Bush on SS - steal from the middle class -- give to the rich

[JDPriestly]

Bush's scheme to increase Social Security benefits to the "poor" and decrease those to the rich is just another means to squeeze the middle class, give a nominal break to the poor and, not just let the wealthy off scottfree, but funnel even more money to those who need it the least.

Here's how this scam works (Numbers are not strictly accurate but change over time anyway):

1. If you earn less than the maximum wage subject to Social Security taxes, let's say less than $95,000, you pay 7.5% of every cent you earn into the Social Security fund (and your employer pays an additional 7.5% making it 15%). In contrast, your boss who is earning at least twice your wage, anywhere from $190,000 to $5 million pays much less, only 3.75% of every cent on $190,000. In addition, your boss probably earns some money from investments completely free of Social Security taxes. And if you have a neighbor who lives on investment income alone, he/she pays no Social Security taxes at all.

2. Social Security is not just a pension fund. It also pays benefits to the "poor" who are not senior citizens, i.e., to widows, orphans and the disabled -- out of the same Social Security taxes that pay pensions to senior citizens. It is a kind of welfare program that benefits all of society and may, under certain circumstances, even pay benefits to the children of the very, very rich.

3. Comparing the percentage of earned wages and other income paid by those who earn less than $95,000 (100% of the 7.5% Social Security tax) to the percentage of paid by those who earn more than $95,000 (at a salary of $190,000, only 3.75% of wages earned), it is evident that those who earn over $95,000 a year do not pay their fair share even based on the assumption (with which I do not agree) that a flat tax is "fair." In other words, an average family earning $37,000 a year pays 7.5% of its income into the fund out of which benefits to widows, orphans and disabled people is drawn, while Arnold Schwarzenegger, pays a far, far smaller percentage of his earnings into that fund.

4. Bush is cutting funds from general revenues for programs that help the poor, including the widows, orphans and disabled and poor retirees. Think Medicaid cuts.

5. Bush's proposal to increase Social Security benefits to the "poor" and decrease them to the middle class is intended to compensate a little for the cuts in funding for the "poor."

6. By using Social Security money, in which the majority of the burden of paying is placed on low to middle income wage earners, Bush is cleverly transferring the great part of the burden of supporting the poor from society as a whole to the middle class and the working poor.

Once again, Bush's "plan" will cheat ordinary people -- the very people who voted for him. And as far as I know, no one has seen through the ploy yet. So, please tell your friends.

[kentuck]

1. It is a "scheme"...

isn't it?

[NAO]

2. Means Testing is the Kiss of Death. It's used to build resentment against

a program and make it seem unfair.

See this thread I started the night of *'s televised gibbering:

Income test for benefits = kiss of death. Equal access = broad support.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1751641&mesg_id=1751641

Means testing for a program is a sure way to destroy public support for it.

Think about it: when there is a burglar in your home and you call the Police, do they ask you how much you make? If you make too much, do they tell you that you do not qualify for state-funded law enforcement services and that you must call a private firm and self-pay? Of course not. Everyone needs police protection and it is provided to everyone regardless of income, no questions asked.

Everyone strongly supports police and fire protection because everyone needs them and they are there for everyone. Really, they are "Social Law Enforcement" and "Social Fire Protection".

Why shouldn't Health Care and Social Security be the same way?

If you have a burglar in your home, the police come, no questions asked. But if you have a bacteria or a cancer in your body...Do you have insurance? If not, do you make little enough to qualify for state-funded services?

Means testing fuels resentment toward the poor for being 'freeloaders' and ends up destroying support for things we ALL need. Like health care. And social security.

I seriously wonder if *'s gibbering about "more benefits for the poorest" is not meant to make Social Security seem like a "handout to freeloaders" to fuel resentment at people who do not take "personal responsibility".

[dhinojosa]

3. I am self-employed so I pay the full 15%......

and you are exactly right.

[JDPriestly]

6. Thanks.

I didn't even go to the 15%ers. If you make less than the maximum amount subject to Social Security tax, you would bear an enormous share of the burden that everyone, especially the wealthy, should bear.

Please tell others about this aspect of Bush's "plan." No one seems to have realized how this will work and shift money from the middle class to the rich.

[NAO]

4. The Way this should be framed

Education, Social Security, Health Care should be framed in the same terms as Police Protection and Fire Protection:

- something everyone needs

- something that it is right and necessary for the government to provide

- something that would be abhorrent to privatize

- something we all pay for (social) and we all are protected by (security)

[blogbear]

5. I'm sure that an operation as Bushco has made many promises to

supporters and must live up to them (somehow)..Consequently, there are those destined to sacrifice and those who at times are destined to be 'scapegoats' for the benefit and expediency of those who matter most..

[FloridaPat]

7. SS has been taking a lot more money for the Baby Boomers the last

decade or so. It was a suggestion of Greenspans and from what I can tell, the system won't go "bankrupt" for another 45-50 years. Now some more math - that would put most of the Baby Boomers at 100. I don't think we're all going to make it. So if 90% of the Boomers are dead at 100, the problem disappears and everything is fine.

[applegrove]

8. So that the middle class will get poor and desperate and stop it

with their empathy for the people who have less than them.

Totally un-christian.