Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Not stopped for everyone Grampi, but it's easy enough to stop it for some...
You know, the evil "rich" who control too much wealth and didn't pay ther "fair share". They don't "need" SS...
Means testing has been discussed in Congress before, and as long as the majority still get SS, it's one way to balance the looming deficit in revenue vs. entitlement that will happen because of demographics.
One, or all, of the three things I listed is going to happen...and I'm planning on the worst case. Frankly, every time the "rich" are invoked in political debate, the upper middle class get smacked. Kind of like targeting the terrorist camp and having the bomb hit a church instead. Happens every time in tax policy that targets the "rich".
I agree the affluent should not receive SS benefits, I just don't trust the government to determine who is affluent...I don't consider those in the middle class, even upper middle class to be affluent...
There's the slippery slope, right there...I don't agree that the affluent should not receive SS benefits...precisely because the government will not determine it fairly.
Look at all the posts saying, in effect, "I paid into it, so I deserve something out of it"...but then we are going to say, well, that's true, except for this group of people over here?
The problem is the understanding of what SS is...it was developed and sold as a social safety net, for people too old, or sick, etc. to work. A modest tax on every worker, and the $$ are transferred to those beneficiaries.
It started out at something like a hundred workers to every beneficiary, then quickly dropped to 12 workers to every beneficiary...and we're down to 3 workers to every beneficiary...and that ratio will continue to drop. It will collapse as the population ages, unless you begin to trim benefits by raising the age, or means testing it or you begin to collect more taxes to fund it...
And the means testing is another regressive way of saying, well, you worked hard, and did the right things, so, you get nothing. Thereby reducing the incentive to work hard and save for yourself.
We have a society in which most people my age haven't saved nearly enough for retirement. They mistakenly look at a 401(k) and say, wow, I have $50,000...without understanding how little retirement income that will provide.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...-by-ageand.aspx
But subconsciously, or consciously, they are thinking, "I'll get Social Security" and the SS benefit has become the principal retirement income for most people...when it was never intended to be a major benefit, it was intended to be a social safety net...
And given the demographics and money trends, it won't stay solvent. Trim benefits or raise taxes, that's the simple math on SS...and while neither of those will be popular, they're coming.
And not just for the "rich"...it's amazing how many people listen to the politicians and say, "oh, it's OK, they're just going to tax the rich"...but that never happens. Not once have we been able to tax just the rich and leave the middle class unaffected. The truly rich don't get salaries like you and I. The can afford to re-structure their lives and finances to avoid whatever the tax guys dream up. The moderately successful working stiff can't, and then gets caught in the tax that was intended for the "rich". The middle class always ends up holding the bag.
What's also completely lost on people is that their incomes rise over their working lives. So, if you're typical, and you think that the government is just going to tax the rich, then you've just bought into taxing yourself in your peak earning years - your 50s and early 60s. You may think, "oh, it's just the top 5% who will be hit by this"...but with inflation, it will be the top 20% pretty soon...and that top 20% represents half the population as they transition through peak earnings.
Target: Rich
Weapon impact accuracy: 0
Collateral Damage: Middle Class
From the SSA itself:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html
