One of the standard cures suggested by Democrat politicians is to stop paying Social Security benefits to the rich. After all, they don’t need the money. The money would the be used to pay the retirees who really need the money.
This is just one more “tax the rich” solution. It is theft, pure and simple. It is default.
Would it help Social Security meet its obligations? Of course not. Social Security taxes wages. It always has had a cut-off point, above which the FICA tax was not levied. But rich people made far more than this cut-off. So, the money owed to them is not that much greater as a class than money owed to the less rich. There are so many less-rich people owed the money. Result:
Right now, 90% of benefits go to individuals with less than $50,000 in annual income (not including what they get in Social Security). In order to have a marked impact on Social Security’s financial health, a means test would have to hit far more than just the very rich. More importantly, the added costs of administering a means test would offset any savings.
But the Democrats ignore this. Instead, they use the line of reasoning.
‘Millions of Social Security recipients get minimum-wage benefits that are barely enough to make ends meet. At the other end of the spectrum, though, many retirees who could get by just fine without any Social Security payments at all receive much larger monthly benefits from the government.
With Social Security in crisis, does it make sense to give those big payouts to the people who paid the most in taxes along the way — or should they be forced to sacrifice those benefits for those who are less fortunate?
It makes political sense: “Tax the rich!” It makes little economic sense. Here’s why.
The first $700 to $800 in average monthly earnings counts the most, turning into $0.90 of benefits per $1 of income.
Above that level, the increases in benefits get a lot slower — $0.32 per $1 up to about $4,600 in 2012, and $0.15 per $1 above that.
So even though top wage-earners get more benefits, they don’t get as much more in benefits as their higher earnings would suggest.
Furthermore, many high-income retirees pay taxes on as much as 85% of their Social Security benefits. For top-bracket retirees, that has the same impact as slashing almost 30% off their monthly checks.
The rich are already being cheated.
On one hand, high-income earners pay a lot of money in Social Security taxes, and with the tapered benefit structure, many feel that they already don’t get their fair share of what they put into the Social Security system. If Social Security calculated benefits without the earnings breakpoints described above, then high-income earners would get much more in their monthly retirement checks.
Taxing the rich is based on envy. The sin of envy drives modern politics.
Just write a check for the amounts the citizens paid into the account and cancel the program. Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid also. None of the federal govts business.
Visit this website to view Barack Obama's
voting record……… http://www.issues2000.org/senate/barack_obama.htm
The Shady Bunch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6nJuPd3SM&fe…
If my Social Security taxes had been placed in a private account and earned only 4.38% per year, the current monthly interest would be equal to the monthly payment I receive. When I die, my heirs would receive $348,000. Instead, they will receive nothing from Social Security. http://www.newsandopinions.net
Ratther than all the economic follies of these so called Quantative Easings to some of the very people who have caused the
financial crashes in the first place with their unsustainable mortgages made to people with no abilities to pay any mortgage debts – why did they not put the Social Security Program back in credit, thus correcting the folly created by LBJ's theft of the program funding to pay for both his Viietnam War and his unsustainable 'Great Society' which was on a par with Mao's 'Great Leap Forwar'd ' in crass studpidty. Any Politicians who corrected both Johnspo's and Nixon's folly in taking Gold off copnvertibility in 1971 which lead to uncontrolled issuance of increasingly worthless paper dollars eversince that date !
Don't just indict the democrats, Rick Santorum, the anti-second amendment RINO, wants to reduce payments even to current retirees who have paid into the Ponzi Scheme their entire lives! Damn I wish we had SOMEONE in the pack of republicans who would champion the cause of the middle class!
Higher income persons have paid into Social Security the yearly maximum in return for the 'promise' of a Social Security benefit upon retirement age. As the article pointed out, if one still has a income after receiving SS benefits, one falls into paying more income tax on the SS benefits in relation to gross income. The SS trust fund has not 'grown' the way it should have, and it is said the the SS trust fund has been used to fund the Government, which was not an intended 'investment' for the SS trust fund.
So the basic premis is anytime the Government and politicians get involved, it will become inefficient, cost more and loose value.
If anyone votes for a Democrat (or RINO) at any level of Government – Federal, State or Local, you may be uninformed or an idiot. America needs Term Limits, Statesmen and not career politicians who become corrupt and big spenders.
I don't know that Rick Santorum wants to "reduce payments, even to current retirees". The Democrats and liberal media are spreading false information (shall we say lies!) about the Republican Party, Republicans in Congress and the Republican Presidential candidates. Many Americans believe this crap, because that is what you constantly hear from the 'lame stream media'.
At any rate, the Social Security benefit is a mare pittance, and one needs other sources of income to live. Reducing benefits would be a crime against retired and retiring Americans after paying into the SS system for the 'promise' of a meaningful retirement benefit.
I read a QUOTE by Santorum hidden on page 5 of Section A of the Greenville News YESTERDAY. It wasn't written or quoted out of context by a democrat. It's what HE SAID on his tour of SC. He has also REFUSED to fill out the NRA questionaire and he voted FOR the Lautenburg and Brady restrictions on firearms. SCREW him and the pigmy pony he rode to town on! (Strong memo to follow.)
if they would just take off the income cap on social security contributions it would fix at least part of the problem
To Steve: Absolutely!
The way to fix the Social Security mess is to 'discontinue payments' to those who never paid into the system, like those who have just arrived from South of the Border or any other country and have never worked a day of their lives in this country.
How the system works now is…."if you are over 65 you collect S.S." period. Even if those people get the minimum which is about $620.00 a month, when you multiply this by the millions of people you are talking about several billion dollars a year.
Let the system be fair to those who actually contributed but not to those who come here just to collect S.S. , welfare and free medical care. STOP THE MADNESS.
Eeeeeeeeew…. So THAT's the REAL reason for the sudden, hideously strange DHS CHECKPOINT that was set up at the Lee County, FL Social Security office last week !!! (http://www.dailycommercial.com/News/LakeCounty/010412shield). "For the love of money is the root of all evil." Evil!
There really are poor people in this country who rely on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security not because they are handouts but because they have earned them. Entitlement should not be a bad word. That's like the attack on Military retirees and Veterans benefits because they need to "share the sacrifice" argument. It is specious. OUR federal government has a DUTY to provide for the common defense and the welfare of it's citizens.
Good idea! The only way to increase the pool fairly is to tax hedge fund managers INCOME as well instead of calling it a fancy term for "Don't tax me!"
Why not give the wealthy the option to not take Social Security? Give an incentive of some sort for them to not claim it, of course, that would be some kind of credit on their income taxes. But, it could be a fraction of what they would get from their SS check.
My family has been very fortunate and my grandparents never claimed their Social Security. They felt it was better served going to those that really needed it. I hope to carry on that belief. And, many wealthy Americans would gladly do the same, if they aren't already.
It only becomes an entitlement once you receive more than you've paid in. There is no way to keep in front of this trend.
Another, take from the wealthy and give to the poor scheme. If the wealthy have paid into the system over all the years, then they deserve to get their SS benefits, period. It is their money! Get it Dems?
SS WAS TO A GREAT BIG DEAL.ONCE AGAIN WE WERE LIED TO BY OUR GOV.BIG GOV.STOOL OUR MONEYS.IF SS WERE PUT IN A BANK,AND INTEREST PAID AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN,WE ALL WOULD HAVE PLENTY MONEY.GOV.BIG GOV.CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.
Guest, you are right the problem is there are not enought young people coming up to pay the bill. When you run the numbers this can't be sustained in the long term, no matter who the president is. This is a pyrmide scheme, with a lot of people paying for a few. in 1933 when SS was started there was a 12 to1 ratio of workers vs retired. Now that ratio is about a little more than 3 to 1. In 1933 the average life span for a man was 58 and 62 for a woman. Now it's in the late 70's for both. This was never designed to be a long term Entitlement for great numbers of meople.
WHAT DAMN GOOD IS Medicare if they cut 30% of the payment to Dr.'s and they won't take Medicare patients?
Lt.General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin on Marxism in America. http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxi…
This kind of compassion is far too rare. Good for them.
No! The rich can afford not to have SS.