The Trump Presidency Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

TimF

To: bentway who wrote (69731)	5/3/2018 5:30:43 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 356413

I think one way to preserve SS would be to means test it at delivery time. The argument against that has been that the SS system has popular support because it's universal. It does have redistribution aspects but only at the edges. Up the redistribution and you tip it to a welfare system. You lose plausible deniability that it's a welfare system and the discussion today illustrates how uncomfortable that is for participants. I'm not arguing for or against, only pointing out the challenge that would be to the underlying principle of universality, a paradigm shift, even, not just another way to breathe life into it. So, their wealth should be evaluated yearly, in case their circumstances change for the worse. Medicare might be done the same way. Or changes for the better? Medicare Part B already has means testing and that means testing has already twice been made more progressive. Part A is so automatic it's all but impossible to avoid enrollment. If it were to be means tested, I would think it would have be made opt-in. Does the eligible person need the money to live a reasonable lifestyle? Do they need all or just some of the potential payout? So, their wealth should be evaluated yearly... That's a tall order, everyone reporting wealth rather than just income yearly and the feds coming up with criteria for how different forms of wealth factor against lifestyle. I think a system to do that would likely be in Frankenstein territory, even if you piggy-backed it on the tax system. (I can't help going into program/system design mode. Sorry about that.) Not to mention probably not cost effective. Lotsa overhead, particularly for the elderly; not so much revenue. Also not to mention the feds deciding what comprises a "reasonable lifestyle." That would be a sideshow.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next