I understand it started that way. BUT WHY MUST MEGA-RICH PEOPLE RECEIVE MEDICARE AND SS?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Do they need it? IT IS A WASTE OF MONEY WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE ARE POOR, THAT THE MEGA-RICH SHOULD RECEIVE THESE!

[Obamanaut]

1. Did they pay into the system? If so, that might be your answer. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I should've rephrased it. My question is, if programs are modified, WHY ARE THE RICH GETTING THESE?

I'm not asking how these programs BEGAN. We know full well that programs get modified constantly, and we've all paid into all programs. My question is, if they're going to modify these, WHY MUST THE MEGA-RICH WHO DON'T NEED THESE, STILL BE RECEIVING THEM? It's a disgrace, when so many are poor, hungry and jobless.

[Obamanaut]

12. They paid in, they are entitled to take out. There is no 'means testing' for

SS benefits is there? Just age? And a history of contributions?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Well, let me say this... if this country is in a crisis, that the mega-rich should be receiving SS

and Medicare, is a CRIME.

[Obamanaut]

23. A crime is when one president (whoever happens to have the job at the time), a few

hundred senators and representatives, and nine judges can collectively screw over 300 million citizens, can authorize the bombing of various countries whenever they please, can send our cousins, parents, children, and friends to those various countries where they are likely to be blown apart or at the very least, maimed.

They talk out of both faces about feeling the pain of the common man, they express concern over the lack of medical care, jobs, and adequate housing for millions, and they do this while receiving huge salaries and are being driven from place to place in really nice cars - also paid for by those same 300 million people.

That's a crime.

[Big Blue Marble]

27. Then you do not understand the ramifications of your "logic."

The rich and the poor receive the benefits, because they both paid into the program. The size of the benefits
are currently weighted toward the poorer beneficiaries and the richer beneficiaries are taxed on their SS income.

I assure you, we would rue the day, if means testing defined if you were eligible for these programs.
They would vanish as fast as you could say welfare check.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Yes, they would vanish in this country, which is extremist right wing nt

[Harry Callahan]

44. CRIME..? What's criminal is to change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. And that's not done constantly by the governments? You must be living in under a rock nt

[Harry Callahan]

78. Not by governments that are honest...

[eridani]

31. There is an upper limit on yearly payout of $28.5K

That is means testing of a sort.

[Obamanaut]

50. There is indeed a maximum amout one can receive via social security

benefits, and it is based on how much one has earned through the working years, and how much one has contributed.

Means testing on the other hand, is a system that determines whether/not an individual or family is eligible for a benefit or a program, usually based on assets/income.

The person receiving the maximum ss benefit may have 3 brazillion dollars in savings, three yachts, and a vacation home in Belize, and it will not affect the ss benefit - it is his benefit - no means test. He might not need it, but he gets it because it is his.

Food stamps is means tested, social security benefits, not.

[Ineeda]

5. Absolutely correct. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

3. SO THAT THE MEGA-RICH WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM

which is why Social Security still exists pretty much in its original form.

[WCGreen]

7. Exactly...

A guy with a million dollar salary has to pay 14,500 into medicare while paying only about 6,600 into social security.

They should still get the benefit if they pay into the program.

Fair is fair.

[gateley]

4. Because they paid for it, too. It's fair. I don't want to gyp them

out of anything that is rightly theirs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Gyp THEM? That's an interesting term to use about the mega-rich in the U.S. Ahem. nt

[gateley]

41. Just because they do it (and to be fair, many of them are just

taking advantage of the laws in place which I would probably do, too), doesn't mean I want to stoop to their level. I have a conscience. It's not as though that money would find its way to the poor and homeless and jobless. It'd be nice, but... If they paid for it, they should get it. It's fair.

[boppers]

57. Nice racial slur you have there.

:eyes:

[Cleita]

6. Because they pay into it. That is what a communal

system is about. Everyone pays and everyone benefits. The problem is the rich don't pay enough. Some execs and billionaires earn the $106,000 yearly ceiling for FICA, their first day of work in January. It's time the ceiling was lifted.

[WCGreen]

13. I agree whole heartedly...

But they should not have their a part of their benefits taxed twice. If we lift the cap, cap the taxable part of social security at 50%...

[X_Digger]

17. If you raise the cap on paying in..

You'd have to raise the cap on paying out..

It's insurance, not an entitlement.

[eridani]

34. But you don't have to raise the cap on paying out quite as much

Payouts are already progressive, and could be made more so.

[X_Digger]

37. Not sure that the gap between the two would be equitable and at the same time, actually help..

It would mean more dollars in, and more dollars out (but yes, less than 'in').. not sure that the overhead costs wouldn't overcome the benefits (pun intended).

[eridani]

51. Why not? The megarich accpimt for such a tiny percentage of total yearly payouts

-that cutting them off entirely would have no effect on solvency.

[X_Digger]

54. That's kind of my point.. it wouldn't affect solvency.

Sorry if my post above was vague.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. how about all the money childless people pay for schools?

they pay into the system for the good of all.

Part of living in a society includes helping others in ways you may never need to be helped, not simply for personal gain.

I think the ceiling should be lifted, AND there should be a cut-off for the mega rich.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. The problem with means-testing - although I agree with you in principle

that rich people shouldn't benefit from government programs they don't need - is that Medicare and Social Security aren't welfare. They are insurance programs that everybody pays into. If you try to take away something that someone has actually paid for, even if it's something they don't need, a fair argument can be made that you are wrongfully taking away something that belongs to them. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates probably wouldn't even notice if they didn't get their SS check; they could probably find more money than that in their couch cushions. But they paid the premiums for it like everybody else, so you could say they're legally entitled to it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. I'm sorry, but would you explain means-testing?

Thanks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. It's just determining whether you need something.

Like food stamps, for example. You get certain kinds of government aid if your income doesn't exceed a certain amount. I assume you are arguing that people with incomes of more than a certain amount shouldn't be eligible for Medicare or Social Security. That would be means-testing.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Oh ok. I had no idea it had a name. :)

And yes, that's exactly what I mean. It should be an insurance they paid into. They don't need it. It's ridiculous for them to be given it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. I don't think you quite understand how these programs work.

You aren't GIVEN SS/Medicare benefits; they are not welfare. You BOUGHT them. You paid your FICA and Medicare taxes, which were actually insurance premiums, except that you bought the insurance from the government. The benefits come due when you reach retirement age. If you paid for something you ought to get it, whether you are rich or poor. "Needing" them is not the issue. People should get something they paid for.

[metalbot]

29. Out of curiosity, what do you consider mega-rich?

If someone has two million in retirement, would you cut them off? They can easily draw down $100k per year without touching their assets.

What about someone who has no assets, but chooses to work in retirement making $200k a year? Should they get back the money that they put in?

In either case, you could argue that the person is vastly better off than a "poor" person.

If your definition of mega-rich are people who are in the multiple millions of dollars per year, I think you'd find the savings dwarfed by the size of the fight you would have to win in order to cut them off.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. Anything over $500,000. I doubt anyone has over 25 offspring to feed nt

[pitohui]

53. means testing is how social security will be stolen from the middle class

look at the "means" you are allowed to receive welfare, if you would like to retire in your old age on less than $2000 then by all means, support means testing

means testing is the camel under the tent, and the stupid people who scream for means testing are the thieves who plan to steal my retirement and give it to the wealthy

anyone who supports means testing is worse than human garbage, because they intend to steal a lifetime of work from those who are too old or too disabled to continue working

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

71. Absolutely right.

Means testing is a very slippery slope.

[loyalsister]

42. Under and insurance model

You collect when an accident happens, right. Why isn't SS viewed as poverty protection and disability insurance?

[WillowTree]

47. SS isn't so much insurance as it is an annuity that you pay into & then withdraw from at retirement.

[loyalsister]

61. People have been interpreting and reinterpreting

For years. What about SSI that provides benefits to people who have not paid into it for a significant period of time.. Is that not disability insurance consistent with other forms of insurance?

[DURHAM D]

9. Some don't.

I have a friend who is extremely wealthy but always worked. However, she did not sign up for Medicare and does not receive SS.

[pnwmom]

10. Simple. Because otherwise it will come to be seen as charity for the needy

rather than as something earned.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Because it's insurance and they paid their premiums. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

19. So, OP, are you opposed to single payer health care on the

basis of the rich being included? Should European countries be excluding the rich from their health care plans, for example?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. It, too, should be a form of insurance. If someone has a $1,000,000 income....

they should not receive it. It's insane to give money to those who are drowning in it.

[WillowTree]

48. So, by your logic...

....a wealthy person must, by state law, purchase auto insurance, but if his car is stolen or destroyed by an accident or tornado, he shouldn't be able to collect from that insurance because he's rich and can afford to buy a new car without that money. It just doesn't work that way. If the wealthy have to pay into the fund, they must be allowed to withdraw from it, as well.

[frebrd]

20. If they paid into it.......

they're entitled to it. That's why it's called an entitlement (which is not a pejorative, by the way).

[DURHAM D]

24. I am way more pissed about couples that get two SS checks when one of them didn't (or rarely) work.

The entire system is setup to screw single men, single women and two income households.

Put that on the table and I will get behind "reform" Obama.

Medicare also benefits married couples in the same way.

[Big Blue Marble]

33. So low income or stay at home spouses should be left to starve?

What about divorced spouses? Did you know that they are eligible for benefits from their ex-spouses account?
Better cut that out too? Cause it makes so much more sense to attack each other than point the finger at the Congresses
of both parties that spent our contributions long ago and now do not want to tax the rich to pay us our due.

[DURHAM D]

56. Stay at home spouses get half the amount their spouse receives while

both are still alive. If the working spouse receives $2300 a month the non-working spouse at 62 gets $1150 for a total household income of $3450. No single person can receive more than $2300 a month. Two can live cheaper than one. How is this fair? If the working spouse dies the surviving spouse gets the full SS amount of the worker.

As for the ex-spouses - requires 10 years of marriage so I figure it is possible for one man to have 4 or 5 non-working ex or current spouses that draw a total of $6,900 - $8050 per month on one person's contribution. How is that fair?

[charlyvi]

75. A spouse at age 62 does not get half of the number holder's social security.

The mount is reduced for age. If she waits until age 66 to file for the spouse's benefit, she then would receive one half.

[Cleita]

40. Just because the little woman wasn't paid for

running a household and raising children, it didn't mean she didn't work. Also, there is a study out that if a man had to pay people to do the work his stay-at-home wife does, most men couldn't afford it, so it seems to me that a check for an unpaid spouse or widow should be available.

[DURHAM D]

59. So ?

A lot of women who have worked full time all of their lives while raising a family have now found out their SS check would have been about the same if they had never left the house. They are pissed. My sister is one of them. Most of her friends did not work. All of them are drawing SS checks for about the same amount that she is after 47 years of working and paying in.

[Cleita]

65. I'm one of them too, but I don't renege my sisters who

stayed home to be mothers and homemakers. It's not like they didn't work. They just didn't get paid. Would it have made it better for you if their husbands had paid them and took FICA out of their pay? Maybe that's what should be done, take double FICA out of the husband's pay for the wife. It still could be done if Congress worked on actually fixing and improving SS instead of plotting to take it away from everyone.

[DURHAM D]

68. What would make it better for me is if us queer folk could marry. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

26. I do not find their claim to it all that disturbing

they paid into it, it is theirs if they want to draw it. To do otherwise strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Now, if you want to talk about them not paying their share of the taxes, I will gladly support that position.

[DURHAM D]

30. What about those that did not pay into it but still receive benefits.

More specifically - non-working spouse of married couple?

[Drahthaardogs]

36. Why shouldn't they?

If my wife dies I get to collect her social security, plus my own. If I had not worked, I would get to collect a partial benefit of hers and nothing for myself. I do not understand where you are trying to go with this. IF you pay into it, you and your spouse (if married) are entitled to a benefit. It is also one of the reasons I have always been pro gay marriage. If they paid into it, they should be able to leave their benefit to their spouse. To deny them is un-American.

[DURHAM D]

55. No you don't get both.

If your wife dies and you did not work you get just her benefit. But, while your wife is alive and if you didn't work (and are 62 or older) you get half the amount of her benefit regardless.

How is that fair?

I can't marry so I can't leave my benefits to anyone.

[Drahthaardogs]

69. If you work, you get to leave a benefit to your spouse.

I do not see how this has anything to do with wealthy vs. poor. Part of paying in is getting to leave a benefit to a spouse. As for your situation, I already said I think it blows. I do not know why you cannot marry, but I assume it is due to your sexual orientation. To that end, it is wrong. You earned it, its yours to leave to a spouse. I see that as universal, rich, poor, gay, straight.

[DURHAM D]

70. I see you skipped over this part -

"But, while your wife is alive and if you didn't work (and are 62 or older) you get half the amount of her benefit regardless."

IOWs - one household with one worker gets two checks. That is my main point, not the survivor benefits.

[charlyvi]

76. Once again, an age 62 spouse does not get one half

Her benefit is reduced for age.

[DURHAM D]

77. Not if the working spouse is already retired.

I know this because of what a non-working family member received at 62.

This is also not really the point I am trying to make. Seems like you are trying to change the subject.

[eridani]

28. Because they pay into those programs

You do have to apply for them, you know. Many don't because it isn't worth the hassle to them. There just aren't enough rich people to make even a minor dent in yearly payoffs if they were cut off anyway.

IF you totalled your car, is your insurance company entitled to look at your savings and refuse to pay on the grounds that you have enough money to buy a new car without their help?

[Spike89]

32. Somethings simply aren't about money, but rights

I know that the rich can pay for their own medical and don't need SS...but it is critical that we honor and maintain the principle that those programs are a RIGHT of all citizens. They are NOT charity, they are not for some, but all Americans. I also believe strongly that we need to get single payer health care for all...even the rich.

If you assert that something is a right, you can't place economic thresholds on it--everyone gets it.

[Bluerthanblue]

46. sounds great, but my rights

to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has many, many economic thresholds on them.

I understand why you say what you do, but the "because it's 'owed' me " is one of the worst things about humans imo.

People who are filthy rich- do not need Social "security". They are already far more secure than most of us- and haven't all reached that position by the sweat of their own brow.

[Creideiki]

35. Because otherwise it is a "welfare" program

And Americans hate welfare so much that they transferred it into an income tax benefit. And then the rightwing complains about the people who don't pay income tax--it's because we've screwed the poor so hard they can't even see the top of the hole any more.

[bluestate10]

38. People that can afford to fore-go SS payments should, even if they

paid into the system their entire working careers. I also feel that rich people should pay more marginal taxes.

[zalinda]

39. It should be a mandatory society insurance program

You receive benefits when you need it. It should be treated just like Health, Auto and Life Insurance. If you never use your health insurance, but die in a car accident after paying in for 30 years, should your beneficiary receive a refund? What if you never got into an accident in the 40 years that you paid out to auto insurance, and then you just stopped driving. Do you receive a refund?

What I thought Social Security was intended to be was an insurance that if you are unable to work, or you died and your spouse or kids were left to face dire poverty, this was your safety net. You would not have to go to 'The Poor House', and yes, they did exist. It is where people basically went to wait until they died. You paid more into it, if you made more money so you wouldn't have to just subsist on a bare minimum. The more you paid in, the more money you received in the end. Means testing could play a part, just like other types of deductibles in other types of insurance.

If it truly is an entitlement, you should be able to name a beneficiary to receive the money if you die early, and can't collect it all.

zalinda

[fascisthunter]

45. because it is their money

and therefore they are guaranteed it! It is also there because some rich people can become poor and they will need it. Social Security is insurance you pay into.

[supraTruth]

49. Let them have it in exchange for removing the payroll income cap.

[pitohui]

52. WE need it, so it must be extended to ALL

as long as the public schools served everywhere, even the children of the rich, the american public school system was the best in the world

once the rich were allowed to buy into a more expensive system, that no working person, no matter how hard they tried, could ever afford...then we had a dual system and the public schools were destroyed, they are unsafe, violent, and no child learns effin' nothing

the rich own this country, they own this world, and if you would like for a working person to have a little something, that can ONLY happen in a state of equality, where ALL participate

once the rich "opt out" we get nothing, it will not be funded, because middle class and poor people have approximately the same amount of money (approximately zero)...generations of working and saving would not ever make you or your child or your grandparent on a level with a billionaire

the mega rich should not only receive medicare and social security but in my opinion it should not be allowed for any rich person to be able to opt out and buy better medical care than the rest of us are able to receive through medicare

the rich ALREADY have everything, and they ALREADY live longer than we do...would you like to leave us with NOTHING???

to the average rich person, the differences of class are so great that they do not consider us human, a middle class person is a piece of trash, no more a human being to them than a poor person, and they see no sin in depriving us of medical care, retirement, etc...if you do not allow them some partnership in these programs, we will soon NOT have these programs for anyone

it's simple human nature

the rich do not consider us members of the same human species, we are "not their kind," until you understand that we are not human beings to the rich, you understand nothing

we have to pay them off, because they are, at heart, indifferent to us, we have value only as long as we are a source of money to them, and that's it

if you think a rich person considers you an equal human being, you have not met many rich people

[Sarah Ibarruri]

60. I have met plenty of wealthy people. I have very little good to say about them. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. means testing social programs - always, ALWAYS weakens them politically

When programs are designated for "those in need" - budget cutting inevitably leads to ever more strident and stingy definitions of who are the deserving. For example nobody but the lunatic fringe of the right-wing seriously wants to eliminate public elementary and secondary educations because they are seen as a right for everyone rich and poor alike to enjoy. But government aid for students in higher education is always up for curtailments because aid for higher education has almost always been means tested. It is a lot more risky for politicians to try to cut Social Security and Medicare than it is for them to try and cut Medicaid or SSI - because Social Security and Medicare are not means tested while Medicaid and SSI are.

[Philippine expat]

63. Because they paid into them

if you make SS and Med means tested that means you turn them from insurance to welfare, turn them into
welfare programs and they are DEAD.

[Canuckistanian]

64. It MUST be universal.

If you start imposing "limits" or "exemptions" for certain classes of people, then it's open season on ANY group, especially the poor.

And we KNOW how the Repubs want to screw the poor.

[demodonkey]

72. Because otherwise Medicare and Social Security will become WELFARE.

A means-tested welfare for the non-rich is NOT what these programs are supposed to be. Medicare and Social Security is there for ALL.

[tammywammy]

73. Because if someone pays into the system they deserve payment.

It's not and should not be a means tested system.

[badtoworse]

74. You've made this ridiculous argument before and were justifiably flamed

I believe most people on DU believe in basic fairness, even for rich people. You evidently hate rich people, but I doubt you know any well enough to have an informed opinion. I suspect that your posts are driven more by envy than anything else.

[indurancevile]

79. I think that question is similar to questions from the other end of the spectrum, e.g.

"why are those people buying cake with their food stamps, it's a waste of (public) money!"

i think both kinds of questions are petty, the sums in question negligible in the larger scheme of things, & the focus completely misdirected.

Social Security's health does not rest on whether "mega-rich" people collect it -- which they always have, for the last 70 years. The health of Social Security rests on the state of working people -- do they have jobs, do the jobs pay decently -- and also on the public's support for the concept of Social Security.

I just think the question is petty & diverts from the real issues involved in recent attacks on the social safety net.