I've been hearing some talk about ...

[Kweli4Real]

Means Testing for Social Security.

My first thought is that this would make the most regressive taxation scheme far more progressive ... assuming the line was set at about $106K.

Before I commit to this strategy, I need more info. Could someone point me to a good discussion of Means Testing for Social Security? (Yes, I know I could do my own research, but I plan to use any links as a starting point and, to be honest, I'm just being a tad lazy.)

[DURHAM D]

1. Re: your first thought -

About raising the line on $106K - that will cause some blow back. SS is currently regressive on the front end (everyone pays the same %) and progressive on the payout end (high earners receive less money back - lower percentage payout).

Most people are not aware that SS is already redistribution of income from higher to lower wage earners. I don't have a problem with the current redistribution but a national discussion on this issue is the last thing we need right now.

BTW - if you raise or erase the cap on $106K then the maximum SS payout will also have to be raised. Is that what you really want?

[kentuck]

3. Why?

would the payout have to be increased?

[DURHAM D]

6. For political balance.

Like I said - I just don't want to see an open discussion about the current "redistribution" through SS pay outs. If the cap is raised on $106K the discussion will turn to payout and I am afraid it will not come to a good end.

[damntexdem]

5. So long as the payout is greater for lower income, less for higher, yes --

that is what all progressives should want.

[DURHAM D]

7. I agree but do we have enough "progressives" to hold the line? nt

[shraby]

2. Any time you have "means testing" for anything, the "means"

figure tends to get lower and lower until you then have poverty as the line they go by. Bad idea. We already have age testing as a base line and they want to keep raising that until most people are dead before they ever collect. They pay in all their working lives, they should have it in their declining years, which for the blue collar worker comes much earlier than for the white collar worker.
The only thing that might be changed is the cap on contributions could be raised because the very top of the food chain also collect a check after they reach the magic age as well.

[damntexdem]

4. Means testing = divide and conquer.

First make it a program for poorer people, then disparage it to the better-off who no longer benefit from it.

It's a first step in a formula for destroying SS.

Just get rid of the damn FICA wage cap, and SS will be fully funded for the foreseeable future.

[jwirr]

8. Having had experience with means tested programs I think I agree

with you. First get rid of the cap. We already have higher income levels being taxed on their SS benefits and if necessary that could be raised instead of lowering the benefit. I only get the minimum ssa & ssi so this would not effect me either way.

[gratuitous]

9. Winner, winner, chicken dinner

Means testing, while attractive on its face, is the first step toward social security's elimination. If it becomes a "welfare" program for the elderly poor who weren't wise enough to have a career in investment banking or professional sports or corporate management, it becomes ripe for the chopping block in the name of fiscal responsibility.

[Kweli4Real]

10. Okay ... I've read the comments,

All seem to talk (anecdotally) about what might happen, but none answer my question, i.e., no citations, no links. Can someone point me to a discussion on the topic?

But that said, I was suggesting that the Means Test line be set at $106K, the point at which the better incomed stop contributing.

It would seem that, at retirement, everyone making less than the $106K could receive what they currently are scheduled to receive and those making more receive nothing more.

I realize I'm gonna have to research this more.

[Cleita]

11. Means testing turns an insurance program that

everyone partakes in and then benefits from into welfare. Then the better off can bitch about it more than they do and eventually can kill it faster than if you don't do means testing. It's a very bad idea and it's no wonder the thieving and well off conservatives love the idea. I'm sorry I have no links but there is plenty of information out there in googleland for you. Start at Senator Bernie Sanders website for the best information on social programs including Social Security.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=d1b6b899-fd8d-425b-9d85-ef57863adeb4

[Kweli4Real]

13. Thanks n/t

[rgbecker]

14. Here's a link from another DU thread. Worth the read.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_security_in_perspective_part_iii.php?page=all

I too have changed my mind about reducing benefits for those with higher income. It seemed like a good idea, but a better one would be to just include the benefits when calculating income tax liability. Its important to make sure everyone has a stake in the future of Social Security.

Besides removing the cap on income which is counted when the FICA tax is charged these other methods should be considered for more revenue: 1. Add Capital gains income to the income which is taxed. 2. Make the system include everyone including state and local government employees. This would eliminate double dipping and again, bolster the interest in keeping Social Security viable.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I used to hold that opinion, I have flipped

for many reasons but there are 2 main ones


1) I don't trust that the number won't just keep being changed over and over until nobody receives benefits combined with the fact that any errors in the system could prevent someone who deserves benefits from ever receiving them.

2) It give the wealthy and powerful that much more reason to try and destroy social security.



What it needs is an alternate line of revenue in addition to the payroll tax that now exists. I would like to see taxes on imported products created to help fund SS (since the loss of manufacturing jobs here is part of the problem).