Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (155295)	1/29/2011 7:01:40 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541992

That's not means testing. That is "using the lion's share of the potential Social Security pensions of those that are very well off are used to pay the Social Security pensions of those less well off. " Means testing would mean some people would get nothing, because they do not need the money. Completely different setup. Means testing affects access to benefits- not, I think, the payment side- or so I have always seen it used: en.wikipedia.org

To: KyrosL who wrote (155295)	1/29/2011 7:41:38 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541992

<<<If you make the rich pay social security on their entire wages, their lifetime Social Security contributions will be very large indeed.>>> So what? Suppose we take the cap off and take John Paulson for example. Off of his income of last year (2010) he would pay between 220 or 320 million dollars into SS depending on whether we use the 4.2 or the 6.2 rate. So what if we gave him a $50,000 pension. How unfair would that be? Would Paulson really object? The only means testing necessary would be to see if you fall into the top 2% of income earners. I am sure they can find the cut off point in short order. I think that would take care of the additional 30 million SS benefits recipients projected for the year 2030. We wouldn't need all that many John Paulsons (not that there aa lot of them) but there are over 3 million in the upper 2%.

To: KyrosL who wrote (155295)	1/29/2011 8:19:11 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541992

Everybody pays Social Security taxes. But the poor get relatively more than what they contribute into the system. In other words, the system is partially a welfare system designed to redistribute contributions of the well off to those less well off. So, the system is already means tested. This post was to Mary but I'm going to assume your answer to me would be the same. The problem I have with it is that it's not the usual use of the term. "Means testing" has meant "a determination as to whether an individual or family is eligible for help from the government. " en.wikipedia.org. You are looking at the contribution side. And, if I understand your argument, it is that a wealthy individual would be contributing more than a less wealthy one. That's certainly a point but that's always the case, certainly with progressive taxation and even with the often banded about notion of flat taxes. Are you then arguing against progressive taxation or even flat taxes?