In an ideal world we would not have social security, but now that we do we just can not let it drop - people, rightly or wrongly, have come to depend on it.

 

We wouldn't need social security if employers would pay their people not merely enough to survive day-to-day and week-to-week, but also enough to save money for the 20-35 years later in life, when you're too old/decrepit to work. But people don't make enough money, aren't able to set enough aside, or both. And we have a post-serfdom arrangement with health care. It's the employer's job, as with livestock, to arrange for the health care of its human resources. So when you're too old to work, and not getting employer-offered health care, there's a couple serious problems there. It all boils down to income. If we were all making 2-3 times as much, I don't think SS would be needed, and neither would single-payer health care or medicare. We'd pay for it all out of pocket.

 

Entitlement or insurance? Neither. It's a Ponzi scheme. It's generational theft. It's financial child abuse.

 

This guy nailed it.....

 

How about just refuding me what I and my employers have paid in over the years, with interest, and we'll call it even.

 

Employers aren't paying enough for people to save for retirement. Are these poor employees the same ones that have iphones, big screen tvs, blue ray players... and the list goes on and on. It is not the employers responsibility to pay someone enough to save for retirement. It is the employers responsibility to pay someone what that job is worth. Period. As for Social Security and the general Fund credit Are you kidding me with that SS will be solvent for a long time to come. That is about like saying I don't have enough income coming in, but i've got there IOUS from MYSELF so I'll be just fine. Our financial situation (SS) would have been much better off if it had been invested in Corporate bonds, even if 20% had gone under it would have been better than govt owing it's self. Wow, ok Rant finished

 

hes talking about cost of production and sale. if you pay everyone in the chain 3X as much the product is gonna cost 3X as much since labor cost are typically the no.1 expense.

 

The money hasn't vanished, it has just been recorded as a credit before it was used for other unfunded or under funded programs.

SS is a bit of an odd duck. Technically, the government isn't supposed to use the SS funds for anything but SS. However, the gov did a end-run around that by stating that the SS fund could invest in US Debt. This essentially allowed the gov to borrow all of the SS surplus, because the SS fund and the general account are treated as two separate ledgers.

It all boils down to this. According to the last SS Annual Statement I looked at (IIRC, 2010), SS had 2.2 trillion in assets, which consisted of 18 billion in cash and the remainder in US Treasuries. So, if you believe the US will pay off its debt, then SS is solvent for a very long time. If you believe that the US will default on its debt, then the SS fund is in very big trouble.

If we were operating under a truly unitary budget, there would be no money left in SS. It would be a program that needed to be funded for every year, because right now all of the previous money has been spent.

Technically, SS is an entitlement program. The money that you paid in does not go to your individual account. Your SS # is a way for the gov to track how much money you have paid into the system, not an individual account for you to control.

Further, the SS money that you have paid in did not go to you. It went to pay for everyone who was currently on SS while you were working and contributing to the system.

You can't leave the money that you contributed to your spouse or kids, because it's not an individual account. It's not your money as soon as it goes to the SSA.

 

SS is a bit of an odd duck. Technically, the government isn't supposed to use the SS funds for anything but SS. However, the gov did a end-run around that by stating that the SS fund could invest in US Debt. This essentially allowed the gov to borrow all of the SS surplus, because the SS fund and the general account are treated as two separate ledgers.

It all boils down to this. According to the last SS Annual Statement I looked at (IIRC, 2010), SS had 2.2 trillion in assets, which consisted of 18 billion in cash and the remainder in US Treasuries. So, if you believe the US will pay off its debt, then SS is solvent for a very long time. If you believe that the US will default on its debt, then the SS fund is in very big trouble.

If we were operating under a truly unitary budget, there would be no money left in SS. It would be a program that needed to be funded for every year, because right now all of the previous money has been spent.

Technically, SS is an entitlement program. The money that you paid in does not go to your individual account. Your SS # is a way for the gov to track how much money you have paid into the system, not an individual account for you to control.

Further, the SS money that you have paid in did not go to you. It went to pay for everyone who was currently on SS while you were working and contributing to the system.

You can't leave the money that you contributed to your spouse or kids, because it's not an individual account. It's not your money as soon as it goes to the SSA.

If the bolded then is true, which I disagree with, then WHY all the screeching and generational warfare played out in here thread after thread? If indeed the boomers are now, with their FICA deductions, paying for the current generation's benefit why all the howling from Generation Entitlement about what they will have to pay in the future?

Why your premise is incorrect is because the income side of SS is a deferred annuity. A very badly run and managed one, no doubt, because the government couldn't run a 10 cent lemonade stand to any degree of success let alone a multi trillion dollar annuity program.

In a deferred annuity you can accept a lifetime income stream which ends upon your death. Exactly what SS income does. It ends with you.

It is NOT the problem of the participants (unwilling in many cases) that the annuity managers (the government) screwed up the algorithms. ONLY ONCE, in 1983, was the "formula" adjusted to reflect the growing numbers of participants and the continual increase in life expectancies. It should be recalculated every five years AT LEAST IF the original algorithms were to remain in effect.

Life expectancies is the key. We ARE living longer and therefore the benefit eligibility ages should be raised accordingly. And probably will be.

The hard fact remains is that the entire system should have been turned over to the insurance companies who would have made it solvent, profitable, and ensured its financial viability eternally because THAT IS WHAT THEY DO and have been for hundreds of years. They make "bets" on how long YOU will live, charge you a premium in accordance with their calculations, and win most of the time. And you'd get a far better deal in the bargain.

What folks in here are missing is that the income side is EASY to fix. It's simply numbers. X number of people paying X amount to get X in the future. A couple of percent increase in FICA, a year or two increase in benefit age, remove the 106K income cap and bingo it's fixed for decades. ANY actuarian could figure out what's needed in about five minutes.

It's the MEDICARE side that is the 9000 lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. THAT is the financial black hole in the system. How do you plan for medical costs that are completely unpredictable? As folks live longer they will "cost more" to keep "healthy". Sure, the insurers can predict with statistics what premiums SHOULD be but so far because of Medicare picking up the tab they haven't had real life experience doing so in covering the entire tab.

There will almost have to be rationing of care and a form of means testing to place a greater portion of the Medicare premium onto the participant.

There will be no easy answer for Medicare.

 

If you want to see where our SS goes watch obama money thread. SS has been stolen from us and given to the entitelment crowed

 

Well I did it. The debate has brought up many of the same ideas we have hashed over forever.

The fact that the SS (non)fund shows a $4.7T credit on the books shows that the fund is not as pay as you go ponzi scheme or an unfunded entitlement, but an insurance policy that had true assets,,,, Until The Feds Raided It To Cover Unfunded Entitlements.

Had those true assets not been stolen they would be invested in something earning an income to enhance the fund value. The fact is that the government took our good money and threw it after poor investments and costly non productive programs to make the population dependent upon the public trough.

In essence, once the government stole the funds SS became just another way to empty our back pockets and redistribute our wealth through the unfunded entitlements.

What I have noticed for years is that folks live to and or just above their means. Most folks, given the opportunity to be responsible for their own retirement would fail miserably. If folks earn $25k they spend $27k. If they make $50k they spend $55k, and on and on. Those few of us who save and invest are the vast minority and many of us here fall into that group.

Having the discipline and responsibility to live within ones means must be against human nature as proven by the vast majority of the population. And no aramchek paying folks more will not improve the situation.

Thanks for the healthy debate,,,,, Carry On.

 

Well I did it. The debate has brought up many of the same ideas we have hashed over forever.

The fact that the SS (non)fund shows a $4.7T credit on the books shows that the fund is not as pay as you go ponzi scheme or an unfunded entitlement, but an insurance policy that had true assets,,,, Until The Feds Raided It To Cover Unfunded Entitlements.

Had those true assets not been stolen they would be invested in something earning an income to enhance the fund value. The fact is that the government took our good money and threw it after poor investments and costly non productive programs to make the population dependent upon the public trough.

In essence, once the government stole the funds SS became just another way to empty our back pockets and redistribute our wealth through the unfunded entitlements.

What I have noticed for years is that folks live to and or just above their means. Most folks, given the opportunity to be responsible for their own retirement would fail miserably. If folks earn $25k they spend $27k. If they make $50k they spend $55k, and on and on. Those few of us who save and invest are the vast minority and many of us here fall into that group.

Having the discipline and responsibility to live within ones means must be against human nature as proven by the vast majority of the population. And no aramchek paying folks more will not improve the situation.

Thanks for the healthy debate,,,,, Carry On.

Exactly.

Had the "trust fund" been invested along the lines of any large endowment fund at colleges, family trusts, etc. (Read Faber's "The Ivory Portfolio" for a pretty good explanation of the strategy) at some point in time there would have been sufficient assets generating returns to self-fund the payouts in perpetuality.

It was our faults for letting "The Great Society" disaster loose on our country.

 

Facts:

Average life expectancy after reaching 65: In 1940, it was 12.7 years. In 1990, it was 15.3 years. This is less than three years.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Percentage of income taken by government to keep program afloat. In 1940, it taxed 2%(1% employee,1% employer). In 1990, 12.4%(6.2% employee, 6.2% employer).

This is the historical increases in SS tax.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Now, we are at another crossroads as to whether to continue taking more discretionary funds of a free people or to find a privitized solution.

What is clear, is that the government has proven it is not capable of managing this program in a fair or ethical manner. By it taking previous excess funds and spending them elsewhere, it has effectively taken a trip to Vegas and passed the burden of paying for it to future americans.

Like with most liberal programs, SS was a noble idea, but far from a noble product.

 

My personal thought on SS is that it is an unconstitutional intrusion into an americans life. Next, is that it weakens the human spirit to survive and perform charity.To me, it is government attempting to replace ones higher being or self.

I believe in this realization: That, if we are willing to send an 18 year old to die for freedom, we should be responsible for ourselves at this age. Caring for the indigent should be done by states and the people, not a national government.

SS, is not a necessary function of the national government in order to defend freedom and grow the population. It is, on the other hand, a major contributor to dependency and wealth disparity.

 

My personal thought on SS is that it is an unconstitutional intrusion into an americans life. Next, is that it weakens the human spirit to survive and perform charity.To me, it is government attempting to replace ones higher being or self.

I believe in this realization: That, if we are willing to send an 18 year old to die for freedom, we should be responsible for ourselves at this age. Caring for the indigent should be done by states and the people, not a national government.

SS, is not a necessary function of the national government in order to defend freedom and grow the population. It is, on the other hand, a major contributor to dependency and wealth disparity.

So are all of the entitlement programs, yet they persist and are unfunded unlike SS.

 

The elder is the only ones that need it. They deserve it. I dont care if they won the lottery. They put money in and were told they would receive it back. SS would have been fine if they would have left it just for the elderly.

 

If you were to investigate SS and judge it as a product, you would find that it has never been fine. It has never been anything but a well intended program that would have been bankrupt and inprisoned its managers early on, in the private sector.

 

Well, if you start at 62 and live 20 years and get about 20k a year, you get about 400k. right? How much I paid in over the previous 45 years of working I don't know...

 

This is a great point. I actually did the math and compared the present value of my payroll taxes and my promised benefits and found I was getting a negative return, it didn't matter what interest rate I used. Add to that the fact that they are paying us back with devalued dollars, and the return is outright theft.

 

Don't forget folks, that Communism &unions were a response to uncontrolled capitalism. Social Security was fedgovcoincs response to communism in the 30s. The first beneficiaries never paid into it and that is the classic definition of a "Ponzi scheme" The sad truth is that the bureaucracy, infrastructure and collection enforcement eats up most of what should go to helping the elderly out.
Historically? Every time one group of people(in this case, the US Federal government)initiates force against another group of people(The American middle class)supposedly to help out some under class or minority, eventually the budget gets eaten up by the bureaucrats and the logistics of the personnel and infrastructure necessary to continue the forced collection of revenues.
This ALWAYS ends with a police state!!
There are absolutly NO historical exceptions to this and that is where the US is headed.
The last Treasury bill auction had to be primarily funded by the US Federal Reserve!
No body's showin up and if any of you are naieve enough to believe fedgovcoinc will eliminate the bureaucrats, the IRS or the police force before they drastically cut services you may still be a teenager!
Most of our cities are gonna go up in flames when this happens. The "Free s#$% army" will pillage, loot and burn everything in their path this is WHY we are seeing all the rotten legislation emerging from Washington DeCepticon!

OK. Rant over.

 

Great rant. Do you happen to have any time scale on this?

 

I've read in his books that Boston T Party thinks of the period roughly between 1830 and 1930 as our "Golden Century" I believe Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln had numerous correspondances just before and during the civil war proir to his assissination. This was at the height of the blossoming of the 19th century industrial revolution. With the west expansion and the utter ruthlessness of the railroads and mining companies coupled with the ever expanding mechanization of every industry at the time.
This was the first time in human history that humans on a global scale were expected to either keep up with or compete with machinery.
It also coincides with the expanded use of fossil fuels, primarily coal to power all of this. Steam engines ruled the day until early 20th century with the advances in oil refining and internal combustion engines.
Nicolai Tesla, Charlie Steinmetz and the competing families at General Electric and Westinghouse brought the electric motor into service too.
Exponential population explosion, seroius urban problems(we still have most of the same problems to this day!!)and a few wars and flu pandemics and WA LAH!!
The masses begin to cry to their respective governments for "Salvation"

The rest is history. Same story, different chapter.


Ya know? Our situation right now as "Preppers" is exactly the same as any military unit. We train and train and train and still? No mission. We train some more? No mission.


Pateince my friends. We have one h@##ofa mission coming!!:thumb:


Welcomne to Wyoming. One small town with really long streets between neighborhoods!:

 

I don't consider it an entitlement because I've paid into it since I was 14. It's not insurance either. We screwed up when we didn't take the opportunity when Bush II offered to let us have individual retirement accounts.

AA

 

Lots of good points here. The point is and it has been proven time and time again. Government is NOT a responsible steward of our money. I am under no illusion that I will get one penny back from what I paid in. Not only have they borrowed against the SS fund, they are paying people that have never contributed to it and are giving raises at a rate faster than income rises. Hehe, we have a vault, so to speak, of IOU's. Based on the good faith of the United States. All fine and dandy until our credit rating drops. oops, it did already. I want to honor the promises made to people that paid in there whole lives but, I want to opt out. I can budget my money better.

 

It's neither. It's money that is forcibly taken from you. And if you are lucky to live long enough you might get it back. The reality that many won't seem to accept is they never will.

 

An entitlement that is paid for in advance of the payout IS insurance.

But insurance usually operates on the idea that there's a better than fair chance that the insurer doesn't have to make a payout, or at least a payout less than the amount paid in. Social Security doesn't really work that way since people are living longer.

 

... Social Security doesn't really work that way since people are living longer.

That was part of the justification they used to raise the age of full eligibility to 67 for those born after 1960. There is still the 62 year age for lower eligibility but that percentage amount of payment was reduced from what it was before Reagan changed the law.

Funny enough this could still be easily tweaked and SS could survive. The problem as others have stated is the Medicare situation. Couple that with the National Debt and the whole thing is on quicksand.

 

SS's whole purpose was to buy votes for FDR. It was never about protecting or helping Americans.

 

You could make that argument about anything you don't like, though. Remember when the war in Iraq was about "nothing but oil?"

 

Yawn . . . Rehashing this subject got me to thinking. If you combined the TV shows "The Big Bang Theory" and "How I Met Your Mother" you'd get "How I Banged Your Mother".

 

I really don't like that idea. I don't like the possibility of turning over money to a private company under federal mandate given the current corporate casino culture regarding the financial markets. It seems like a really bad idea to me.

As opposed to the current debacle? Please. Insurance companies have been operating profitably for hundreds of years by quanitifying RISK. IF you are going to operate an "annuity" (which is EXACTLY what SS is), then you go to the experts in the field who have done it for centuries. Insurance companies operate under a much stricter standard than investment companies when it comes to insurance and annuity products. Make the standards and requirements even more onerous. The fact remains that the system as is could be made to work perfectly if EXPERTS manage it, not politicians.

Now if you wanted to eliminate SS as a federal requirement, and then state that people had to save 15% of their money, and could invest it in X, Y or Z, then I'm OK with that

Won't work. People won't save. If people DO somehow save, they will find a way to get at it (loans, "hardship" withdrawals, etc). LOOK at the threads in here alone about folks "cashing in their 401k to buy gold/ silver/ houses/ land/ whatever "investment" du jour. With plenty of cheerleaders. One tiny market downdraft and the howling will begin. Then what do you do when they are 70 with zip nada nothing? Yes yes yes, personal responsibility, let them starve, too bad, etc etc etc . All which I personally have no problem with but we are talking reality. People, by and large, can't be trusted to provide for themselves after 6 decades of ever growing nanny-stating and womb to tomb dependency. People are too busy with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to take time to figure out a 401k investment strategy. Again, read through the "cash in my 401k" threads in here, this ONE tiny forum, and see that folks CLEARLY do not understand what they invested in nor the risks involved. And these are folks who DO actually WORK for a living, what are you going to do with the 30% that don't?

You are not suggesting, are you, that Congress ORDER people to save for their retirement ... because if you are, there seems to be a very volatile SCOTUS case right now regarding Congress ORDERING people to buy health care insurance. Same church, different pew.

 

As opposed to the current debacle? Please. Insurance companies have been operating profitably for hundreds of years by quanitifying RISK. IF you are going to operate an "annuity" (which is EXACTLY what SS is), then you go to the experts in the field who have done it for centuries. Insurance companies operate under a much stricter standard than investment companies when it comes to insurance and annuity products. Make the standards and requirements even more onerous. The fact remains that the system as is could be made to work perfectly if EXPERTS manage it, not politicians.

That's the problem with the current debacle - the banks found a way to pass the risk through CDOs and MBS.

You're thinking of the current system in place, but with the mass infusion of money, it will be like a siren call to the corporate casinos of Wall Street (side note - generally I hold no grudge against Wall Street, except for the Greek debt mess and their derivatives timebomb). What you'll see is certain financial institutions come running in to take advantage of that money.

New financial instruments will be created that will circumvent the existing law. The SEC will be clueless (as usual) and unable to stop it. If current regulations prohibit types of risky investments, either financial corporations and insurance companies will create new instruments, or will seek to have the regulations amended to allow them to have a freer hand.

Won't work. People won't save. If people DO somehow save, they will find a way to get at it (loans, "hardship" withdrawals, etc). LOOK at the threads in here alone about folks "cashing in their 401k to buy gold/ silver/ houses/ land/ whatever "investment" du jour. With plenty of cheerleaders. One tiny market downdraft and the howling will begin. Then what do you do when they are 70 with zip nada nothing? Yes yes yes, personal responsibility, let them starve, too bad, etc etc etc . All which I personally have no problem with but we are talking reality. People, by and large, can't be trusted to provide for themselves after 6 decades of ever growing nanny-stating and womb to tomb dependency. People are too busy with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to take time to figure out a 401k investment strategy. Again, read through the "cash in my 401k" threads in here, this ONE tiny forum, and see that folks CLEARLY do not understand what they invested in nor the risks involved. And these are folks who DO actually WORK for a living, what are you going to do with the 30% that don't?

I'm not going to go down the "personal responsibility let them starve" route, personally I think that argument is bogus. Society isn't going to let that happen.

You are correct, insofar that if the savings requirement is voluntary, then people won't save. That's just the way it is.

You are not suggesting, are you, that Congress ORDER people to save for their retirement ... because if you are, there seems to be a very volatile SCOTUS case right now regarding Congress ORDERING people to buy health care insurance. Same church, different pew.

Hadn't thought of it that way, but you are correct. I would make it a national obligation - or as you put it - Congress ordering people to save.

Let's take this to the next logical step. If Social Security is insurance (which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument), then hasn't Congress already told everyone that they have to buy insurance? Doesn't that negate the argument that the ACA is unconstitutional because Congress is now forcing a positive action?

Further, if SS has set the precedent, then a law requiring Americans to save 15% of their income is also constitutional (SS was ruled constitutional).

IF you are going to operate an "annuity" (which is EXACTLY what SS is)

It may act like it, but it's a straight tax / benefit system. The government can end SS tomorrow and still make you pay the tax. That's not any insurance I've ever heard of.

 

It looks to me like another example of Boomer slash & burn economics. They love SS for themselves, but will make sure that the system self-destructs when they're done with it.

 

As a boomer, I take offense to this statement. I have consistantly considered SS a travesty to freedom and the number one cause of wealth disparity between the rich and poor.

I want SS privatized simple because it is a rotting apple. It started as a small insurance policy that only taxed 2% of income, now it takes 12.4% and is going to go higher with fewer benefits.

I would gladly give up my stake in SS for it to die with me.

 

It's a broken promise due to mismanagement of funds.

 

That's the problem with the current debacle - the banks found a way to pass the risk through CDOs and MBS.

You're thinking of the current system in place, but with the mass infusion of money, it will be like a siren call to the corporate casinos of Wall Street (side note - generally I hold no grudge against Wall Street, except for the Greek debt mess and their derivatives timebomb). What you'll see is certain financial institutions come running in to take advantage of that money.

New financial instruments will be created that will circumvent the existing law. The SEC will be clueless (as usual) and unable to stop it. If current regulations prohibit types of risky investments, either financial corporations and insurance companies will create new instruments, or will seek to have the regulations amended to allow them to have a freer hand.

You are confusing investment firms and their regulations and insurance providers with theirs. Yes, most large insurers do both however look at the regulatory requirements for insurance policies and annuities versus mutual funds. No new "instruments" need to be created, plenty already exist. And clearly you missed my suggestion of even more onerous regulation and limitations IF the system was turned over to them. I wll point out to you that with existing annuity products one could have circumvented the entire 08/09 decline with their "minimum" guarantees and preservation of principal. They already hedge their bets with derivatives. That's what THEY DO. The "corporate casinos" of wall street have done a pretty good job with the annuity business for decades and still made profits doing so while providing the annuitant with the payment schedule agreed to initially.

I'm not going to go down the "personal responsibility let them starve" route, personally I think that argument is bogus. Society isn't going to let that happen.

Exactly .. so we will pay their way anyway. SS is "forced savings" in that regard or a "forced annuity payment" so at least there is SOMETHING at 67 that couldn't be "hardship withdrawn", "borrowed" or simply not contributed to.

You are correct, insofar that if the savings requirement is voluntary, then people won't save. That's just the way it is

So without that fact, private accounts will not work. So in reality a combination of the two ideas is probably needed. "Forced" FICA taxation turned over to the experts removing the politicians from the equation.

Hadn't thought of it that way, but you are correct. I would make it a national obligation - or as you put it - Congress ordering people to save

Let's take this to the next logical step. If Social Security is insurance (which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument), then hasn't Congress already told everyone that they have to buy insurance? Doesn't that negate the argument that the ACA is unconstitutional because Congress is now forcing a positive action?

You are right it is a very very thin line BUT with FICA taxation you are only taxed IF you work. So, no not EVERYONE has to participate. With the health care legislation you will either buy or be fined simply because you are alive and here. It is the thinnest of arguments I will grant you.

Don't forget there are ways to NOT participate in SS .... difficult, limited, but ways nonetheless.

Further, if SS has set the precedent, then a law requiring Americans to save 15% of their income is also constitutional (SS was ruled constitutional).

Taxing the populace is on thing, ordering them to set aside part of their income "voluntarily" and placing it in certain investments (because otherwise how are you going to monitor and oversee it) is quite another.

It may act like it, but it's a straight tax / benefit system. The government can end SS tomorrow and still make you pay the tax. That's not any insurance I've ever heard of

It's a deferred guaranteed life annuity. ANY of the major insurers offer similar products with better payouts. The biggest difference is the insurers offer a death benefit along with your annuity should you expire before initiating payments. SS gives you nothing.

Almost every defined benefit pension plan operates on the same principles, too.

It has simply been administrated and managed horribly inefficiently since its inception. The death knell was Johnson placing the assets in the general fund to pay for the great society disaster.

Really, it's not that difficult to fund in perpetuality on the income side ... it's the Medicare side that is the nightmare and I don't have any solution for that.

 

Means Testing to Bolster SS.........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-bolster-social-security-its-already-happening/2012/02/28/gIQAP0zLlR_story.html

For those who still claim us boomers are getting more than contributed from SS this article may give you as greater insight.

A few clips from this article:

"Now, let me show you the numbers for my wife and me. Our benefits are worth only 75 percent of what we and our employers have put into Social Security since I drew my first paycheck in 1961, plus the interest earned on that money. I know this because in 2009, I asked Social Security’s actuaries to calculate that ratio to help me write a Social Security story. "

"Add it all up, and the net benefit that my wife and I get is only about 35 percent of the value we paid in. Even if I retired and stopped paying Social Security tax, we’d get only slightly more than half of what we put in. "

"Ask me to sacrifice a bit more to safeguard the safety net, and I’m fine. Trim my inflation adjustment, tinker with the benefit formula, be my guest. But don’t strip me of my benefits, for which I’ve paid 50 years of taxes, just because I’ve worked hard, saved and succeeded financially. That would make me furious. Plenty of other people in circumstances similar to mine would be angry, too. Eliminating checks for people with incomes that make them “rich” transforms Social Security from an “everyone pays, every*one collects” earned-benefit program into welfare. And we know what happens to welfare programs in the United States. (Slash!)

The bottom line: Social Security is already seriously means-tested, without having made a point of it. Let’s fix Social Security’s real problems, not this imaginary one."

 

...
The bottom line: Social Security is already seriously means-tested, without having made a point of it. Let’s fix Social Security’s real problems, not this imaginary one."

The one means test I think would be reasonable is to have no excluded income just because you are receiving SS. If you make $10,000 (from wherever, investments, part time job) plus 14,000 from SS you pay tax on the whole $24,000 amount like any younger worker does. There is absolutely no reason to give a tax break. Couple that with a raising of the max contribution amount and SS will be solvent.

Course the rest of the National Debt will sink the ship anyway.