Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.
As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.
NathanNewman.org
So because some people are stupid we should penalize everyone? This is the liberal ideal of equality: everyone equally poor and miserable.
serious question: how is "individual stupidity" responsible for market crashes like the one in 2008?
Social security pays out far more individually than it takes in. That is upside down. Period. The system is a flawed gimmick that no longer protects seniors but rather ensures that congress always has a funded piggy bank to rob.
.
In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.
.
But if people have control over their own money then the government will have a tough time redistributing the private savings of the responsible to the dependents of the state. Democrats will never go for it.
Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.
As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.
NathanNewman.org
So because some people are stupid we should penalize everyone? This is the liberal ideal of equality: everyone equally poor and miserable.
.
In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.
.
No it's not.
That's true. What's your solution? Just kill everyone?Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.
As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.
NathanNewman.org
So because some people are stupid we should penalize everyone? This is the liberal ideal of equality: everyone equally poor and miserable.
The biggest driver of indivdual bankruptcy is medical care.
It's almost impossible to plan for every possible permutation that can crop up.
.
In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.
.
.
In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.
.
No it's not.
I'm surprised you'd say that.
Do you think it's wise in this environment to pay normal, 100% Social Security benefits to someone with three million in the bank?
Means testing is already being utilized in Medicare Part B premiums.
.
No it's not.
I'm surprised you'd say that.
Do you think it's wise in this environment to pay normal, 100% Social Security benefits to someone with three million in the bank?
Means testing is already being utilized in Medicare Part B premiums.
.
The increased administrative costs alone probably make means testing cost prohibitive. Economist James K. Galbraith referred to means testing as an administrative horror show that will make the programs more expensive to run.
Some of the problems with means testing are;
-as Jared Bernstein has said the history of social policy leads me to worry [that] once you shift a program from universal coverage to means testing, its increasingly vulnerable to deeper means-testing until it eventually becomes a poverty program which everyone wants to get rid of.
-in order to generate enough revenue to offset the administrative nightmare means testing would cause and save enough money to make a difference, according to economist Dean Baker we'd have to means test people earning $60K. And, "Means-testing would harm seniors who already have paltry incomes. Proposals to increase premiums for 25 percent of beneficiaries, for example, could hit American seniors who make as little as $47,000, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation."
-From the article linked in the OP:
4. Means-Testing Plays into Conservative Deficit Hysteria
Conservatives promote deficit hysteria because they have a fundamental hatred of government and wish to destroy the New Deal programs that have benefitted the middle class and the poor. If they were really concerned about deficits and spending, they would not support costly and unnecessary wars, monopolistic conditions, and extremely low taxes for the wealthy and large corporations.
By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the wasteful things that actually drive deficits.
Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. It is a well-managed program in fine fiscal condition, and there is no justification for tampering with it now. The Trustees Report shows that the program will be able to meet all of its obligations at least until 2033. If there is a tweak needed down the road, that can be handled very simply by raising the cap, which stands now at just over $100,000. If you are truly concerned about income inequality, raising the cap is a much better way to address it than means-testing.
.
No it's not.
I'm surprised you'd say that.
Do you think it's wise in this environment to pay normal, 100% Social Security benefits to someone with three million in the bank?
Means testing is already being utilized in Medicare Part B premiums.
.
The increased administrative costs alone probably make means testing cost prohibitive. Economist James K. Galbraith referred to means testing as an administrative horror show that will make the programs more expensive to run.
Some of the problems with means testing are;
-as Jared Bernstein has said the history of social policy leads me to worry [that] once you shift a program from universal coverage to means testing, its increasingly vulnerable to deeper means-testing until it eventually becomes a poverty program which everyone wants to get rid of.
-in order to generate enough revenue to offset the administrative nightmare means testing would cause and save enough money to make a difference, according to economist Dean Baker we'd have to means test people earning $60K. And, "Means-testing would harm seniors who already have paltry incomes. Proposals to increase premiums for 25 percent of beneficiaries, for example, could hit American seniors who make as little as $47,000, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation."
-From the article linked in the OP:
4. Means-Testing Plays into Conservative Deficit Hysteria
Conservatives promote deficit hysteria because they have a fundamental hatred of government and wish to destroy the New Deal programs that have benefitted the middle class and the poor. If they were really concerned about deficits and spending, they would not support costly and unnecessary wars, monopolistic conditions, and extremely low taxes for the wealthy and large corporations.
By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the wasteful things that actually drive deficits.
Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. It is a well-managed program in fine fiscal condition, and there is no justification for tampering with it now. The Trustees Report shows that the program will be able to meet all of its obligations at least until 2033. If there is a tweak needed down the road, that can be handled very simply by raising the cap, which stands now at just over $100,000. If you are truly concerned about income inequality, raising the cap is a much better way to address it than means-testing.
.
.
"By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major
drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the
wasteful things that actually drive deficits."
6 Reasons Joseph Stiglitz and Other Top Economists Think Means-Testing Medicare & Social Security Is a Destructive Idea
Means-testing is a back-door strategy
for taking away benefits earned
by hard-working Americans.
Lynn Stuart Parramore
December 31, 2012
<snip>
1. Means-Testing Undermines Progressive Values
At their heart, programs like Medicare and Social Security are about fairness, equality and shared citizenship, values that progressive Americans hold dear.
Medicare and Social Security are not welfare programs. They are benefits that people pay for as they work. They are also smart social insurance programs that spread risk across society in order to protect everyone at rates no private insurance scheme, with its much smaller risk pool, could touch.
<snipped>
2. Means-Testing Wont Stop at the Wealthy
Make no mistake: If means-testing on the wealthy is allowed, conservatives will keep pushing until that same means-testing is applied to the middle class, who increasingly must rely on Social Security and Medicare in times of economic uncertainty and job insecurity.
.
Only post the first paragraph of a copied article due to board copyright rules. Newby
