Replies

Raising the retirment age won’t hack it. I have been attending aging conferences and the medical reality is that people start deteriorating in their mental acuity and physical stamina and health after 65. Some will be unable to do the work they used to. This will affect their earning capacity.

I think that social security should consider overall income. There should be a graduated ceiling on those who can receive benefits. Lower income people were not able to save. They needed every cent to survive at a modest standard of living. Higher earners have other income sources. They should not be subsidized in their retirement by the next generation. Their income and standard of living is not the same “social” issue.

Dear marsh2,

“I think that social security should consider overall income. There should be a graduated ceiling on those who can receive benefits. Lower income people were not able to save. They needed every cent to survive at a modest standard of living. Higher earners have other income sources. They should not be subsidized in their retirement by the next generation. Their income and standard of living is not the same ‘social’ issue.”

But the system already accounts for this. Low wage earners receive proportionately more Social Security benefit than high wage earners. As Social Security is currently structured, it takes from the well-off and gives to the poor.

As well, if I were to receive my full Social Security benefits in 2027, when I’m 67, it would be unjust to say that my benefits would be a “subsidy.” I’ve paid (along with my employers, although I’ve been self-employed for most of my adult life) six figures into Social Security. As it is, the benefit promised to me will represent something on the order of no return or a negative return, if I’d have been permitted to invest my money privately.

Literally, I may have been better off stuffing the money under the mattress.

I’m willing to forgo my benefits to help transition to a new system that’s actuarially sound (preferably compromising private retirement accounts funded by existing payroll taxes), but I’m unwilling to have the benefits that I would have received based on the contributions that I’ve made be called a “subsidy.”

sitetest

You are talking about means testing. The dims do not want direct means testing because they are afraid that entitlements will lose support. The dims already passed indirect means testing in 1993. Your social security benefits are taxed depending on the amount of other income. Politically, raising the retirement age is much more likely than direct means testing. The retirement age has already been raised to 67.

You are wrong in your assertion about subsidies for the boomer generation. It is the greatest generation that has received the free ride. Their benefits are vastly out of proportion to the taxes paid. The boomers have unwisely not stopped this Ponzi scheme. We should have demanded means testing of the greatest generation and privatization. Even if there are no benefit cuts, the boomer generation will receive low and negative returns from Social Security benefits.

There is no avoidance of pain on entitlement reform. The baby boom generation (and succeeding generations) have paid enormous taxes to support entitlement Ponzi schemes. The boomers will get substantial benefit cuts. I prefer direct benefit cuts with some degree of choice. I would prefer to fore-go all Social Security benefits with a significant reduction in payroll taxes now (essentially privatization). The dims will not permit this solution. The dims want a massive tax increase instead.