If Social Security cannot be corrupted by politics, how do you explain the 'expand benefits' movement. This is a bizarre effort because many of the expansions increase the benefit level of the wealthy more than the benefit level of the poor.
I don't know the specifics, but that's primarily, from what I've read, about low income seniors, survivor benefits, and caregivers. It's not some dramatic, outlandish thing IMO.
I can tell you that it is not structured in the way you believe. FDR designed the system to pay benefits based on past earnings, which meant that benefit levels were connected to the contribution of the worker, and the more you make the less benefit levels increased. That is a fair as you can get.
That's true, but there is nothing sacred about prototypes, and as a matter of structure, a static structure is fragile...this was lessons learned prior to the establishment of the U.S. government itself... We're going to pay for old people one way or the other, I really don't mind a tax on me, to help that. As long as we can keep it reasonably in line with it being a trust, and wisely invested, so be it.
One of the big downsides they claim with regards to private investment vs government bond investment (current), is that you may lose it all in private investment (but typically you get what, 3x the return which means far more after compounding?) But is this really the case in government pensions? Do state/federal governments not back those pensions, regardless of investment return already? Maybe you know, my impression is that its rare, but when it does occur, they just lobby and of course we take care of pensioners, they always cut some deal. <-- benefits a select group but everyone supports it. What's your take on that? Why do only government employees get the benefit of government pensions...when the boon of government backed pensions is really paid for by ALL citizens..
In your model, you are 'soaking the rich' solely to pay benefits instead of using the tax revenue for things like infrastructure and debt reduction.
In the current model. Yes, the wealthy do help care for seniors, the disabled, etc. I have no issue with that today. It's not like they are getting a fortune, this puts them what...at poverty level? It's not excessive from that standpoint.
This is a piece that I wrote on why the government shouldn't raise the limit on wages subject payroll tax. It goes into more detail about the consequences of what you are suggesting.
I already agree we should not raise the payroll cap, that's what I've stated here and in numerous threads.
For example, instead do this:
Increase Social Security taxes. If workers and employers each paid 7.6% (up from today's 6.2%), it would eliminate the financing gap altogether. This 1.4% increase (2.8% for self-employed) has over 60% support in surveys conducted by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI)
Or some combination of that and retirement age, fraud prevention.
Basically everyone that can work should work and invest in SS. The wealthiest income earners will subsidize the lowest income earners as part of this plan, to ensure the lower income earners are at a bare minimum income in retirement/disability. We will have to pay for that either way, we may as well do it with the system designed to do that.
