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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:33 AM May 2013

The 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-Security

The 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 growing—a “recovery” being declared where only the top few percent have rising wealth and the vast majority have falling wealth—is 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.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
2. Just raise the cap
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:48 AM
May 2013

Those in power , with few exceptions, will never even mention this.
We are an oligarch run country.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
9. If you want to "Raise-the-Cap", you should have voted for THIS guy!
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:01 PM
May 2013


Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a great President.

Amonester

(11,541 posts)
14. Maybe "special-interest" groups had some words with his closest advisor$...
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:04 PM
May 2013

and these advisor$ relayed those words to him in private meetings???

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
3. Social security was never designed with a "someone else should pay" model.
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:49 AM
May 2013

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)
5. That doesn't happen
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:57 AM
May 2013

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)
7. Let's say you have two workers...
Thu May 16, 2013, 07:58 AM
May 2013

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)
18. No, Worker B will get more because s/he paid more into the system
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:42 PM
May 2013

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)
17. That was NEVER the design or plan for Social Security,
Thu May 16, 2013, 06:18 PM
May 2013

....though the forces that would like to destroy it (Conservatives, Libertarians), or "Privatize" it (NeoLiberals and "Centrist" "Democrats&quot 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.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
6. Every dollar should be treated equally.
Thu May 16, 2013, 07:06 AM
May 2013

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

(28,783 posts)
8. It really does feel that way..
Thu May 16, 2013, 08:02 AM
May 2013

.. as though somehow there are aliens in them there halls of power
(or at least some sort of different species with sociopathic genes.)

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
12. We live in two alternate universes
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:19 PM
May 2013

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)
15. Since the elite seems to be "for sale" to the highest bidder$
Thu May 16, 2013, 02:11 PM
May 2013

in which case, the great mass of the population would be the lowest ones.

 

forestpath

(3,102 posts)
13. K&R. Neither Obama nor Republicans give a flying fuck what most people want. They
Thu May 16, 2013, 01:38 PM
May 2013

take their orders from the 1%.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The elite debating Social...