Social Security

punditThe first thing you can do is pass legislation making it illegal for Congress to take money from Social Security to use for other things, the way they’ve been doing for years.–Often seen on facebook.

The idea that money has been taken from Social Security for other purposes is false. That so many believe it is harmful in several ways:

  • It advertises our ignorance, so our Representatives see how easily fooled we are.
  • It suggest that Social Security benefits depend on money set aside for that purpose, rather than a government obligation.
  • That so many believe it has already happened, may make it more likely to happen in the future with cuts to benefits.

In my opinion, SS benefits might reasonably be reduced if it can be shown that they are excessive; I don’t believe this is true. They should not be reduced to save money–government is obliged to fully fund lawful benefits. There is no excuse to renege.

 

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Social Security. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Social Security

  1. josephurban says:

    And some people think they have an individual account. Like a bank account. The SS fix is not a difficult one.
    1. Tax ALL income. Today, a person pays SS tax on only the first $128,000. This means that the average working man pays 12.4 % ( 6.2 + employers 6.2), the wealthy pay a much lower percentage. It favors the exremely wealthy. A person making $128,000 pays $16,000. A person making $20 million a year pays $16,000. A billionaire pays $16,000.
    2. Means test the distribution of funds. SS is supposed to be insurance for the poor and the working class who had few assets. Anyone with a retirement income of $300,000 should not receive it.Anyone with a retirement income of $100,000 to 300,000 should get some on a sliding scale. It is NOT a saving account, it is a tax.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. whungerford says:

    When asked about raising the cap, Tom Reed argues that this can’t be done without raising benefits paid to the wealthy. It isn’t clear why he believes this; it may be that he sees SS as an individual account like a bank account. If the SS law provides that potential benefits must be proportional to contributions, I see no reason that this couldn’t and shouldn’t be changed.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.