Discussion about this post

User's avatar
forumposter123@protonmail.com's avatar

The question I always ask is that if we cut SS benefits, what are we going to get in return?

Lower taxes (for my personally)? Or is it just going to get spent on something else.

With SS as it is I don't have to support my mother. If SS goes away or gets cut a lot (even if some poverty wage remains) I will need to support her. That's bad for me. What do I get in return?

If we go to a flat benefit formula, are we also going to make SS taxes a flat tax. If I'm paying 10% of 165k and someone else is paying 10% of 16k obviously my benefit should be bigger (I'm not into welfare).

Look, I'm down with the idea of not having to pay payroll taxes for this dumb program, but I'm skeptical that the taxes will remain and just get re-directed to something I get even less of a benefit from then my mom getting a check.

Expand full comment
Larry Pollack's avatar

If Soc Sec is supposed to be a real pension (not just an anti-poverty safety net for oldsters) it would make sense to index wages by the wage base, I think, which reflects economy-wide productivity improvements in addition to price-level increases. Wages at retirement reflect those improvements, as would defined contribution plan balances invested in the stock market, for example.

But I agree that Soc Sec should be mostly an anti-poverty safety net, which requires changing the whole I-paid-my-dues mindset. Good luck with your efforts on that (not being sarcastic). The last solution you offer - flat benefits - kind of does that, except in giving it also to rich people who don't need it, and renders all your other suggestions moot, right?

Seems like the first step should be to decide what we want Soc Sec to be.

My personal favorite solution: mandatory (maybe, sorry) defined contribution savings accounts with target-date-fund-like default investments with an anti-poverty safety net at retirement for those who need it - following a messy and contentious transition.

One other nit: if I understand (please correct me otherwise), you're counting "trust fund" depletion as an addition to the Federal debt. If you're just replacing the all-Tsy trust fund with debt held by others, how is that an increase in the Federal debt? Isn't the increase in debt determined by non-SocSec spending minus non-SocSec taxes? (At least until they start using general tax revenues to pay benefits?) The SocSec trust fund is just a holder of some of that debt. Replacing that debt as the trust fund is liquidated with debt held by others doesn't increase the debt - you're just refinancing existing debt. What's wrong with how I'm thinking about this?

Thanks

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts