How can a post have 39 recs that claims Soc. Security is not a retirement account and thanks REAGAN?

[pnwmom]

Get a grip, people.

No, Lindsay Graham is not to be applauded for his position that Social Security payments should not go to higher income people.

Social Security retirement payments are EARNED RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

Social Security does NOT have to be fixed by ending benefits to higher income people (which would be viewed as turning it into a form of charity and would reduce its support among many Americans). This is the REPUBLICAN plan -- to turn Social Security into a type of welfare for the elderly and make so unpopular that it can be ended.

It can be fully fixed simply by raising the income limit for the social security tax and/or extending the social security tax to non-salary income. This is what Hillary and Bernie supported and they were right.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-05-2011/social-security-medicare-not-welfare.html

Regarding Robert J. Samuelson’s May 16 column, “The Affluent Elderly”: Social Security and Medicare are not welfare programs. They are earned benefits that older Americans have contributed to over decades of hard work, a crucial distinction that Mr. Samuelson overlooked.

The minority of seniors who are wealthy also contributed to these programs throughout their working lives, pay higher taxes in retirement to support them — and get proportionately less back in return. Premiums for Medicare Part B already are pegged to income as well.

A means test for their earned benefits would erode the popular support that has sustained these programs and made them so effective in helping older households. Making Social Security more like welfare would surely lead to weaker benefits — and a growing burden on young people to support struggling elders.

Of course, our nation needs to address its fiscal challenge. But policies must be fair and sensible. No one group should be singled out. The typical senior gets by on a modest income of less than $25,000 a year, so let's avoid caricatures

[Foamfollower]

1. I believe Social Security benefits should be capped.

Of course, there should be no cap on the Social Security tax.

That would make Social Security viable in perpetuity.

[pnwmom]

2. The benefits ARE capped. n/t

[Foamfollower]

4. The point is, so is the tax.

The tax should not be capped. This is how you ensure the very wealthy contribute their part to Social Security. Maintain the cap on benefits, but eliminate the cap on the tax. Obviously, the cp would be increased over time, but there should never be a cap on the tax.

The rich have always benefited from those who are not rich receiving Social Security because the companies owned by the rich, whether directly or via sock holdings, do not have to provide pensions for their workers, thus retirement becomes an entirely Social entitlement via Social Security taxes turning into earned retirement benefits.

[pnwmom]

5. Right. That's what I said in my OP. n/t

[mopinko]

11. THIS IS A STUPID IDEA. I AM SORRY IT IS SO APPEALING

even here where people should know better. i realize the simplicity of the argument makes it very tempting, but it is one of the few things that i disagreed vehemently w bernie about.

scrapping the cap w/o keeping it linked to benefits FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM.

many americans want no handouts from the government. they take pride in the fact that they earned their ss benefits. we can not take their pride and self sufficiently away from them.

and if you think the rich hate it now, start taking their money w/o paying them fairly.
most of those people get little benefit in the end after they pay taxes on their benefits, anyway.
scrap the cap and they will come after it for real, tho, and they will win.

applying the requirements to pay fica on unearned income is a far juicier target. and inherently more fair.

[yallerdawg]

16. If we all pay in...

we all get the payout.

If we work to remove the caps on higher incomes, we can't turn around and take that money away.

Even if the SS deposit is merely "steak and lobster day" for the wealthy, if they pay in more to cover all the people who really need that check, have a nice meal on us!

This philosophy also applies to Universal Basic Income. We all have a starting base that covers essentials - from womb to tomb - and what you make extra is up to you!

[JCanete]

18. We have to change that notion that these are handouts. Rights versus handouts. right now

the social security numbers are always added in when republicans talk about welfare programs already, which as it currently stands, is absurd, but I see no actual benefit in not doing what is good for the American people, except for some slight cover this presents that this isn't wealth redistribution, which I'm not sure enough people really understand anyway.

I see no reason to not antagonize the rich. They have an obvious agenda already, and we're going to continue to slide that way unless we push back like an angry mob. Our party needs to stop being afraid of angering what you are describing here as the ruling class, so that they stop being able to rule out of sheer threat.

as to fair, there is nothing fair about the current system we live in. It IS a wealth redistribution program. We need to change the culture(fuck you media) that ties success with actual value, superior intellect, and patriotism. That is all bullshit.

That said, paying fica on unearned income sounds good to me.

[mopinko]

20. i would need to see the evidence that anyone thinks this is a handout.

most people getting those checks know they earned every penny.

stupid pols may pretend it has something to do w the deficit, but i fell that cheeto has ripped the hood off them all. try it right now, and expect indivisible to be camped in your waiting room.

[JCanete]

21. I don't think they do think that what they are receiving back is a handout. I meant that should we

remove the cap, we need to put that kind of nonsense to bed. Currently the rich benefit and HAVE benefitted from American infrastructure far more than the poor have. They can pay America back for that privilege.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

17. Even though the tax is currently taxed,

the upper end of Social Security benefits is not really commensurate with the tax on higher incomes.

Those with relatively low incomes benefit more than those with higher incomes, up to whatever the current maximum income is taxed.

It's extremely misleading to say, "The rich have always benefited from those who are not rich receiving Social Security because the companies owned by the rich, whether directly or via stock holdings, do not have to provide pensions for their workers. . . ."

Companies did not stop offering pensions with the appearance of Social Security. That happened with the arrival of 401k plans and their ilk. Many, probably most, good pensions were connected to having a union job. Pensions were often set up with longevity in mind, weren't portable, and could disappear completely if you were fired or laid off a month before you'd have been eligible to collect.

It's also extremely important to understand that even at best, fewer than half of all employees were covered by pensions. I believe the percentage so covered topped out at 38%.

Social Security and Medicare should NEVER be means tested. Ever.

[Demsrule86]

28. Now that I agree with...no stopping benefits based on income though.

[Demsrule86]

27. That is a terrible idea unless the true motive is to end Social Security.

Absolutely not. Graham is a tool who wants to end Social Security...he knows turning it into an entitlement would do it.

[Foamfollower]

31. It IS an entitlement!

You are entitled to it because you paid into it.

It's a brilliant idea and has been proposed by Franken, Sanders and Clinton, for cripes sake!

Keep the cap on the benefits, end the cap on the tax.

[Demsrule86]

32. There should be no cap on the tax...and those

who cheat by taking their income from capital gains should have to pay too. I don't believe in capped benefits...eventually it would be mean the benefit was so small as to be useless...consider if it had been capped in the 40's , 50's or 60's...anytime in the past really. It would already be drowned in the right wing bathtub so I don't agree. You idea would cripple social security.

[Foamfollower]

33. The cap on benefits gets increased annually

It has always been increased annually ever since Social Security was first passed into law. That's how it has always worked.

[Demsrule86]

37. They have cost of living increases...there was an increase this year.

not the same thing...we do not need a cap on benefits but we sure as hell need to have taxes paid on all income...and also capital gains income using tax dodgers.

[Foamfollower]

39. Oh great, so you want billionaires to get millions of dollars in Social Security every year!

GOOD GOD!!!!!

Why do you want billionaires receiving millions of dollars in Social Security benefits??????????

If there is no cap on benefits, that is what you get!

[Demsrule86]

42. Yes...everyone participates...it is not a welfare program...if it ever turns into

one it would be gone.

[Demsrule86]

34. This is what Paul Ryan wants....to cap benefits at the level they are today

so that in a few years they are worthless... I don't really understand why you are here. This is Democratic Underground.

[Foamfollower]

36. I never said that. Benefits are and always have been capped.

The cap on benefits is increased annually. It has been this way since day one of of Social Security. I really don't understand why you are trying to say I am saying something that I am not.

If you end the cap on benefits when you end the cap on the tax, you will be paying some rich 65 year old billionaires millions of dollars in Social Security on an annual basis. That's crazy!

Also, this is not what Ryan wants. He wants to end Social Security altogether.

I recommend you educate yourself a bit more on how Social Security has functioned since it began.

[lapucelle]

3. Thank you for the clarification

and for restating what people need to hear:

"It can be fully fixed simply by raising the income limit for the social security tax and/or extending the social security tax to non-salary income. This is what Hillary and Bernie supported and they were right."

And why on earth would anyone thank Reagan for anything? I was a married woman expecting my first child when he was sworn in. I know what he did to the middle class because I remember the pre-Reagan years very well, and my husband and I struggled to build the same thing for our children, despite the fact that between us, we were holding down 3 jobs (two of them full time) while trying to raise 3 kids.

[Wellstone ruled]

7. Agree with you,

Reagan wanted Privatization of Social Security . He was a bullshit artist much like the POS that sits in the White House today. Again,this sucker help destroy working Americans ability to advance and prosper.

[lapucelle]

10. And the mainstreamed demonization of unions

and their members really gained speed during Reagan's tenure based on his propagandized framing of the narrative.

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Oh how we know.

Did many a organizing meetings and Cardings during those years. Like I used to say,someday you might make enough money to be a Republican,but until then,you will have to work like a Democrat.

[blogslut]

6. To be fair

That person was "thanking" Reagan ironically for the culture of greed.

As for your other points, I agree.

[pnwmom]

8. That wasn't at all obvious to me, given that the person's supporting Graham

and the plan that many Republicans are putting forward, with the long term goal of ending Social Security.

[blogslut]

9. Oh well.

Emotional intent is hard to decipher via text.

[Dem2]

25. Yes, thanks

If we're going to critique a poster (and I agree that they were way off on SS), let's not over-hype it - credibility is lost.

[superpatriotman]

12. I agree with Senator Franken

He postulates a 'donut hole' fix for SS funding.

[UTUSN]

14. Just when I first skimmed that o.p., its coupling "respect" with Lindsey stuck in my craw

I was going to post something snarky back then but decided just to move along. I trust my nose.

[Lucky Luciano]

15. Social security is a pension plan. Period. nt

[JoeOtterbein]

19. I'm proud to be the 39th person to rec this!

[Demsrule86]

43. Really...I didn' t recommend it.

Welcome to DU.

[Marthe48]

22. If you paid into it

that means you worked. I see Social Security as a mandatory savings account. Why do so many people retire with only social security as retirement income? Because for whatever reason, they didn't save other money for their retirement. Now that decent paying blue collar jobs are gone, it is even harder to make ends meet, let alone save anything. Yeah, go to college and spend the rest of your life paying off student loans.

Anyway, if you pay into Social Security, you should be able to draw from it, regardless of your lifetime success.

[Demsrule86]

35. It is a divide and conquer strategy...brand the program

as welfare and then kill it. Also a cap would make it worthless in a few years...that is in essence Ryan's second plan.

[mountain grammy]

23. Didn't rec the other, but K&R for this one.

I did comment that I disagreed with the post and Lindsey Graham.

My comment: the minute SS is only for the poor, it's gone.

[Marthe48]

40. I didn't work most of my married life

so my monthly benefit isn't much. Point being, working poor, or underemployed might pay in, but they won't get much each month when they retire. Talking about a few hundred dollars. And if you don't work in the years before you retire, that affects the amount you'll get.

My husband passed away recently and I applied for survivorship benefits, which is much more. I am grateful he was such a good provider and ensured that I could do what I want all the years we were married.



Best thing for everyone is to take time and get familiar with Social Security. If you have questions, call. There is a wait time and the call back option is better to use.

[mountain grammy]

41. I believe SS should be expanded and payments increased

by eliminating the cap on FICA.

My dad died when I was 10. My mom got survivor benefits for us until we were 18. It was a pittance, but without it, we would have had nothing.

She received widow's benefits until she finally found work that paid decently, then she "made too much," but we were definitely better off.

and , I'm so sorry for your loss.

[Demsrule86]

44. I agree with that.

[Cryptoad]

24. FICA tax needs to be progressive! Full Stop!

[loyalsister]

26. It functions as disability insurance

And hardship insurance when family providers die, as well as for senior citizens who have not held formal employment. These benefits are given to people who have not contributed significantly or even at all in some cases. Not everyone can save for retirement, so we have poverty protection insurance.
It was sold to a public that was averse to taxes as earned benefits but that isn't how it functions.

[pnwmom]

30. Actually, Social Security DISABILITY is a separate thing that goes to disabled people

regardless of age.

That part isn't a retirement benefit.

[annabanana]

29. They only take out for SS from the first $127,200 anything above that goes free

The current Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for both employers and employees, and the 2017 maximum earnings amount subject to Social Security tax is $127,200.

This means, if you earn $127,205. in a year.. you don't pay the SS tax on that last 5 bucks. And this is only WAGES.

They don't take any money from investment income.

And the REALLY rich people.. say for example 5 million dollars a year, even if it's all WAGES.. THEY only pay into Social Security for the very first $127,200 bucks.. which is a tiny tiny percentage compared to someone who's whole income is wages.

That $127,200 CAP is what needs to be eliminated. Also, just maybe, the very rich could put in a penny or two from their investment earnings.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. How can a post have 39 recs that claims Soc. Security is not a retirement account and thanks REAGAN?

For the (correct) reasons you cite, I have come to suspect bots and trolls have overrun the site.

This place is very different than it was many years ago.

[Demsrule86]

45. Mostly low post folks...the GOP really wants some Dems to help them kill

Medicare and Social Security. We will see more of this stuff...got to remember it is BS.