Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
"Congress Proposes Three Changes To Social Security That Make Sense"
>> for the person that keeps providing suggested reading links, I could find just as many links to support my position.
no, no, not good ones. This is false equivalency and no way to argue the way to understanding.
>> And your assumption that I must be misinformed because I don't share your point of view is somehow polite?
Don't mean to be impolite, but try to stay substantive. I mean, get informed and then argue. No good saying 'common sense shows', etc.
Or don't.
I mean, you don't have to argue here, not at all, if you simply know what you know and feel what you feel. But you're the one who posted what you already posted. I' not impugning you as some Fox robot, I just don't know of any arguments along your lines, whatever those lines are, that are fundamentally supported by the math and the best minds' thinking.
So read the links. Or not. I would sugg piping down if you do not care to.
>> going to give you an IOU and use the money for whatever we want.
See, this does not show supple or informed understanding.
I'm usually wrong according to varying (high) percentages of observers, but I thought part of the problem with SS was that the money wasn't kept in the trust fund, but was spent to fund other popular programs, that would otherwise have required increased taxes, that allowed legislators to get re-elected since the programs were available "tax-free".
To "solve" this problem by by increasing the SS tax and thereby punishing the remaining workers, whose contributions will go to my baby boomer generation, but not really to them, is the classic American Way. I thank you for your support.
Since it will never happen, regardless of the party in power (since each will find a cogent, diametrically opposed reason to reject it), I present the fairest approach, which is to cut benefits now, since we voted for those ****** ("con-men" seems most accurate, but it insults the criminal class), who spent "our" money for their re-election. Therefore, in one sense Krugman is wrong when he delays any possible cuts into the future.
Benefits should be taxed for those of us fortunate enough to have upper level retirement incomes, while giving those who started collecting SS at 62 (many of whom could not get jobs or were physically worn out) a tax-free income up to ??? (200% of the poverty level?? I don't know) and those whose main incomes are SS, which actually already occurs. I'm very happy that the embryo static line dropped me into the U.S. (thanks, Dennis Miller, you and your writers are the best), and I'm willing to pay the price.
As to the much earlier treasury bond vs commercial bond comment, I would be leery of accepting a bond from an entity which could print the money to repay my investment.
"I hold these truths to be self-evident (common sense). "
Sorry BW, but whatever anyone chooses to be a self-evident truth doesn't count as a fact: ask any judge in any court in the United States for a little guidance here. You seem to be having some difficulty in presenting any facts to prove your non-self evident theories.
It is interesting that the article in Forbes magazine (not generally considered to be one of Ted's "left wing do-gooders") based their article on researched facts which do not in any way resemble, affirm or buttress your comments.
I must concede that your faith in the well-regarded operators of Wall Street to have your best interests at heart and protect your retirement accordingly is touching.
I'm usually wrong according to varying (high) percentages of observers, but I thought part of the problem with SS was that the money wasn't kept in the trust fund, but was spent to fund other popular programs, that would otherwise have required increased taxes, that allowed legislators to get re-elected since the programs were available "tax-free".
There are times when I really wish no politician or beancounter had ever mentioned the trust fund, because it's a red herring.
SS is essentially a pay/go system - the payments to retirees are made from current payroll taxes. Money in, money out. Nothing saved, no trust fund. That's obviously the way it started, since payouts began on day one, when there hadn't been any time to build up a reserve.
In general, SS is supposed to always function that way. But the beancounters looked at the baby boom generation and realized there was this big bulge moving through the pipeline. The next generation was smaller. So instead of SS simply "paying it forward", Congress increased the payroll tax rate, used most of the money collected to pay current retirees, and put aside a fraction to pay the baby boomers when they came of age.
The problem is that while the baby boom generation will pass through the python (with the trust fund generally covering the bulge in beneficiaries), the system will still be slightly unbalanced after that - inflows will be somewhat less than outflows.
That's the main reason why the trust fund is a read herring - it's got little to do with the underlying problem - namely that the SS pay/go system isn't quite self sustaining.
I can address the allegation that there's no money in the trust fund, but it's not germane to the real problem (pay/go).
To "solve" this problem by by increasing the SS tax and thereby punishing the remaining workers, whose contributions will go to my baby boomer generation, but not really to them, is the classic American Way. I thank you for your support.
As I hope I've explained, even if you ignore the baby boomers, there's a long term issue. If you started SS up fresh in, say, 2050 (after the baby boomers are all, or mostly gone), you'd still have the same problem - taking in less than is owed retirees (who are today's "remaining workers").
So the system needs to take in more or pay less. Take in more from some people or from all people. Pay less to some people or to all people. Do it by raising taxes (on some or all), by changing age requirements (for some or all), by changing the benefit formula (for some or all), by taxing benefits higher or more broadly (for some or all), etc.
Benefits should be taxed for those of us fortunate enough to have upper level retirement incomes, while giving those who started collecting SS at 62 (many of whom could not get jobs or were physically worn out) a tax-free income up to ??? (200% of the poverty level?? I don't know) and those whose main incomes are SS, which actually already occurs.
Today, no more than 85% of benefits are taxed. That's because, actuarially speaking, 15% of the benefits are simply the return of what you paid in, which was already taxed. 85% of benefits are in excess of what workers paid in (i.e. new income).
Are you suggesting higher earners be taxed twice on the same income? I'd be willing to consider increasing the amount of benefits taxed all the way to 100% for some beneficiaries, but I'm wondering if you're comfortable with what would be a rare form of double taxation.
It would not be two different entities getting taxed on the same income (e.g. corporate taxes and then shareholder dividend taxes), but rather the same entity (the worker) getting taxed twice on the same earnings - a dollar when originally earned and paid into SS, and that same dollar when it is paid out as a benefit.
As to the much earlier treasury bond vs commercial bond comment, I would be leery of accepting a bond from an entity which could print the money to repay my investment.
Have any money in a bank? Counting on FDIC insurance? The same entity backing that bank account, the same entity that bailed out the banks (and MMFs!) in 2008 is the same one backing US bonds.
It's the entity that can print money that you don't have to worry about. Since the Treasury can "print" money, there's no question you'll get paid back. All it has to do is "print" it. A corporation that runs out of money, well, it runs out of money and won't pay you back.
Therefore, in one sense Krugman is wrong when he delays any possible cuts into the future.
Saying Krugman is wrong? How dare you! Davidr (or should I call you Paul?) will be happy to inform you via a Ted-like number of links about the wonders of Krugmanity. lol.
Thanks again David. I did put "print" in quotes. I thought about adding a comment that Congress has to raise the debt ceiling in order to "print" money (so the Treasury can't just print money on its own), but felt, as you said, that was rather wonkish.
Regarding the NFL - my impression is that the games are already rather pointless.
I knew that eventually, eventually someone would imply that citation of Krugman must mean something kneejerk or thoughtless or doctrinaire as to belief.
I am sure he must have been wrong at some point, but every time I read an article charging so, it turns out to be bogus and partisan. I love informed argument and always find it helpful; there are entire sites devoted to debunking Krugman, just google them, and see if you can find any data-based substance to them. Most such, if of any worth, he addresses in a subsequent column.
I have no automatic brief for the guy. But I don't know how public policy econ discourse would proceed these days without his lay-oriented work. Beggars in the streets, I suppose.
So Scott, if you got something actual, let everyone know.
David - I didn't think you being critical, and I appreciate the clarifications, enhancements, and new thoughts.
My own thought about the Krugman remarks is that while STB65's comment addressed the content of the Krugman citation, the later comment was ad hominem.
There are two difficulties in discussions that you have neatly identified.
One is letting ideology or lack of understanding drive comments. That's common everywhere. For example ...
There's a thread now that Vanguard ETFs are not transparent. This should not be news to anyone who understands how ETFs really work and what the rules are. But many people buy the hype that ETFs are transparent and therefore wonderful, without understanding the actual mechanics.
It's hard enough when dealing with what should be cold, hard facts. When one gets into questions that have political undertones, as here, watch out. And stay away from active/passive
The other is difficulty you've identified is with logical reasoning. Hence the ad hominem posts, excursions, anecdotes, personalization, etc.
A problem of mine is that I follow side excursions too long. I'd much rather be discussing finer points. For example, OJ feels that it is possible to tilt SS more towards means testing without alienating people. I think that would be really interesting to discuss. (I tried to hint at that in saying I'm open to taxing 100% of SS benefits despite the double taxation.)
So Scott, if you got something actual, let everyone know.
msf, sorry for misrepresentation.
I was merely adding a little lightness.
"I am sure he must have been wrong at some point."
"So read the links. Or not. I would sugg piping down if you do not care to." (note the "Don't mean to be impolite" above that.)
I think your mind is already made up.
Also, I could care less about Krugman's political views. I don't agree with him, but I suppose the idea was to illustrate the futility of sitting here and arguing about it (or even having a civil conversation) when people who don't read his work or by extension don't agree with him are told to pipe down.
And with that, hope everyone has a lovely weekend.
Scott, impute whatever to me as you wish, but my econ and policy mind is so generally and specifically ignorant that it could not possibly be made up.
As a working editor, though, I do know good argument and solid substantiation when I see them.
msf, roger all, and it would be great to see thoughtful debate over the small fine-tweaking that needs doing to keep SS in good stead for very many decades.
Hot topic. Just permit me to repeat: remove the cap. Done, fixed. No, I have no links or research at hand, but I did see an item or two or eighteen some time ago which backs-up my point. Let all income be subject to the SS tax. All. Ding.
>> I don't agree with him, but I suppose the idea was to illustrate the futility of sitting here and arguing about it (or even having a civil conversation) when people who don't read his work or by extension don't agree with him are told to pipe down.
I am looking back in this thread and don't see that you have contributed anything of substance. I first asked for such. Please give your disagreements in summary, with your informed reasons, or others'. Serious request.
Hot topic. Just permit me to repeat: remove the cap. Done, fixed. No, I have no links or research at hand, but I did see an item or two or eighteen some time ago which backs-up my point. Let all income be subject to the SS tax. All. Ding.
Max - in my first post on this thread, I gave a link to the Social Security Game, from the American Academy of Actuaries. If you plug your suggestion in there, you'll find that it does cover 100% of the problem, but ...
You didn't say anything about how much is paid out. Removing the cap but keeping the current benefit (payout formula) does not cover 100% of the problem. What the game did was assume that those extra dollars that SS gets from higher income people earns no extra benefits.
IMHO, there's a problem with that. Now you've basically got two taxes - the current SS payroll tax, where the more you pay in, the more you get in benefits when you retire; and a second tax, paid only by high earners, where they pay in on top of that first (current) tax, but get zero extra benefits for the second tax. It makes SS look like a welfare system, not a retirement system, and is a political loser.
I think there's a middle ground, where one adds a third "bend" in the benefits formula, so that the more you pay in, the more you get out, but for high earners, those extra dollars don't earn as much in extra benefits. It's sort of like a progressive income tax - the higher your income the more dollars you pay for the same incremental benefit.
There's another complexity with simply raising the cap without increasing benefits. This gets back to the 85% payout subject to taxation. Higher wage earners will be getting back less than 85% of what they paid in (because you're increasing the amount they pay in, but not increasing their benefits).
For example, say the average person pays in $45K over a lifetime, and gets $300K in SS benefits (completely fictitious numbers, except that $45K is 15% of $300K). Up to 85%, or $255K of those lifetime benefits is taxed. The remaining $45K was already taxed, so we don't tax it again.
Now suppose a high earner winds up paying in another $55K, but the benefits don't go up. That person receives the same $300K during retirement, of which $100K was already taxed. So if we don't want to tax the same income twice, we only tax $200K of the benefits, or 67%. Taxing a lower rate of benefits on high earners? That seems counterproductive.
As I wrote before, I'm not averse to going double taxation (i.e. taxing SS payments that are merely return of post-tax money). But it's an issue that you have to take a stand on. Lots of parts are interrelated, and changing one changes others whether you like it or not. Better to recognize what parts get affected, and say clearly that you're okay with the cascading changes, or that you're not, and then suggest other tweaks.
Yes, SS has always paid a higher rate for the first N dollars paid in ("bends" in the benefits formula).
Here's a 1960 SS Bulletin talking about its history. Table 1 shows the first six formulas. Interestingly,only the first one has two bend points (as does the current one). http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v23n9/v23n9p3.pdf
Here's a SS page talking about social security as social welfare. One point it makes that I was not aware of (which is what makes reading this stuff so interesting) is that the Supreme Court ruling validating Social Security relied on the Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, authorizing Congress to "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States". http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html
(Personally, I like the way it's stated in the preamble - "We the People ... in order to ... promote the general welfare ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.")
Quoting from the page (which in turn is quoting from the ruling): In a land-mark opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, Justice Cardozo wrote:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. . .
"The purge of the nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. . . Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today. . . has set the doubt at rest. . . The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poorhouse as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when the Journey's end is near. . ."
msf, yeah, I knew much of that; I meant welfare in the modern talk-radio sense, helping Those People.
Are you an academic, or historically minded attorney?
I sent you an email (let me know if you didn't get it), but to address this directly - I feel that context matters.
Talk-radio sense of welfare - I'll interpret that as "based on income level" (means-tested). See, e.g. The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare (CNS News - the right news, right now)
In a "welfare" (means-tested) program, many pay taxes, but only Those People benefit.
Surtaxing only higher earners is economically equivalent to providing benefits only to Those People. (Great label.) Instead of assessing the surcharge, one could equivalently reduce/eliminate "our" SS benefits, and leave them only for Those People. Then it becomes obvious that what you've got is a "welfare" program.
I think this is where your redistribution question comes from. I somewhat disagree that redistribution programs are therefore necessarily welfare, because not all redistribution programs are means-tested. For example, public education is a redistribution from families (and individuals) without children to those with school age children, independent of income.
But I do agree that many programs are redistributions to Those People. And if they are, then by simple bookkeeping they are "welfare" (means-tested) programs, regardless of whether modern talk-radio recognizes them as such.
@msf: "..... and a second tax, paid only by high earners, where they pay in on top of that first (current) tax, but get zero extra benefits for the second tax. It makes SS look like a welfare system, not a retirement system, and is a political loser...." Yep, that's pretty much where I always end-up: standing alone. Always voted down. Taking the unpopular position. Losing propositions.
I just honestly don't care if the wealthy have to pay more but get no extra benefit from it. They're wealthy. How much wealth does one need? Let them enjoy their wealth. By definition, they have oodles to spare. Many of the rest of us need it. They could, on the other hand, paper their walls with those excess dollar bills, or spend their time trying to count it all.
But hey, that's just me. I just don't have any sympathy for those who possess obscene wealth. Me and Bernie Sanders.
Comments
no, no, not good ones. This is false equivalency and no way to argue the way to understanding.
>> And your assumption that I must be misinformed because I don't share your point of view is somehow polite?
Don't mean to be impolite, but try to stay substantive. I mean, get informed and then argue. No good saying 'common sense shows', etc.
Or don't.
I mean, you don't have to argue here, not at all, if you simply know what you know and feel what you feel. But you're the one who posted what you already posted. I' not impugning you as some Fox robot, I just don't know of any arguments along your lines, whatever those lines are, that are fundamentally supported by the math and the best minds' thinking.
So read the links. Or not. I would sugg piping down if you do not care to.
>> going to give you an IOU and use the money for whatever we want.
See, this does not show supple or informed understanding.
To "solve" this problem by by increasing the SS tax and thereby punishing the remaining workers, whose contributions will go to my baby boomer generation, but not really to them, is the classic American Way. I thank you for your support.
Since it will never happen, regardless of the party in power (since each will find a cogent, diametrically opposed reason to reject it), I present the fairest approach, which is to cut benefits now, since we voted for those ****** ("con-men" seems most accurate, but it insults the criminal class), who spent "our" money for their re-election. Therefore, in one sense Krugman is wrong when he delays any possible cuts into the future.
Benefits should be taxed for those of us fortunate enough to have upper level retirement incomes, while giving those who started collecting SS at 62 (many of whom could not get jobs or were physically worn out) a tax-free income up to ??? (200% of the poverty level?? I don't know) and those whose main incomes are SS, which actually already occurs. I'm very happy that the embryo static line dropped me into the U.S. (thanks, Dennis Miller, you and your writers are the best), and I'm willing to pay the price.
As to the much earlier treasury bond vs commercial bond comment, I would be leery of accepting a bond from an entity which could print the money to repay my investment.
Sorry BW, but whatever anyone chooses to be a self-evident truth doesn't count as a fact: ask any judge in any court in the United States for a little guidance here. You seem to be having some difficulty in presenting any facts to prove your non-self evident theories.
It is interesting that the article in Forbes magazine (not generally considered to be one of Ted's "left wing do-gooders") based their article on researched facts which do not in any way resemble, affirm or buttress your comments.
I must concede that your faith in the well-regarded operators of Wall Street to have your best interests at heart and protect your retirement accordingly is touching.
SS is essentially a pay/go system - the payments to retirees are made from current payroll taxes. Money in, money out. Nothing saved, no trust fund. That's obviously the way it started, since payouts began on day one, when there hadn't been any time to build up a reserve.
In general, SS is supposed to always function that way. But the beancounters looked at the baby boom generation and realized there was this big bulge moving through the pipeline. The next generation was smaller. So instead of SS simply "paying it forward", Congress increased the payroll tax rate, used most of the money collected to pay current retirees, and put aside a fraction to pay the baby boomers when they came of age.
The problem is that while the baby boom generation will pass through the python (with the trust fund generally covering the bulge in beneficiaries), the system will still be slightly unbalanced after that - inflows will be somewhat less than outflows.
That's the main reason why the trust fund is a read herring - it's got little to do with the underlying problem - namely that the SS pay/go system isn't quite self sustaining.
I can address the allegation that there's no money in the trust fund, but it's not germane to the real problem (pay/go). As I hope I've explained, even if you ignore the baby boomers, there's a long term issue. If you started SS up fresh in, say, 2050 (after the baby boomers are all, or mostly gone), you'd still have the same problem - taking in less than is owed retirees (who are today's "remaining workers").
So the system needs to take in more or pay less. Take in more from some people or from all people. Pay less to some people or to all people. Do it by raising taxes (on some or all), by changing age requirements (for some or all), by changing the benefit formula (for some or all), by taxing benefits higher or more broadly (for some or all), etc. Today, no more than 85% of benefits are taxed. That's because, actuarially speaking, 15% of the benefits are simply the return of what you paid in, which was already taxed. 85% of benefits are in excess of what workers paid in (i.e. new income).
Are you suggesting higher earners be taxed twice on the same income? I'd be willing to consider increasing the amount of benefits taxed all the way to 100% for some beneficiaries, but I'm wondering if you're comfortable with what would be a rare form of double taxation.
It would not be two different entities getting taxed on the same income (e.g. corporate taxes and then shareholder dividend taxes), but rather the same entity (the worker) getting taxed twice on the same earnings - a dollar when originally earned and paid into SS, and that same dollar when it is paid out as a benefit. Have any money in a bank? Counting on FDIC insurance? The same entity backing that bank account, the same entity that bailed out the banks (and MMFs!) in 2008 is the same one backing US bonds.
It's the entity that can print money that you don't have to worry about. Since the Treasury can "print" money, there's no question you'll get paid back. All it has to do is "print" it. A corporation that runs out of money, well, it runs out of money and won't pay you back.
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=13112
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/money-wealth-and-models/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/debt-in-a-time-of-zero/
the second is kind of wonkish
As another econ said about 'printing money', the US will run out of money when the NFL runs out of points.
Regarding the NFL - my impression is that the games are already rather pointless.
I am sure he must have been wrong at some point, but every time I read an article charging so, it turns out to be bogus and partisan. I love informed argument and always find it helpful; there are entire sites devoted to debunking Krugman, just google them, and see if you can find any data-based substance to them. Most such, if of any worth, he addresses in a subsequent column.
I have no automatic brief for the guy. But I don't know how public policy econ discourse would proceed these days without his lay-oriented work. Beggars in the streets, I suppose.
So Scott, if you got something actual, let everyone know.
msf, sorry for misrepresentation.
My own thought about the Krugman remarks is that while STB65's comment addressed the content of the Krugman citation, the later comment was ad hominem.
There are two difficulties in discussions that you have neatly identified.
One is letting ideology or lack of understanding drive comments. That's common everywhere. For example ...
There's a thread now that Vanguard ETFs are not transparent. This should not be news to anyone who understands how ETFs really work and what the rules are. But many people buy the hype that ETFs are transparent and therefore wonderful, without understanding the actual mechanics.
It's hard enough when dealing with what should be cold, hard facts. When one gets into questions that have political undertones, as here, watch out. And stay away from active/passive
The other is difficulty you've identified is with logical reasoning. Hence the ad hominem posts, excursions, anecdotes, personalization, etc.
A problem of mine is that I follow side excursions too long. I'd much rather be discussing finer points. For example, OJ feels that it is possible to tilt SS more towards means testing without alienating people. I think that would be really interesting to discuss. (I tried to hint at that in saying I'm open to taxing 100% of SS benefits despite the double taxation.)
I was merely adding a little lightness.
"I am sure he must have been wrong at some point."
"So read the links. Or not. I would sugg piping down if you do not care to." (note the "Don't mean to be impolite" above that.)
I think your mind is already made up.
Also, I could care less about Krugman's political views. I don't agree with him, but I suppose the idea was to illustrate the futility of sitting here and arguing about it (or even having a civil conversation) when people who don't read his work or by extension don't agree with him are told to pipe down.
And with that, hope everyone has a lovely weekend.
As a working editor, though, I do know good argument and solid substantiation when I see them.
msf, roger all, and it would be great to see thoughtful debate over the small fine-tweaking that needs doing to keep SS in good stead for very many decades.
I am looking back in this thread and don't see that you have contributed anything of substance. I first asked for such. Please give your disagreements in summary, with your informed reasons, or others'. Serious request.
You didn't say anything about how much is paid out. Removing the cap but keeping the current benefit (payout formula) does not cover 100% of the problem. What the game did was assume that those extra dollars that SS gets from higher income people earns no extra benefits.
IMHO, there's a problem with that. Now you've basically got two taxes - the current SS payroll tax, where the more you pay in, the more you get in benefits when you retire; and a second tax, paid only by high earners, where they pay in on top of that first (current) tax, but get zero extra benefits for the second tax. It makes SS look like a welfare system, not a retirement system, and is a political loser.
I think there's a middle ground, where one adds a third "bend" in the benefits formula, so that the more you pay in, the more you get out, but for high earners, those extra dollars don't earn as much in extra benefits. It's sort of like a progressive income tax - the higher your income the more dollars you pay for the same incremental benefit.
There's another complexity with simply raising the cap without increasing benefits. This gets back to the 85% payout subject to taxation. Higher wage earners will be getting back less than 85% of what they paid in (because you're increasing the amount they pay in, but not increasing their benefits).
For example, say the average person pays in $45K over a lifetime, and gets $300K in SS benefits (completely fictitious numbers, except that $45K is 15% of $300K). Up to 85%, or $255K of those lifetime benefits is taxed. The remaining $45K was already taxed, so we don't tax it again.
Now suppose a high earner winds up paying in another $55K, but the benefits don't go up. That person receives the same $300K during retirement, of which $100K was already taxed. So if we don't want to tax the same income twice, we only tax $200K of the benefits, or 67%. Taxing a lower rate of benefits on high earners? That seems counterproductive.
As I wrote before, I'm not averse to going double taxation (i.e. taxing SS payments that are merely return of post-tax money). But it's an issue that you have to take a stand on. Lots of parts are interrelated, and changing one changes others whether you like it or not. Better to recognize what parts get affected, and say clearly that you're okay with the cascading changes, or that you're not, and then suggest other tweaks.
Here's a 1960 SS Bulletin talking about its history. Table 1 shows the first six formulas. Interestingly,only the first one has two bend points (as does the current one).
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v23n9/v23n9p3.pdf
Here's a SS page talking about social security as social welfare. One point it makes that I was not aware of (which is what makes reading this stuff so interesting) is that the Supreme Court ruling validating Social Security relied on the Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, authorizing Congress to "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States".
http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html
(Personally, I like the way it's stated in the preamble - "We the People ... in order to ... promote the general welfare ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.")
Quoting from the page (which in turn is quoting from the ruling):
In a land-mark opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, Justice Cardozo wrote:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. . .
"The purge of the nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. . . Spreading from state to state, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today. . . has set the doubt at rest. . . The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poorhouse as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when the Journey's end is near. . ."
For context, reference the "HELP WANTED ! Ditch Diggers (No Experience Necessary)" post.
Are you an academic, or historically minded attorney?
I would say put me to "sleep" but I don't do much of that
Talk-radio sense of welfare - I'll interpret that as "based on income level" (means-tested). See, e.g. The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare (CNS News - the right news, right now)
In a "welfare" (means-tested) program, many pay taxes, but only Those People benefit.
Surtaxing only higher earners is economically equivalent to providing benefits only to Those People. (Great label.) Instead of assessing the surcharge, one could equivalently reduce/eliminate "our" SS benefits, and leave them only for Those People. Then it becomes obvious that what you've got is a "welfare" program.
I think this is where your redistribution question comes from. I somewhat disagree that redistribution programs are therefore necessarily welfare, because not all redistribution programs are means-tested. For example, public education is a redistribution from families (and individuals) without children to those with school age children, independent of income.
But I do agree that many programs are redistributions to Those People. And if they are, then by simple bookkeeping they are "welfare" (means-tested) programs, regardless of whether modern talk-radio recognizes them as such.
Yep, that's pretty much where I always end-up: standing alone. Always voted down. Taking the unpopular position. Losing propositions.
I just honestly don't care if the wealthy have to pay more but get no extra benefit from it. They're wealthy. How much wealth does one need? Let them enjoy their wealth. By definition, they have oodles to spare. Many of the rest of us need it. They could, on the other hand, paper their walls with those excess dollar bills, or spend their time trying to count it all.
But hey, that's just me. I just don't have any sympathy for those who possess obscene wealth. Me and Bernie Sanders.