4 ms·

Social security is not a pension. It's more like insurance. It is designed to make life as a senior more equitable, not to stoke the egos of the wealthiest by e

Social security is not a pension. It's more like insurance. It is designed to make life as a senior more equitable, not to stoke the egos of the wealthiest by ensuring they do not feel slighted by payments scaling to be larger than benefits above some certain income level. It is absolutely a "fair" and "just" thing for a society to do to itself.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
I think you are confusing your wishes with reality. It is in no way like insurance today, and never has been. It has always paid out independent of circumstance. It was never about equity either - The poor get less, and the very poorest get none. Again, this is the way it has been since conception. It is a state mandated pension with low returns and a progressive fee. Noting more.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  I think you misread. There's no "confusion of wishes with reality", we were explicitly discussing the not-reality that is wealthier people paying more and receiving less, and whether that is fair or just. My analogy to insurance was more about whether you pay into "your" account with your name on it or if you pay into a big fund directly pays out to recipients, and nothing is held aside for you.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    I see. I think there is a lot of baggage with the insurance analogy, like probability and conditional payout which are absent. The money isnt held in a dedicated account with your name on it. However, how much you pay in is rigorously tracked and used to directly to determine how much you get. The closest thing is a pension. Like a pension, SS pays out X% of your taxable salary. X is progressive with high earners heavily subsidizing low earners. SS starts by paying out 90% of taxable salary in the lowest bracket. As income goes up, this reduces to paying out 15% in the top bracket. The brackets are referred to SS bend points.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      > I think there is a lot of baggage with the insurance analogy, like probability and conditional payout which are absent. I agree; it was a poor choice of analogy on my part.
- BadCookie 1y ago
  The disability part of Social Security is very much like insurance…
riehwvfbk 1y ago
So unemployment insurance should cost more if you earn more. What about health insurance? Car insurance? Starbucks latte? All goods and services? Would it not be just and fair if all prices were relative to income rather than absolute? ... you'll notice that taken to absurdity this is the same statement as "everyone should be paid the same". And that's been tried.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- margalabargala 1y ago
  Government programs are not the same as commercial products. I have no issue with unemployment or health insurance costing a percentage of one's income. Let's also add fines and traffic tickets to the list of things that ought be more expensive as one becomes wealthier please.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Why not? California been trying to implement income based pricing for privately operated utilities like PG&E for years. It is already partially implemented for electricity. It seems to me like government programs is a poor delineation, as government can pass a law to extend its own scope. Why not groceries or clothes?
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      > Why not groceries or clothes? Well, programs like TANF and SNAP exist, which I think are great and their greatest problems are they are not easy enough for people to make use of. So, fair point, when looking at the most impoverished among us I do not think we should stop at governmental services.
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        TANF and SNAP are very different than what I am discussing. That are wealth transfers from general taxes to those in need. Very different than wanking into a public grocery store and seeing different prices based on your income.

s1artibartfast 1y ago

I think you are confusing your wishes with reality. It is in no way like insurance today, and never has been. It has always paid out independent of circumstance. It was never about equity either - The poor get less, and the very poorest get none. Again, this is the way it has been since conception. It is a state mandated pension with low returns and a progressive fee. Noting more.

margalabargala 1y ago
I think you misread. There's no "confusion of wishes with reality", we were explicitly discussing the not-reality that is wealthier people paying more and receiving less, and whether that is fair or just. My analogy to insurance was more about whether you pay into "your" account with your name on it or if you pay into a big fund directly pays out to recipients, and nothing is held aside for you.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  I see. I think there is a lot of baggage with the insurance analogy, like probability and conditional payout which are absent. The money isnt held in a dedicated account with your name on it. However, how much you pay in is rigorously tracked and used to directly to determine how much you get. The closest thing is a pension. Like a pension, SS pays out X% of your taxable salary. X is progressive with high earners heavily subsidizing low earners. SS starts by paying out 90% of taxable salary in the lowest bracket. As income goes up, this reduces to paying out 15% in the top bracket. The brackets are referred to SS bend points.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    > I think there is a lot of baggage with the insurance analogy, like probability and conditional payout which are absent. I agree; it was a poor choice of analogy on my part.
BadCookie 1y ago
The disability part of Social Security is very much like insurance…

riehwvfbk 1y ago

So unemployment insurance should cost more if you earn more. What about health insurance? Car insurance? Starbucks latte? All goods and services? Would it not be just and fair if all prices were relative to income rather than absolute? ... you'll notice that taken to absurdity this is the same statement as "everyone should be paid the same". And that's been tried.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
margalabargala 1y ago
Government programs are not the same as commercial products. I have no issue with unemployment or health insurance costing a percentage of one's income. Let's also add fines and traffic tickets to the list of things that ought be more expensive as one becomes wealthier please.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Why not? California been trying to implement income based pricing for privately operated utilities like PG&E for years. It is already partially implemented for electricity. It seems to me like government programs is a poor delineation, as government can pass a law to extend its own scope. Why not groceries or clothes?
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    > Why not groceries or clothes? Well, programs like TANF and SNAP exist, which I think are great and their greatest problems are they are not easy enough for people to make use of. So, fair point, when looking at the most impoverished among us I do not think we should stop at governmental services.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      TANF and SNAP are very different than what I am discussing. That are wealth transfers from general taxes to those in need. Very different than wanking into a public grocery store and seeing different prices based on your income.