Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits
Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security BenefitsThe Atlantic
In the Democratic debate in Las Vegas last week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked by CNNs Dana Bash whether she supported Bernie Sanderss plan to expand Social Security. She didnt give the clearest answer: Well, I fully support Social Security
and the most important fight were going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it, she responded, in part. She didnt say yes. Instead, she said that she favored increasing benefits for the poorest people in the program.
That specific phrase, which is similar to Donald Trumps stated position on the matter, worried some who want to protect Social Security. Their concern is that any deal that increases benefits for the poorest retirees will also involve cutting benefits for the middle classand they fear the political consequences of doing so.
This is a problem for those who want to see Social Security survive. As the old adage, common in policy circles, has it, programs for the poor have poor support: A change that cuts benefits for the middle- and high-income Social-Security recipients could at the same time cause those groups to be less supportive of the program as a whole.
While raising this cap would indeed raise revenues for the program, it has a downside: It could also make the highest earners sour on the system. On average, about 6 percent of workers end up making above the $118,500 cutoff. If the cutoff were to be raised, that group would be paying more but receiving the same benefits from Social Securitysomething that could strike them as unfair, and which could reduce public support for the program.
That said, raising the cap is a good way to make the system solvent. That, in addition to slightly raising the Social-Security income-tax rate from about 6 to about 7 percent, would help the system survive and allow room for benefits increases for the poorest recipients.
So while Clinton has not yet put forward a plan to keep Social Security solvent and equitable, the choices she has are limited and well defined. Social Security simply needs more revenue to stay solvent, and even more revenue on top of that to raise benefits for the poorest earners, who need it most. In the end, all the candidates face that same math.
That specific phrase, which is similar to Donald Trumps stated position on the matter, worried some who want to protect Social Security. Their concern is that any deal that increases benefits for the poorest retirees will also involve cutting benefits for the middle classand they fear the political consequences of doing so.
This is a problem for those who want to see Social Security survive. As the old adage, common in policy circles, has it, programs for the poor have poor support: A change that cuts benefits for the middle- and high-income Social-Security recipients could at the same time cause those groups to be less supportive of the program as a whole.
While raising this cap would indeed raise revenues for the program, it has a downside: It could also make the highest earners sour on the system. On average, about 6 percent of workers end up making above the $118,500 cutoff. If the cutoff were to be raised, that group would be paying more but receiving the same benefits from Social Securitysomething that could strike them as unfair, and which could reduce public support for the program.
That said, raising the cap is a good way to make the system solvent. That, in addition to slightly raising the Social-Security income-tax rate from about 6 to about 7 percent, would help the system survive and allow room for benefits increases for the poorest recipients.
So while Clinton has not yet put forward a plan to keep Social Security solvent and equitable, the choices she has are limited and well defined. Social Security simply needs more revenue to stay solvent, and even more revenue on top of that to raise benefits for the poorest earners, who need it most. In the end, all the candidates face that same math.
Much like Mrs. Clinton's position on education, it seems she'd rely on means testing. This is just bad policy; means tested programs that target the poor make them go through hoops to get benefits, cost more money to implement, and are hard to defend against attack. What's worse, means testing is government viewed through a conservative lens. There's nothing wrong with a society where we administer the commons through government, for everyone.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 872 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
It's the conservatives and Third Wayers' way of demonizing it. SS is a retirement
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2015
#1
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)1. It's the conservatives and Third Wayers' way of demonizing it. SS is a retirement
account that workers pay into. It is their money. Workers should not have to beg to get money from a program they paid into. Do the rich have to beg their brokers when they want to sell stock? Means testing demonizes the program. I do not support it.