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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (69731)	5/3/2018 5:30:43 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356410

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.

To: bentway who wrote (69731)	5/3/2018 6:11:13 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 356410

Means testing at tax time; the taxes go back to the SSTF and Medicare, not the general fund. There's nothing which keeps us from increasing the tax to 99% for the wealthy. Income Taxes on Social Security Benefits Prior to OBRA 93, all of the revenue raised from taxing Social Security benefits was credited to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. OBRA 93 established the second income thresholds of $34,000 of modified AGI for beneficiaries filing income tax singly and $44,000 of modified AGI for married beneficiaries filing jointly. Although benefit income for tax filers with modified AGI below those thresholds remains taxable according to the terms of the 1983 amendments, up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits are taxable for beneficiaries with modified AGI exceeding the new thresholds. 5 The additional revenue generated by increasing the maximum taxable proportion of benefits above the second threshold from 50 percent to 85 percent is credited to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. ssa.gov