Comments on: Social Security Politics http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/ None Sine Causa Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:21:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: honestpartisan http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1081 honestpartisan Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:30:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1081 Social Security payments of course depend on your lifetime contributions, so some Social Security recipients are indeed poor. But a lot less are poor because of Social Security by most measures that I've seen. Before Social Security, seniors had the highest rate of poverty for any age group; now they have the lowest. I've read this a few places before, but I don't have sources right off the bat. If you want, I can try to locate the sources I saw for this. Social Security payments of course depend on your lifetime contributions, so some Social Security recipients are indeed poor. But a lot less are poor because of Social Security by most measures that I’ve seen. Before Social Security, seniors had the highest rate of poverty for any age group; now they have the lowest.

I’ve read this a few places before, but I don’t have sources right off the bat. If you want, I can try to locate the sources I saw for this.

]]> By: Dave Justus http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1080 Dave Justus Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:13:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1080 Has social security elimated any poverty? We always here about the poor Seniors who only have their social security check and can't make ends meet. Conversely, I don't think it wrong to assume that those seniors who have enough have less because of their lifetime social secuirty contributions than they would have otherwise. Has social security elimated any poverty?

We always here about the poor Seniors who only have their social security check and can’t make ends meet.

Conversely, I don’t think it wrong to assume that those seniors who have enough have less because of their lifetime social secuirty contributions than they would have otherwise.

]]> By: honestpartisan http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1079 honestpartisan Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:25:00 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2005/04/26/social-security-politics/#comment-1079 I actually think he's right in a lot of ways, although I don't really have a problem with it. Social Security was supposed to be insurance against being destitute when you retire. Because of that, the system is designed to pay out benefits progressively despite the fact that the FICA tax is regressive; the lower your income is, the greater percentage of your income you receive in benefits when you retire. A social insurance program like this is going to be demonstrably more politically feasible than a means-tested welfare program. What's interesting is that this was a great debate among liberals in the '80s, between neoliberals at the Washington Monthly, for example, who didn't think that affluent retirees should get Social Security benefits, and traditional liberals like the ones who started the American Prospect, who thought that turning Social Security into a welfare program would doom it. One compromise that was reached and (I think) implemented was to tax Social Security benefits as income for affluent retirees. I'm not sure about the specifics of that, though. The progressive nature of the disbursal of Social Security benefits and progressive taxation of such benefits strikes an acceptable compromise to me between the political imperative to maintain the most successful poverty-elimination program in U.S. history and the fiscal reality that government dollars are best spent on the problems that really need addresing. I actually think he’s right in a lot of ways, although I don’t really have a problem with it. Social Security was supposed to be insurance against being destitute when you retire. Because of that, the system is designed to pay out benefits progressively despite the fact that the FICA tax is regressive; the lower your income is, the greater percentage of your income you receive in benefits when you retire.

A social insurance program like this is going to be demonstrably more politically feasible than a means-tested welfare program. What’s interesting is that this was a great debate among liberals in the ’80s, between neoliberals at the Washington Monthly, for example, who didn’t think that affluent retirees should get Social Security benefits, and traditional liberals like the ones who started the American Prospect, who thought that turning Social Security into a welfare program would doom it.

One compromise that was reached and (I think) implemented was to tax Social Security benefits as income for affluent retirees. I’m not sure about the specifics of that, though.

The progressive nature of the disbursal of Social Security benefits and progressive taxation of such benefits strikes an acceptable compromise to me between the political imperative to maintain the most successful poverty-elimination program in U.S. history and the fiscal reality that government dollars are best spent on the problems that really need addresing.

]]>