3 ms·

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 co

• jeffdavis 9y 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 9y 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.