Skip to main content

View Diary: US already has high elder poverty rate, so why are Social Security cuts even on the table? (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  but if you take away (0+ / 0-)

    the cap (the $113,700 figure above)  there is no long a cap on payout, so you need to add one or more steps.  The system is small, three steps,  if you eliminate caps, you may in fact want to look at a larger series of steps or an absolute maximum.

    •  Even as structured we would still come out ahead. (0+ / 0-)

      If someone made a million a month for 40 years while paying (both portions) 12.4%, then we paid them 150,000 a month for 20 years, the system still transferred money to the less affluent.

      Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:16:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  talking about policy (0+ / 0-)

        should include improving things, not just getting to break even.   I agree, remove caps, but I still think overhauling the step system makes sense at the same time.

        •  That's not breaking even. That's adding (0+ / 0-)

          money to the pool.

          124k a month paid in for 40 years.  59.5 million dollars in.

          36 million paid out.

          33.5 million gained.

          I don't care if rich people get giant checks every month.  It's fine by me (until we make the revolution).  It benefits everyone else.

          Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:39:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, maybe (0+ / 0-)

            I think a little revolution now would be better than waiting for the big one.

            If Thirty three million gained is good, why not gain forty or fifty?  That is a lot more people helped, a lot more COLA's paid, etc.    And the guy making a million a month or twenty or thirty million a month, really doesn't need that much back to fund his retirement.

            People always blame the President for precompromising his positions, trying to give things away before the negotiation begins.   Maybe people here like that about him more than they admit.

            •  You really don't get the difference between (0+ / 0-)

              moving backward and moving slowly forward?

              I'm far more critical of the President for actively agreeing to cause harm than for moving too slowly in trying to alleviate it.

              Machine gun bullets became the bloody baptizers/ And the falcon 'copters don't care if someone's the wiser/ But the boy in the swamp didn't know he was killed by advisers

              by JesseCW on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:49:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  moving forward slowly (0+ / 0-)

                would be raising caps to recapture the erosion of salary subjected to the caps.  Removing the caps entirely is a new idea,  not one that is in force and being slightly tweaked.  If we are going to delve into new policy areas and recommend changes,  why draw little lines on brand new ideas?

                As for doing harm, sometimes that is what the President does, other times it is just not pushing back against language or framing choices, sometimes it is not pushing new policy as far as he could.    

                If we really want progressive changes, to revamp SS in a big new way, what's wrong with looking at both caps and steps?  Both have been part of the program since the beginning.  Both could have an effect on amounts of money available.   Both can be used to address the regressivity of the system.  Is it because the media talks about caps, people have heard of them, and many people don't even know about the steps because they get less attention?  Sheep or leaders, we don't have to think only about what we are allowed to think about by the right wing press.

          •  I care. (0+ / 0-)

            Why would you want rich people to get even more money? I mean that's good if Social Security is strengthened, but I don't like the idea of rich people getting richer or having more benefits than the rest of us. It seems more ironic in a way that rich people gain a lot from Social Security rather than less.

             I want Social Security to benefit everyone equally, but the rich have to pay more into it. They shouldn't get bigger checks or benefits. That's not fair.

    •  Indyvet suggested some steps above (0+ / 0-)

      I liked the 1% for the 1% step.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site