General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe elite debating Social Security are actually from another planet
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Economy/What-Planet-Is-the-Washington-Elite-on-in-Debating-Social-SecurityThe National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), a Washington-based organization of academics and policymakers who are experts on Social Security and other parts of the Social Security Act, released a recent survey of what America's working families think about Social Security and how to fix it. Their report that came out last week is very telling of why people feel so disconnected from Washington.
While there is a growing consensus inside the beltway between the White House and Republicans in Congress that the fix to Social Security must start with a discussion of cutting the rate at which we compensate Social Security beneficiaries for the increases in the cost of living, the American people overwhelmingly think the discussion should begin with how to add revenue to the program. The NASI report, Strengthening Social Security: What Do Americans Want? shows that 75% of working people think we should be discussing strengthening Social Security benefits to provide people with a more secure retirement.
With recent news showing the wealth disparity in America growinga recovery being declared where only the top few percent have rising wealth and the vast majority have falling wealthis it any wonder Americans feel less secure and want the program designed to address financial insecurity to be stronger? Instead of cutting the adjustment for inflation, 64% of people want to see the adjustment for rising costs to be higher. This is because working families know that the cost of health care, and the restricted diets of the elderly and those with disabilities, make the current formula inadequate. They know we are not overcompensating for rising costs faced by Social Security beneficiaries.
What people would prefer is that we raise more from high earners and that everyone chip in to help. More than 80% of working families believe that Social Security needs to be preserved even if it means higher contributions from those at the top or from themselves.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Those in power , with few exceptions, will never even mention this.
We are an oligarch run country.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a great President.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)and these advisor$ relayed those words to him in private meetings???
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Wonder what happened to him.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)It was always intended that everyone be treated equally in that all workers' benefits were calculated based on what they put in. Having some workers paying more but receiving the same changes it into a form of welfare that will be politically easier to cut. I'm opposed to that
eridani
(51,907 posts)High earners now get proportionally less because there is a cap on payouts as well. That cap could be replaced by a slope that slowly trends upward.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Worker A goes through his career and each year, he earns exactly the amount of the SS wage base. Worker B goes through his career and earns exactly twice the wage base each year. As I understand the current system, both workers will have paid the same amount into the system and both will receive the same retirement benefit.
If I understood your OP correctly, you would have Worker B paying more into SS, but still getting the same as Worker A. I would oppose such a change for the reason I cited: It would inject a welfare component into SS and I don't want that.
eridani
(51,907 posts)But probably less than twice as much. The initial benefits calculations are skewed to benefit lower income workers, so they (assuming they live long enough) will get somewhat more on a lifetime basis. But as long as everyone who pays in gets a payout, it isn't welfare.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....though the forces that would like to destroy it (Conservatives, Libertarians), or "Privatize" it (NeoLiberals and "Centrist" "Democrats" would like you to believe that myth,
since THAT myth makes it easier to "Privatize".
Social Security was NEVER a "Retirement Plan".
It was ALWAYS a Social Insurance Program that was supported by mandatory Payroll Deductions from the paychecks of the healthy, productive workers.
The very first claims to Social Security were from people who hadn't contributed a single penny, and it was decades before the payout came close to matching contributions,
and that doesn't even begin to address the disabled.
I support Raising-the-Cap, AND Raising Benefits, because our Culture as a Whole benefits from having a Safety Net that provides a minimum for those who can't provide for themselves.
Even RICH people don't like to have to step around our elderly and sick living on the sidewalks.
Since EVERYONE benefits,
Everyone who is able PAYS.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Why are the dollars a rich man earns NOT taxed at the same high rate as the dollars a middle class or poor person earns?
I say we need to remove the cap all together. Only then will all dollars be treated equally.
ananda
(28,891 posts).. as though somehow there are aliens in them there halls of power
(or at least some sort of different species with sociopathic genes.)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Forever.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Our government is not representing us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022849391
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There's the great mass of the population and then there's the elite. There is no communication between the two any more.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)in which case, the great mass of the population would be the lowest ones.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)take their orders from the 1%.