Means-testing - a strategy for taking away benefits

[Mac1958]

.

In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

No one claimed it was.
Next.

 

[Sallow]

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.

No it does not.

And won't for some 2 decades.

 

[Sallow]

.

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

The biggest driver of indivdual bankruptcy is medical care.

It's almost impossible to plan for every possible permutation that can crop up.

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That's true. What's your solution? Just kill everyone?

 

[PredFan]

If I should somehow achieve a retirement portfolio that would allow me to live my retirement years without worry, then I might be willing to subject myself to means testing, but if and only IF, the law was passed with other money saving measures as well. I wouldn't be against doing something to help my children and grandchildren get SS too. Alas, I'm a good ways away from where means testing would effect me much.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.

In a world of no perfect answers, means testing is easily one of the better options for all entitlement programs. Easily.

.

I have to agree. Or at least tax all income if that is a softer way of doing it.

After reading the arguments against means-testing or taxing SS benefits and weighing the pros as well, MHO is that the benefits of means-testing or taxing outweigh the negatives. But I think taxing all income is a slightly better approach.

 

[Star]

.

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.

.

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, it’s 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.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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, it’s 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.
.

I agree that means testing has its drawbacks, but there are only so many moving parts. And we're rapidly reaching a point where we're going to have to make some tough, imperfect decisions. That's all we have left.

Now, that said...

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. If we raise (or eliminate) the cap while still capping benefits -- hell yes, that's de-facto means testing right there. I'd be all for that.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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, it’s 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.
.

Star - I've looked at those arguments that you are re-pasting here.
In spite of that, I still believe that means testing or taxing SS benefits as normal income, is part of a better solution to the issue than others that have been proposed.

 

[JustTheFacts]

.

"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 Won’t 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

not entirely true, SSI in absolutely a welfare program, and is a large part of the reason social security is not in as good a shape as it should be.

I would do away with SSI entirely. I agree we need SOME temporary assistance for those who need it, but that is not what that program is about at all.