General Discussion

JVS

(61,935 posts)

61. I disagree. I'm taking the fact that people are seriously suggesting means-testing...

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:02 AM

Nov 2012

as an indicator that the intended bar will be set so low that there will be significant savings. Something along the lines of direct cut-off for anyone who is able to have income of 20k or more. Or since retirees are generally low-income but higher assets (i.e. savings, home), they might means-test for a quantity of savings and only provide a benefit after those assets have been consumed. So if a 67 year old retires with $80,000 in savings and a home worth $150,000 they might be told that they can start collecting benefits when their total assets are worth under $40,000. I'm taking their talk of means-testing as an indicator that they plan on cutting deep because if they don't cut deep it won't lower costs much.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Savings to Social Security from Means Testing = Higher Costs [View all] HiPointDem Nov 2012 OP

Means-testing is just a cynical ploy to undermine political support for the program ... dawg Nov 2012 #1

I agree. Disturbing to see so many democrats here at DU pushing it. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #2

Maybe too many Democrats and RC Nov 2012 #4

So if I'm sitting on a multi-million dollar investment portfolio Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #12

only wage income gives you social security eligibility, not capital income. so your HiPointDem Nov 2012 #19

Not correct... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #31

Only wage income is subject to SS tax. If donald trump pays himself a wage, it's HiPointDem Nov 2012 #39

We might be talking about two different things. Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #57

only if trump has himself as employee of that llc and is paying social security tax HiPointDem Nov 2012 #59

LLC's are typically treated as sole proprietors (Schedule C) Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #60

because it's a universal system, and as such, was not designed *only* to keep HiPointDem Nov 2012 #62

From FDR's signing statement... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #63

It clearly was set up to provide payments to all persons who paid in, because that HiPointDem Nov 2012 #64

HiPoint is talking about FICA FogerRox Nov 2012 #40

Yes. StatGirl Nov 2012 #30

I look at it a different way... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #33

If you purchase retirement insurance, when you retire you get a benefit payment FogerRox Nov 2012 #42

It's not insurance against retirement, it's insurance against been POOR in retirement... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2012 #56

Yes. Very disturbing. David Zephyr Nov 2012 #50

FDR would go ballistic over this. David Zephyr Nov 2012 #49

I disagree. I'm taking the fact that people are seriously suggesting means-testing... JVS Nov 2012 #61

Frankly, Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #3

the corporate contribution is figured as part of total employee compensation & HiPointDem Nov 2012 #5

A short term fix at best.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #7

of course i do. but it has little to do with social security per se. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #8

It has everything to do with social security.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #13

i agree that the problem is wages. i disagree that social security avoidance is the primary HiPointDem Nov 2012 #14

Never said it was primary....just one more excuse Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #18

it's an insignificant distraction HiPointDem Nov 2012 #20

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #27

raising the cap to its original/traditional 90% is fine by me. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #35

90% was not the original cap, btw. Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #37

actually, it was. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #38

Except it didnt FogerRox Nov 2012 #47

Who pays 15.3%, there are deductions for that silly, get with the program FogerRox Nov 2012 #48

I think Forbes is behind the times on this. Live and Learn Nov 2012 #10

Of course they do.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #24

Why not remove the cap from the employer's side of FICA? customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #55

If a corporation can't afford its employees Live and Learn Nov 2012 #6

They can afford it, that is not the issue. Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #9

Corporations do so at their own risk. Live and Learn Nov 2012 #11

They've been doing it for years.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #17

That is my point. He didn't really choose to become an independent contractor Live and Learn Nov 2012 #22

For whom he votes is not the discussion.... Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #25

all those things you mention are tax deductions to employers. HiPointDem Nov 2012 #16

I'm not sure screwing up your business is really worth a tax deduction. Live and Learn Nov 2012 #23

With all those wonderful Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #26

Yep. David Zephyr Nov 2012 #52

You hit the nail on the head FogerRox Nov 2012 #43

DURec leftstreet Nov 2012 #15

Means testing will only make those of means complain that they aren't Cleita Nov 2012 #21

What is notable is the constant need to refute woo me with science Nov 2012 #28

Fix the economy, create jobs. Fixes SS. FogerRox Nov 2012 #44

I've been saying this for years Hamlette Nov 2012 #29

to believe SS will go broke in 2037 you have to believe FogerRox Nov 2012 #46

Your figure is old news customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #54

That is one of 4 scenarios the Trustees publish each year FogerRox Nov 2012 #65

Which makes my point customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #67

eliminate the top limit to fica tax. pansypoo53219 Nov 2012 #32

Adjust back to 90%, no reason to eliminate the income CAP FogerRox Nov 2012 #45

There you go using math and reason again! nt SunSeeker Nov 2012 #34

Means Testing is to SS what Tort Reform is to Health Care costs. eyewall Nov 2012 #36

+1. (though it offers a solution to something for corporations) HiPointDem Nov 2012 #41

Excellent fact filled article, with top flight citations FogerRox Nov 2012 #51

You're right in that means testing is expensive customerserviceguy Nov 2012 #53

Those above a certain income will just get taxed on it mainer Nov 2012 #58

means testing is a BAD idea: amborin Nov 2012 #66