And when those go up, someone will buy pet food, and when pet food goes up . . . and the downward spin of quality of life continues.
If you don’t participate,
You cannot legislate!
IOW, since the Congress has opted itself out of SS for its own private pension plan, they should have NO SAY over SS.
And, once losing their cpntrol over SS, oversight of the program should be handed over to a citizens committee of actual taxpayers who do participate in SS.
Gotta save that money for welfare and food stamps and new government housing.
It winds up that the president’s wealthy, Northeastern liberal base will go BALLISTIC if he lifts the cap on Social Security earnings (i.e., increases their marginal tax rate by 6.2, right off the top, no deductions or offsets). These are the people that make combined incomes of $200k to $300k and go running around screaming and yelling when the see a cap gun on television. They are CONVINCED that they’re just making ends meet on their income, and given the way they live, they’re probably right. The Republican base, on the other hand, generally doesn’t exceed the earnings cap (as they tend to live in Red States), and thus would be less affected by the move.
That is why this ‘reform’ will never pass.
And the Supreme Court has given them the authority to do that. Social Sceurity is not an entitlement, insurance program, earmark nor earned right. It is a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other.
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other.
Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
But President Obama, the people have no bread.
“Then let them eat cake” or crap or whatever.
Leave it to the left to come up with a (woefully inadequate partial) solution to the problem of entitlement costs that manages to break faith with people who paid Social Security taxes all their working lives. The only fix is to let the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security (and all non-military defined benefit pension plans) drift upward until the original relationship with life-expectancy is restored, but not for folks who have or are about to retire and made plans on the basis of the current system.
Personally, I advocate raising it by two months for each year of age under 60 a person is when the reforms passed until it reaches 72 or 73, then pegging it to life expectancy at age 60 so it goes up if people live longer (and down if some plague or socialized medicine decreases life expectancy). Ideally, the reform should also allow people in jobs requiring manual labor to more easily qualify for disability benefits when they hit an age near the current retirement age, while tightening disability requirements overall.
Wow. This simple Econ 101 I learned as a freshman in college. It's the concept of superior/inferior goods.
Only a government idiot, in 2013, would think they've invented the concept.
The last to be 'reformed' will those belonging to reliable democrat voting blocks, meaning those the ethnic lobbies, illegal immigrant lobbies and public unions speak for.