4 ms·

This is factually untrue: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-7-social-security-myths-just-arent-true-no-matter-how-often-you-hear-them-2019-08-27 https://w

• scarface74 6y ago
  Your article didn’t contradict that most people get more than they put in. https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-... 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. > In fact, research shows that accounting for Social Security essentially cancels out the recent increase in inequality Doesn’t that support my point that the higher tax states actually subsidize poorer states? I’m a bleeding heart capitalist. I believe in the social safety net. But, the entire point of my post was arguing against the idea that states with high taxes and limiting SALT was unfair to states that pay less in taxes.
  • bhupy 6y ago
    > Doesn’t that support my point that the higher tax states actually subsidize poorer states? No, it doesn't, because your statement presupposes that Social Security payments disproportionately go to the poor. In practice, Social Security (and Medicare) represent welfare for the rich. Baby Boomers are the wealthiest cohort in the US[1][2]. (FTA) "For two-thirds of seniors, Social Security has detached from the program’s original mission — to eradicate senior poverty — and is now the world’s most expensive upgrade from Carnival to Royal Caribbean for Nana and PopPop." While there are poor retirees that benefit from SS/Medicare, they represent the minority of their cohort. On average, retirees are among the richest people in the country owing to a lifetime of accrued earnings (unlike, say, college graduates). So programs like SS/Medicare that target retirees are about the furthest thing from "subsidizing the poor". Consider that Bill Gates, Ariana Huffington, and Warren Buffett all qualify for Medicare and receive SS checks. SS/Medicare also represent about half of the Federal budget. This is exactly why you need to adjust for those programs, because when you say that the Federal budget overwhelmingly subsidizes "poor low tax States", half of that just goes to old people, who overwhelmingly live in Red, 0-tax states like Florida. It tells us nothing about the fiscal health of those states, nor their dependence on the Federal government. On the other hand, high tax blue states disproportionately suffer from poor fiscal health, owing to under-funded defined benefit pensions that are essentially insolvent. > But, the entire point of my post was arguing against the idea that states with high taxes and limiting SALT was unfair to states that pay less in taxes. But once you account for SS/Medicare, the distribution of net-contributors and net-takers does not cleanly correlate with high vs low state and local taxes. This means that it's an extremely inefficient way of handling the inequity. You think it's a problem that some states pay more than they take in? Then address that directly! Don't use state-and-local-taxes as a proxy for that. It's an extremely messy and ham-fisted way of solving that problem. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-richest-generation-in-u-s-history-just-keeps-getting-richer https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-12/the-riche... [2] https://marker.medium.com/lessons-from-iowa-and-the-fallibility-of-tech-bc10e9b7464f https://marker.medium.com/lessons-from-iowa-and-the-fallibil...