General Discussion

panader0

(25,816 posts) Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:45 PM Oct 2012

Should rich people receive Social Security benefits? [View all]

Sure, they've paid in too, (I think). But it would seem that at some point of income, say a million or so, that rich people don't really need the SS benefits. I will begin receiving my $765 bucks a month in two days. I can still work (construction) and will be able to earn 14 grand a year without reducing my benefits. So, $9180 a year in SS, and maybe the same in work. 18 grand a year.
What about the fat cats who make that much a week? I'm not sure on the rules, but it seems to me that at some level, rich folks shouldn't need SS.

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should rich people receive Social Security benefits? [View all] panader0 Oct 2012 OP

When I was a kid, it was common for the wealthy not to take their SS proud2BlibKansan Oct 2012 #1

We need to drive home the point DonCoquixote Oct 2012 #2

Right brush Oct 2012 #19

They should receive benefits up to a point Generic Brad Oct 2012 #79

Why remove the cap? For what purpose? FogerRox Oct 2012 #82

an honest question handmade34 Oct 2012 #3

of course they should. unless you'd prefer they didn't pay in. in which case, kiss the whole thing HiPointDem Oct 2012 #4

But do they really pay in? panader0 Oct 2012 #9

If they had earned wages they paid in. DURHAM D Oct 2012 #31

no one pays in on capital income. everyone (with some exceptions) pays in on wage income. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #35

As long as they paid their taxes... MinM Oct 2012 #5

My right-wing, Democratic great-aunt FIVE YEARS Nevernose Oct 2012 #6

Yes. It's for everyone, no exceptions. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #7

+1000 n/t TDale313 Oct 2012 #13

+ 3225 Change has come Oct 2012 #24

Exactly Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #41

No, imo. elleng Oct 2012 #8

Can you explain the cap on SS contributions to me? panader0 Oct 2012 #10

Here: elleng Oct 2012 #14

Do you mean MissB Oct 2012 #16

Thanks, I get it now. panader0 Oct 2012 #18

Which public sector? abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #45

It does seem to vary by state. MissB Oct 2012 #54

foolish? not at all. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #36

Yes Foolish for people to become hysterical. elleng Oct 2012 #44

i've seen no one who's 'hysterical'. i've seen a lot of people who are concerned, angry, worried, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #49

Yes, because... TDale313 Oct 2012 #11

Bingo hollysmom Oct 2012 #20

Bingo, yup FogerRox Oct 2012 #76

Probably not in the end. hrmjustin Oct 2012 #12

If they paid their premiums, yes. Warpy Oct 2012 #15

same rules for everyone SmileyRose Oct 2012 #17

Yes. The fix is to raise the cap... WorseBeforeBetter Oct 2012 #21

Fix what? You think SS is broken? FogerRox Oct 2012 #77

No, I don't, and I get VERY NERVOUS when I hear a Democratic president... WorseBeforeBetter Oct 2012 #87

The trust funds gets the full 6.2% FogerRox Oct 2012 #93

.gov late at night...... LOL ok thats fair.. :~ ) FogerRox Oct 2012 #94

Absolutely. Why do you think we still have SS while so many "welfare" programs have been Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #22

Great explaination, you have a very good understanding of the issue. FogerRox Oct 2012 #78

If we don't let rich people take it... Lydia Leftcoast Oct 2012 #23

Before the age of full benefits, SS is income means tested. Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #25

What part of a rich person's income pays into the system? panader0 Oct 2012 #28

All people who get paid, pay into SS. Even if they are rich. Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #29

social security taxes are only taken from wage income. not from investment, iras, or any capital HiPointDem Oct 2012 #37

People who have had zero wage income and no spouse with wage income pnwmom Oct 2012 #62

yes, and they're irrelevant to any discussion of social security. they didn't pay in and they HiPointDem Oct 2012 #63

You said - DURHAM D Oct 2012 #33

Thats is correct, that is not the proper use of means testing FogerRox Oct 2012 #80

They could always donate it back to the Treasury. Historic NY Oct 2012 #26

Yes. MannyGoldstein Oct 2012 #27

Here I am asking for knowledge again.... panader0 Oct 2012 #30

It's Social Security's bank account MannyGoldstein Oct 2012 #38

After SS taxes are collected from workers, any money not needed to pay current retirees is HiPointDem Oct 2012 #39

Trust fund money is invested in special Treasury bonds FogerRox Oct 2012 #81

They should get what they are entitled to. SS is already means tested, doc03 Oct 2012 #32

Follow my dad's advice abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #46

I am paying a higher percentage of tax on my pension than doc03 Oct 2012 #75

Yes they should. NYC Liberal Oct 2012 #34

Yes. Universal coverage is important Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #40

Why not... WCGreen Oct 2012 #42

wealthy should not continue drawing beyond what they contributed into the system ahlnord Oct 2012 #43

it was never considered an investment or a fund. it was set up as a pass-through, with each HiPointDem Oct 2012 #47

Thanks for posting this. I was going to. Social Security is already means tested via these JDPriestly Oct 2012 #66

The better use of this argument is abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #48

removing the cap altogether would mean that the top 10% of earners would be funding the HiPointDem Oct 2012 #50

Then lower the SS rates. abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #53

lowering the rates wouldn't do anything about the top 10% of workers paying most of the freight. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #55

My point is simply this abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #57

it hasn't been caused by lifespans beyond expectations at all. increased lifespans were built HiPointDem Oct 2012 #59

Why do you think my idea about the cap is confused? abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #64

Richer people have always lived longer than poorer people; the widening gap in that respect, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #68

Well I definitely agree that those crying for a fix abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #69

I generally agree. But most fundamentally, the whole 'crisis' is way overblown. Yet once they've HiPointDem Oct 2012 #70

Right 10-12 years, dont touch SS FogerRox Oct 2012 #86

the scenario that's more accurately predicted the short-term than either of the others? yes, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #100

ANd it shows in 2062 how assets climb FogerRox Oct 2012 #105

take a look at this chart from the CBO 2011 FogerRox Oct 2012 #88

The major driver is not lifespans FogerRox Oct 2012 #90

Also, let's talk about the federal budget, but not here abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #56

if you think there's any chance that the government is going to stop funneling money creation HiPointDem Oct 2012 #58

This is what is being suggested regarding the cap TexasBushwhacker Oct 2012 #71

1% of wage earners? i doubt it, top 1% of income starts at $380K (2010) and the social security HiPointDem Oct 2012 #72

From the CBO scoring 2011 FogerRox Oct 2012 #85

Lots of wrong information......#!) 120k is bout the top 10%, not close to 1% or a few % FogerRox Oct 2012 #84

SS is insurance, its legaly insurance and is administered as insurance, FogerRox Oct 2012 #92

Those which The Lord loves, he calls home soonest jberryhill Oct 2012 #51

Of course, faith woos science Oct 2012 #52

The term "Social Security" means just that--socially secure. panader0 Oct 2012 #60

YES YES YES. pnwmom Oct 2012 #61

i think it was hugh downs who said DesertFlower Oct 2012 #65

Yes, they should because if they don't then they resent Cleita Oct 2012 #67

Yes, but their should be no cut off on contributions krawhitham Oct 2012 #73

Yes, they paid into it so they're "Entitled" to receive it. It they are really Raine Oct 2012 #74

no, ss should be means tested ldf Oct 2012 #83

Oh sure ...the rich need it ...to pay for their yacht club membership. L0oniX Oct 2012 #89

If they paid into it they should get benefits. The problem is Twit paid 14% taxes and we paid 28%. LittlestStar Oct 2012 #91

If they earned it, they deserve it (nt) bigwillq Oct 2012 #95

They paid in (presumably) so they ought to get it. Stinky The Clown Oct 2012 #96

Absolutely, they paid in, if they are disabled they are entitled. NotThisTime Oct 2012 #97

It should be their patriotic duty to give up the payments once they receive what they put in. Auntie Bush Oct 2012 #98

If you contribute you should get the money. GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #99

yes; benefits are subject to ordinary income tax, so filthy rich people give a good chunk back. unblock Oct 2012 #101

If you pay into it, you should receive it's benefits. Period. rustydog Oct 2012 #102

Yes, and payroll tax should be applied on incomes above 250,000... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2012 #103

BUST A DEAL... slackmaster Oct 2012 #104