There has been general bipartisan
agreement that the Social Security system needs some adjustment.
I heard on TV this morning a Democrat proposing that a "Means Test" be used to calculate Social Security payments to individuals.
Let's look at what a "Means Test" means.
In the context of finance, persons with high Means are wealthy. Persons with low Means are poor. Therefore, the Democrat proposal is to look at each Social Security recipient's total assets to determine whether he has high or low Means. If he has high Means, he will receive lower monthly payments. If he has low Means, he will receive higher monthly payments.
This proposal is essentially a redistribution of wealth or a matter of government stealing from one individual in order to benefit another individual. I will now attempt to prove that.
In the many years I worked, I paid the government a Social Security fee, which could also be regarded as a monthly insurance premium to guarantee me income in my old age. My Social Security fee was the same percentage as for everyone else. But, those who had higher salaries were actually paying higher dollar fees, and those with lower salaries were paying lower dollar fees. Through the years, I then had on deposit a somewhat higher dollar account with the Federal Social Security System than did a person who had been making a somewhat lower salary. In other words I had saved more money through the Social Security system, than had a lower salaried individual.
Since I paid in more dollars over the course of my working years, I would expect to receive higher monthly payments, than the individual who paid in less during his working years.
However, if we both now receive the same Social Security payments, the government would be stealing from my account to pay equivalent Social Security for the person who paid in less. If the government now determines that other than my Social Security Account, I have considerably other financial assets and use that as a further basis to reduce my monthly security payments and increase the monthly security payments for those persons having less independent assets, we would enter the realm of super stealing. Another way of looking at this is that government would be no longer respecting private property rights but would be operating in a Marxist system.
I heard on TV this morning a Democrat proposing that a "Means Test" be used to calculate Social Security payments to individuals.
Let's look at what a "Means Test" means.
In the context of finance, persons with high Means are wealthy. Persons with low Means are poor. Therefore, the Democrat proposal is to look at each Social Security recipient's total assets to determine whether he has high or low Means. If he has high Means, he will receive lower monthly payments. If he has low Means, he will receive higher monthly payments.
This proposal is essentially a redistribution of wealth or a matter of government stealing from one individual in order to benefit another individual. I will now attempt to prove that.
In the many years I worked, I paid the government a Social Security fee, which could also be regarded as a monthly insurance premium to guarantee me income in my old age. My Social Security fee was the same percentage as for everyone else. But, those who had higher salaries were actually paying higher dollar fees, and those with lower salaries were paying lower dollar fees. Through the years, I then had on deposit a somewhat higher dollar account with the Federal Social Security System than did a person who had been making a somewhat lower salary. In other words I had saved more money through the Social Security system, than had a lower salaried individual.
Since I paid in more dollars over the course of my working years, I would expect to receive higher monthly payments, than the individual who paid in less during his working years.
However, if we both now receive the same Social Security payments, the government would be stealing from my account to pay equivalent Social Security for the person who paid in less. If the government now determines that other than my Social Security Account, I have considerably other financial assets and use that as a further basis to reduce my monthly security payments and increase the monthly security payments for those persons having less independent assets, we would enter the realm of super stealing. Another way of looking at this is that government would be no longer respecting private property rights but would be operating in a Marxist system.
Associate CJ has made the following comment:
ReplyDelete"Many years ago, the Supreme Court held that FICA payments are a tax. That tax income goes directly into the Treasury and is spent by the federal government in whatever way they choose. The so-called Social Security Account which you reference is simply an artifact of the federal accounting system. It is truly a "Ponzi Scheme" in that those who are working pay a tax to cover a benefit for those who have retired. When the system was legislated years ago, there was no allowance for increasing longevity. As a result, today's workers are paying the benefit to an increasing number of retirees. With the "baby boomers" now retiring, that situation has worsened considerably.
There is no question that changes must be made to provide the benefit for future retirees because the tax revenues no longer cover the payout. Means testing is only one device. Others are: raising the age of eligibility; permitting younger workers to opt out of the system and receive no benefit; increasing the income level to which the tax is applied and increasing the tax. Some or all of these must be done to bring the system into balance.
Otherwise, this program will consume a larger and larger portion of federal tax revenues.
The same is true, only more so, of Medicare- another "Ponzi Scheme"."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe FICA may be a tax according to the Supreme Court definition, because it is mandatory. However, all taxes are not the same. FICA had a specific objective, which was a return to the individual in the form of old-age payments. Conversely, an income tax is a mechanism for obtaining general revenue, for subsequent use in any manner government desires.
ReplyDeleteMore simply, I was forced to pay into a system which was described as a form of pension for ultimate return in monthly payments. I consider it my money, and I want to collect it. I'm not willing to listen to any lame excuse for reducing the amounts of my payments through a "means test" or any other cock and bull scheme to cheat me out of my money. If the government is short of money to pay people who never put anything into it, it has a choice of not making further payments or borrowing more money from China. I'm not willing to lend it.
As a side issue, Social Security and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes. In a Ponzi scheme, one has an option of participating are not. In effect, a participant does so in hopes of making a gain. Social Security and Medicare are mandated. If a Ponzi scheme is bad, how much worse is a mandated Ponzi scheme?