2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders article: "Time to expand Social Security"
Highlights:
It has paid every nickel owed, through good times and bad
Now some Republicans want to cut it
A better idea: Lift cap so wealthy pay higher Social Security taxes
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Bill on Aug. 14, 1935.
By Bernie Sanders
Special to the Observer
Social Security is the most successful government program in our nations history. Before it was signed into law, nearly half of senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, the elderly poverty rate is less than 10 percent. Although still much too high, thats a dramatic improvement.
Through good times and bad, Social Security has paid every nickel owed to every eligible American on time and without delay. As corporations destroyed the retirement dreams of millions over the past 30 years by eliminating defined benefit pension plans, Social Security was right there paying full benefits. As millions of Americans lost their life savings after Wall Streets recklessness crashed the economy in 2008, Social Security was right there paying full benefits.
Today, Social Security is more important than ever. Over half of workers between the ages of 55-64 have no retirement savings. More than a third of senior citizens depend on Social Security for virtually all of their income. One out of every five senior citizens is trying to scrape by on an average income of just $8,300 a year.
Given these facts, our job cannot be to cut Social Security. Our job must be to expand it so that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
...
At a time when millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, even as virtually all of the new income in this country is going to the top one percent, my legislation will begin to reduce the obscene level of income inequality in America.
...
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article36486309.html#storylink=cpy
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Too many seniors have to work crappy jobs, can't afford their medication and are going without other necessities because they can't afford to live.
This is unconscionable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It would give social social security another 10 years. I say do it!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Social Security has at least five years longer than "experts" state it has.
But I agree - Lift the cap!
7962
(11,841 posts)Although diabetes is a major issue.
And I agree too, lift the cap!!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)happy to pay in now just in case I make it and also for my mom, my wife, my kids, my soon to arrive grandchild. I want everybody to be able to take advantage of the most successful antipoverty legislation our country has ever seen.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Get wages back on track with the economy like they were until 40 years ago and even the fictitious "crisis" Republicans bemoan disappears.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)I like this guy a lot.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)We ought to have a full proper retirement system. Thanks for posting
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)AppalachianAmerican
(42 posts)Anyone who entertains the idea of cutting this vital program even by half a percent, or via slimy accounting methods (Chained CPI) is not fit to be an American, let alone an American in power.
We need more good legislators and presidential candidates like Bernie willing to stand up for Social Security.
7962
(11,841 posts)No reason for people bringing in over a certain amount to still draw a check from the govt. Make it a high number and attach it to inflation. Yes, everyone pays into it,but we also pay taxes that are used for welfare. And all of us dont get welfare unless we need it. Bill Gates doesnt need a SS check. Neither do a helluva lot of other people. That would make the fund last even longer along with lifting the cap
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)if they or their spouse lives to the age to use it, should have full and unfettered access to their monthly allotment.
7962
(11,841 posts)I just dont see how its bad to NOT give the rich a check every month. Millions or billions more pissed away every year.
Even my most "conservative" friends dont call SS welfare
Lots of things in the tax code either cut off after a certain amount or start after a certain amount. This is no different.
Qutzupalotl
(14,317 posts)Even a millionaire is one successful lawsuit away from the poorhouse.
Once you start means-testing, you open the door to a revolt by the upper class: "Why should I pay into a system that will never benefit me?" And as you know, the 1% has outsized influence in Washington. They will see that the program ends.
Better to pay them and keep the whole system going than to withhold payments and cause its collapse.
7962
(11,841 posts)Its not like its a lifetime disqualification. Just like the income categories; people move into and out of each one all the time
Qutzupalotl
(14,317 posts)Same principle as buying insurance not just when you're sick.
7962
(11,841 posts)Sorry if i made it look like i also didnt think the rich should be paying into the system
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Means testing is the favorite refrain of neolibs and safety net saboteurs like Darrell Issa. It's their way of whittling away justifying cuts to soc sec, creating tiers, classes, and , of course, resentments (fav tactic) It takes it from being a universal American safety net to a welfare program.
So Sec works and has survived because it is a program available to all. The Cap on income should be erased. Repub
plots like "means testing" are actually just another route for the wealthy to justify not paying into our national aging insurance. I don't care if Bill Gates gets 1500/month soc sec if he had to pay in the same percentage on his income every year that a working class person did. You start excluding paying out to the wealthiest, you start creating a rationale for them never having to pay in.
I'm for expanding soc sec auto taxes for both employees and employers on all income.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)People have called for cuts without paying an electoral price, so the logic of keeping it out of the welfare rubric may not be in play anymore. Plus it's been means tested to some extent for a while now, in that it's taxable if you have other income.
merrily
(45,251 posts)some honesty and candor from them would be refreshing.
Plus it's been means tested to some extent for a while now, in that it's taxable if you have other income.
That's not means testing, but thanks for playing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How in the world is that not means testing? "If you make more than X outside of SS, we will tax your SS benefits". Is the semantics of that not being a "cut" really that important?
But, no, a Democrat should absolutely never run on cutting Social Security.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, yes, if a Democrat is aiming at cutting OASDI and thinks it's a great idea, he or she should NOT deceive voters by remaining slient.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You literally cannot honestly think of that as anything other than means testing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Name one way in which the tax creates a stigma in the mind of the public like that created by welfare.
Name one way that this alleged means testing makes it easier to "end OASDI as we know it," which is the ultimate goal of those advocating means testing.
You get taxed on income from employment. Is that "means testing" your right to work?
BTW, smilies don't improve nonsense any more than do your personal insults.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That. Is. Means. Testing. Period.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's exactly my point. For decades it was not taxed and you simply got the amount of money the formula said. Then they started means testing and clawed back some of the earned benefits through a tax if you had other income.
merrily
(45,251 posts)means tested. It meant the US needed to raise money.
merrily
(45,251 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Soc sec should be collected like medicare, no cap on income. It's national "age insurance" and everybody ages. In fact life expectancy hasn't increased for the poor (who pay the highest amount of their paychecks into soc sec) but primarily the wealthiest demographic.
Soc Sec is an unavoidable tax for both employees and employers until that annual salary cap amount (113,000 I think) is hit. After the cap both employees and employers automatically avoid the tax. I don't think that it's stressed enough why corps and their mouthpieces Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Koch Americans for (Kochs) Prosperity, etc are so powerfully against scrapping the cap. It would require them to automatically pay the "employer" side of FICA on their higher paid employees including on the stock gifting/grifting tactic. Image how many tax cheating corps and hedge funders would be forced to pay automatically more into soc security!
There's never been any parity between what one pays into soc sec & what one gets out. The working class person can pay in for 4-5 decades and then die before eligibility without collecting a penny. The demographics make this a much higher possibility than a millionaire dying before reaching 85. As a uniform tax with a cap before affluence, it's currently a really, really regressive tax...like applying a tax to food but not diamonds.
My understanding is that if the cap were erased on both the employee and employer side, soc sec would be assured for all in perpetuity.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And yes, to this:
"A better idea: Lift cap so wealthy pay higher Social Security taxes."
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who should be getting increases to prevent a surplus like that from building, 'borrowed' for Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, they now don't want to pay it back.
That is exactly right! The money is there, SS is over-funded unless it is treated as a big Ponzi scheme. I remember when Bush ran against Gore in 2000. All the talk was about a "lock box" for SS funds. I also remember clearly when then candidate Bush stated in a debate, I think, that he believed in a lock box unless there was some sort of "emergency" such as war, etc. Didn't take much longer after that for the Iraq war to start.
The sad thing is most people think SS is underfunded. You never hear our politicians say they aren't going to pay back whatever country that loans us money but somehow Americans who have paid into the system aren't afforded that same right or respect. The saddest part is that most people are unaware and only know their news from soundbites.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And the SSA has legal obligations to pay out annuities using it.
Talking about it being "workers' money" like it's some kind of a savings account plays into GOP rhetoric here.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Excellent article. It's the only way to go and Bernie is the only candidate fighting for the 99%
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, Catherina.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, Catherina.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I've said many many times on DU we should remove the FICA cap entirely and lower the retirement age to 55.