5 ms·

So here's the thing. Social Security (SSDI) is a system you pay into. When you retire or become disabled, the amount of benefits you are eligible for is related

So here's the thing. Social Security (SSDI) is a system you pay into. When you retire or become disabled, the amount of benefits you are eligible for is related to the amount you pay in, which is a percentage of your income. Naturally, if one earns more money over their lifetime they would have paid more into the system, and thus are getting more Social Security benefits in return. For those who have earned very little income over their lifetime, they are eligible for benefits through the SSI program, which one does not have to pay for. However, you may not be eligible for SSI if you have too many assets (e.g. saved money, a 2nd car). The problem is that the cutoff of SSI based upon assets has not been raised since 1989. You're only allowed to have no more than $2,000 in savings, basically requiring the applicant to be completely destitute before becoming eligible. In my personal opinion, this amount needs to be drastically updated to match modern cost-of-living standards. This program is far too out-of-reach for those merely dipping their feet in poverty.

qntty 10y ago
What you're describing would be the rich consuming proportionately more SS. The article is specifically describing how they consume disproportionately more SS.
- loeg 10y ago
  > The article is specifically describing how they consume disproportionately more SS. The headline makes that claim, but the article's figures do not support the claim.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    It would appear the article's figures support that claim.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      The disproportion isn't in Social Security benefits consumption. The disproportion is in lifespan, and the difference in benefits consumption is a side effect thereof, because of the way Social Security is defined to work. I'm not sure that it actually helps anything to cast it in the cart-before-horse way the article does.
    - loeg 10y ago
      Check the final figure, where payouts minus revenue for 50+ year olds is flat across quintiles. Note that even this figure omits earnings from 18-50, which will be higher from the higher quintiles.
- dkrich 10y ago
  The main problem I have with the article is that it is phrasing it as a "handout" and the payouts coming as "courtesy of the American taxpayer." In reality, they are collecting money that they put in, so the article is making sensationalist claims that aren't factual.
  - scarface74 10y ago
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/... According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in. Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
    - wooter 10y ago
      Its also compulsory. I can't opt out and as you noted, the returns are shrinking drastically. It also passed as a savings program regardless of the horrible bookkeeping that the government is doing to keep an crappy system afloat. In fact, they have told us for 50+ years that its perfectly sustainable while plundering the institution to live beyond our means in other areas. As for how its used by retirees today and in the past, would anyone sell stock that is paying insane an unsustainable dividends? Would you blame the investor or the company? Even if its compulsory to buy?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I can't opt out You absolutely can opt out by choosing to exclude employers that are either mandated, or who have chosen despite not being mandated, to participate in SS. Or by choosing to live by some means other than wage-labor (if you make all your income from capital investments, you have successfully opted out of SS.) No one is coercing you to the contrary (well, except the coercion to wage-labor that affects most of the population under capitalism and which has not generally been eliminated in modern mixed economies; but even there there are some wage-labor options outside of the Social Security mandate.)
- madengr 10y ago
  How? The second bar graph shows the bottom 20% consume more than the top 20% once SS contributions are removed. The poor are getting a free ride off the rich.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    A "free ride" makes being poor sound desirable but that is far from the case. Even if you ignore everything else, the life-span and health differences are enough to show that you are better off being anything but poor even if you are getting a "free ride" in one way. I think our progressive tax system (for example) strikes a lot of people as being the same - giving some people a "free ride", but what is the alternative? The money that makes many rich people rich filters up from the millions of poor and middle class people that spend 99% of their income directly on goods and services. If you own restaurant chains, stores, factories, and/or are invested in all of those things, you benefit from the spending of the rest of the nation. It may seem counter intuitive, or maybe its just ideologically disgusting (if you believe everyone is entirely self-made that is), but a less progressive system could ultimately harm the upper class. If the lower and middle classes don't have money to spend, our economy does not do well and given that a large amount of our wealth is tied up in financial products the last thing the rich really want is for the whole system to grind to a halt.
aioprisan 10y ago
You clearly didn't read the article, the entire point of the article was that richer folks consume more benefits than those that are not, when accounting for contribution levels.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  My reading of the article is that benefits are higher for wealthy, but when you account for taxes paid, they are "more even handed". Did I misinterpret something? EDIT: I think I did misinterpret something. When you account for taxes paid, I think it is still well on the progressive side, rather than being even. May be moreso in the future, because it's pay-as-you-go.
- anthony_romeo 10y ago
  I apologetically admit to only a fair skimming of the article (enough to get the gist of it), but at the time observed that it didn't really delve into the requirements/benefits for Social Security and how that's a factor (beyond brief mention of "income inequality" and one of the eligibility requirements). Going back and reading in full detail, I noticed that the article didn't really discuss possible solutions to the problem. My broader point was that a lack of modernization in how benefits are earned and paid out are reducing the payouts over-time for some of the poorest recipients of these sorts of programs. Giving subsistence income to the destitute helps to a point, but doesn't go far enough to really elevate one's standard of living to one which substantially increases health and reduces stress. Someone earning only $900/month probably isn't going to pay $100 for blood work and an x-ray as often as they should.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> So here's the thing. Social Security (SSDI) is a system you pay into. SSDI is Social Security Disability Insurance, which part of Social Security but not the same as Social Security (the main part is the Old Age and Survivors part); if you need an abbreviariation for the whole thing, I guess you could use the OASDI that typically appears on paystubs. > When you retire or become disabled, the amount of benefits you are eligible for is related to the amount you pay in, which is a percentage of your income. The annual benefits are calculated like that, but rich people also—as even the title of the source article here ("The Rich Are Living Longer and Taking More From Taxpayers") points out—live longer, making their total benefits higher compared to their share of contributions than looking at annual benefit calculations would suggest, and the life expectancy gap is growing, increase the relative share of benefits going to wealthier beneficiaries.
blackbagboys 10y ago
Social Security Disability Insurance is a different program than the Social Security retirement insurance that most people mean by 'Social Security'
- anthony_romeo 10y ago
  Sorry, that was kind of a typo. I'm more familiar with the disability side of things and I casually conflated the two.

qntty 10y ago

What you're describing would be the rich consuming proportionately more SS. The article is specifically describing how they consume disproportionately more SS.

loeg 10y ago
> The article is specifically describing how they consume disproportionately more SS. The headline makes that claim, but the article's figures do not support the claim.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  It would appear the article's figures support that claim.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    The disproportion isn't in Social Security benefits consumption. The disproportion is in lifespan, and the difference in benefits consumption is a side effect thereof, because of the way Social Security is defined to work. I'm not sure that it actually helps anything to cast it in the cart-before-horse way the article does.
  - loeg 10y ago
    Check the final figure, where payouts minus revenue for 50+ year olds is flat across quintiles. Note that even this figure omits earnings from 18-50, which will be higher from the higher quintiles.
dkrich 10y ago
The main problem I have with the article is that it is phrasing it as a "handout" and the payouts coming as "courtesy of the American taxpayer." In reality, they are collecting money that they put in, so the article is making sensationalist claims that aren't factual.
- scarface74 10y ago
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/... According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in. Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
  - wooter 10y ago
    Its also compulsory. I can't opt out and as you noted, the returns are shrinking drastically. It also passed as a savings program regardless of the horrible bookkeeping that the government is doing to keep an crappy system afloat. In fact, they have told us for 50+ years that its perfectly sustainable while plundering the institution to live beyond our means in other areas. As for how its used by retirees today and in the past, would anyone sell stock that is paying insane an unsustainable dividends? Would you blame the investor or the company? Even if its compulsory to buy?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I can't opt out You absolutely can opt out by choosing to exclude employers that are either mandated, or who have chosen despite not being mandated, to participate in SS. Or by choosing to live by some means other than wage-labor (if you make all your income from capital investments, you have successfully opted out of SS.) No one is coercing you to the contrary (well, except the coercion to wage-labor that affects most of the population under capitalism and which has not generally been eliminated in modern mixed economies; but even there there are some wage-labor options outside of the Social Security mandate.)
madengr 10y ago
How? The second bar graph shows the bottom 20% consume more than the top 20% once SS contributions are removed. The poor are getting a free ride off the rich.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  A "free ride" makes being poor sound desirable but that is far from the case. Even if you ignore everything else, the life-span and health differences are enough to show that you are better off being anything but poor even if you are getting a "free ride" in one way. I think our progressive tax system (for example) strikes a lot of people as being the same - giving some people a "free ride", but what is the alternative? The money that makes many rich people rich filters up from the millions of poor and middle class people that spend 99% of their income directly on goods and services. If you own restaurant chains, stores, factories, and/or are invested in all of those things, you benefit from the spending of the rest of the nation. It may seem counter intuitive, or maybe its just ideologically disgusting (if you believe everyone is entirely self-made that is), but a less progressive system could ultimately harm the upper class. If the lower and middle classes don't have money to spend, our economy does not do well and given that a large amount of our wealth is tied up in financial products the last thing the rich really want is for the whole system to grind to a halt.

aioprisan 10y ago

You clearly didn't read the article, the entire point of the article was that richer folks consume more benefits than those that are not, when accounting for contribution levels.

jeffdavis 10y ago
My reading of the article is that benefits are higher for wealthy, but when you account for taxes paid, they are "more even handed". Did I misinterpret something? EDIT: I think I did misinterpret something. When you account for taxes paid, I think it is still well on the progressive side, rather than being even. May be moreso in the future, because it's pay-as-you-go.
anthony_romeo 10y ago
I apologetically admit to only a fair skimming of the article (enough to get the gist of it), but at the time observed that it didn't really delve into the requirements/benefits for Social Security and how that's a factor (beyond brief mention of "income inequality" and one of the eligibility requirements). Going back and reading in full detail, I noticed that the article didn't really discuss possible solutions to the problem. My broader point was that a lack of modernization in how benefits are earned and paid out are reducing the payouts over-time for some of the poorest recipients of these sorts of programs. Giving subsistence income to the destitute helps to a point, but doesn't go far enough to really elevate one's standard of living to one which substantially increases health and reduces stress. Someone earning only $900/month probably isn't going to pay $100 for blood work and an x-ray as often as they should.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> So here's the thing. Social Security (SSDI) is a system you pay into. SSDI is Social Security Disability Insurance, which part of Social Security but not the same as Social Security (the main part is the Old Age and Survivors part); if you need an abbreviariation for the whole thing, I guess you could use the OASDI that typically appears on paystubs. > When you retire or become disabled, the amount of benefits you are eligible for is related to the amount you pay in, which is a percentage of your income. The annual benefits are calculated like that, but rich people also—as even the title of the source article here ("The Rich Are Living Longer and Taking More From Taxpayers") points out—live longer, making their total benefits higher compared to their share of contributions than looking at annual benefit calculations would suggest, and the life expectancy gap is growing, increase the relative share of benefits going to wealthier beneficiaries.

blackbagboys 10y ago

Social Security Disability Insurance is a different program than the Social Security retirement insurance that most people mean by 'Social Security'

anthony_romeo 10y ago
Sorry, that was kind of a typo. I'm more familiar with the disability side of things and I casually conflated the two.