), given the current/projected fiscal and demographic trends in the United States. There just isn't enough money in that pot. I agree with you: It isn't fair. No solution will be. So instead of focusing on "fairness," which is extremely subjective, I find it better to focus on which SS solutions will save the most money while doing the least amount of harm to the goal of preventing poverty among the elderly. Those are much more objective, quantitative measurements.

X Factor said:
The only fair thing is to get what you've put into it. How is getting paid less because you put in less unfair?
Click to expand...

Because the purpose of SS is to be an anti-poverty program, not a retirement plan. An analogy: How is it fair that some people don't receive federal student loans, simply because they aren't enrolled in college? Or how is it fair that some people don't receive unemployment benefits, simply because they aren't unemployed? Nearly every government program has certain requirements that the government demands that beneficiaries meet.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

if the option is a progressive payout structure or insolvency...
 
I think means testing would have to be on the table eventually but the teaparty number is ludicrous and not really means testing its merely a disquised reduction of SS. If you want to talk about a real means test you make the starting number much higher like those making 100,000 or more.

What everyone fails to understand the average social security check is 1,177.00 If you live in NYC your homeless on that number...If you live in South Dakota you would be in a better position to possibly survive on it. If you make 50,000 in NYC your just getting by MAYBE. Even private sector employers make cost of living adjustments for different areas of the country. Not everyone is in the same position on the same numbers across the country.
Social Security is not tax free...you pay income tax on social security.
 
I'm against means testing. Social programs need to stay even across the board. Should the wealthy be punished for simply being wealthy?
 
SS doesn't have the input to pay for its spending requirements. Means testing is one of the better ways to soften the pain of the inevitable adjustment we are going to have to make to it. So yeah, I support it, fully understanding that I am probably going to get hurt by it in the future since I am expecting to have a pretty good retirement based on the money I am socking away today.
 
cpwill said:
what i pay in taxes goes to welfare - should i be getting something from TANF?
Click to expand...
I don't know, do you get a statement every year estimating your welfare benefits upon retirement? I don't, but I do get a statement like that from SS every year.
 
Mickey Shane said:
I'm against means testing. Social programs need to stay even across the board. Should the wealthy be punished for simply being wealthy?
Click to expand...

so you're in favor of a flat tax?
 
X Factor said:
I don't know, do you get a statement every year estimating your welfare benefits upon retirement? I don't, but I do get a statement like that from SS every year.
Click to expand...

yes. there is a phrase that describes that kind of statement. "Lie".
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. But I'd like to see some changes in it.

  • Raise the retirement age by six months.
  • Take off the upper cap on withholding and cap maximum payouts. Right now, SS is withheld on somewhere around the first $100,000. Take off that cap (or raise it to some much higher number...taxed at a somewhat lower rate)...but don't pay out any larger benefit than the current approximately $29,000/year. In other words, those who are earning less than $100,000 will finance their own benefit -- and those who are making more than $100K will finance their own and anteing into the kitty to help finance others. (This would be a compromise to those who want to make SS benefits subject to a means test.)
  • Make SS benefits fully taxable depending on assets as well as income.
 
Simple solution to the problem, if there is actually a problem.
1.....Change the SS "threshold" from what it is now and tax the wealthy....this will, of course be rejected by the wealthy conservatives.
2.....Up the retirement age to 67....this will be rejected by the wealthy liberals.
3.....Compromise, up the age to 66 and up the "pay in" threshold to one million....cutting the billionaires a break.
4.....Increase the benefits by at least $100 monthly to cover some of the inflation that has occured recently(energy and related).
5......The wealthy already pay taxes(indirectly) on their benefits, why change this ?
 
winner winner chicken dinner.
 
earthworm said:
Simple solution to the problem, if there is actually a problem.
1.....Change the SS "threshold" from what it is now and tax the wealthy....this will, of course be rejected by the wealthy conservatives.
Click to expand...
We do tax the wealthy.
 
X Factor said:
We do tax the wealthy.
Click to expand...

That's true, X Factor, but we haven't totally crushed them yet and President Obama won't be happy until all of the wealthy, not associated with the federal government, are totally destroyed. it's what he and other socialists call "social justice".

I voted to have means testing but that's because I didn't have to pay into Social Security and I don't get Social Security. Instead of Social Security, I had a 401k and I'm happy.
 
Last edited:
I am going to try and utilize the arguments that we constantly hear from many hear in a slightly different way.

Means testing would punish and penalize productive people in society and reward the least productive. That time honored conservative principal applies to social security.

That is why I voted NO.
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...

I say no.For the simple fact everyone pays into this with the intention that you will get this back and the more someone makes the more money they pay into it.
 
I had to say "no", simple because I want to opt out of social security. I doubt I'm going to get anything out of it already since it's used as a slush fund account by the government. Second, why steal people's money by testing them and saying, "oh I'm sorry, you make too much money and your money, you know, that you already paid in for the past 45 years... yeah, we're keeping it all because you don't need it". Means testing is just a nice way of saying, we're going to **** you dry, steal the money you paid in for decades, and give it to someone else who WE (the gubmint) deem needs it more. Nah. Just let me opt out.
 
MaggieD said:
No. But I'd like to see some changes in it.

  • Raise the retirement age by six months.
  • Take off the upper cap on withholding and cap maximum payouts. Right now, SS is withheld on somewhere around the first $100,000. Take off that cap (or raise it to some much higher number...taxed at a somewhat lower rate)...but don't pay out any larger benefit than the current approximately $29,000/year. In other words, those who are earning less than $100,000 will finance their own benefit -- and those who are making more than $100K will finance their own and anteing into the kitty to help finance others. (This would be a compromise to those who want to make SS benefits subject to a means test.)
  • Make SS benefits fully taxable depending on assets as well as income.
Click to expand...

I agree! I also think I alone should get $100,000 and retire at 50. :2razz:
 
As for me I like all of the dressings for the most part but my favorite is Bleu Cheese! I even prefer that for dipping vegi's in over regular dip. Balsimic and Asian are close seconds. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom