3 ms·

> Or are you proposing that the guy who make $10 MM should pay more, but get their benefit capped? Because if that's what you are proposing, I don't see how tha

> Or are you proposing that the guy who make $10 MM should pay more, but get their benefit capped? Because if that's what you are proposing, I don't see how that is just or fair. You get to live in a stable society, in relative order, safety, and peace. Your life is (financially) richer than 99.99999% of people in the world. All of this in exchange for a small portion of your wealth, and yet you STILL want to complain about the unfairness of this arrangement? Push it too far, and the only alternative you're going to get is having to look over your shoulder everywhere you go, living in constant fear that someone will pillage your property and threaten your personal safety.

credit_guy 1y ago
So, just to be perfectly clear: are you advocating that there should be no cap in the contributions to Social Security, while the cap on the benefits should stay in place? And the argument is that if you are rich you can afford it. But why increase the tax on the rich in an obfuscated way via this Social Security trick? Because you think they won't notice it? Or because you think you can stoke some proletariat fury by claiming that the cap is injust? It's ok to stoke that fury if the injustice is there, but in this case it is not.
mgh95 1y ago
> Push it too far, and the only alternative you're going to get is having to look over your shoulder everywhere you go, living in constant fear that someone will pillage your property and threaten your personal safety. But that's the thing: is Social Security a safety net or is it welfare? If it's a safety net, means testing (can at least in principle) preserve the safety net aspect. If it's welfare, you're transferring wealth from people currently working to those retired, many of whom are much more comfortable than those paying the tax. Why are we transferring wealth to those with more from those who must work?
- dns_snek 1y ago
  I don't know, I've never heard of this distinction before. As far as I'm concerned we decide which types of programs we want to have in our society, and then we find the funds for these programs. The only moral option then is to take more from those who can contribute more through progressive taxation.
  - mgh95 1y ago
    > I don't know, I've never heard of this distinction before. As far as I'm concerned we decide which types of programs we want to have in our society, and then we find the funds for these programs. The only moral option then is to take more from those who can contribute more through progressive taxation. It's an increasingly common distinction today, and is actually cited as a reason for social securities high support (see: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-about-social-security https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...): > Finally, Social Security’s nearly universal nature ensures its continued popular and political support; 79 percent of Americans oppose cuts to the program. It is not an exaggeration to say that politicians explicitly argue against means testing because they want universality to keep it a third rail and became an increasingly prevalent sentiment during the COVID crisis when money was cheap. For example (https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social-spending-reconciliation-bill https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social...): > “We can choose to strengthen the bond Americans have to one another by proposing universal social insurance benefits that broadly benefit all Americans, or we can pursue complicated methods of means testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us with false narratives about ‘makers’ and ‘takers,’” leaders in the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. while simultaneously arguing social security is necessary for the economic security of every family (https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social-spending-reconciliation-bill https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social...). And that's the point: there is a very real portion of the party that, rather than cutting Jeff Bezos', Warren Buffets, Bill Gates' and other wealthy individuals who can survive without the cuts social security would rather raise taxes to pay more benefits because it is good politically. It's absolutely absurd, and highlights how the discussion is manipulated to ensure that social security as a political third rail continues rather than addressing seniors actual needs.

credit_guy 1y ago

So, just to be perfectly clear: are you advocating that there should be no cap in the contributions to Social Security, while the cap on the benefits should stay in place? And the argument is that if you are rich you can afford it. But why increase the tax on the rich in an obfuscated way via this Social Security trick? Because you think they won't notice it? Or because you think you can stoke some proletariat fury by claiming that the cap is injust? It's ok to stoke that fury if the injustice is there, but in this case it is not.

mgh95 1y ago

> Push it too far, and the only alternative you're going to get is having to look over your shoulder everywhere you go, living in constant fear that someone will pillage your property and threaten your personal safety. But that's the thing: is Social Security a safety net or is it welfare? If it's a safety net, means testing (can at least in principle) preserve the safety net aspect. If it's welfare, you're transferring wealth from people currently working to those retired, many of whom are much more comfortable than those paying the tax. Why are we transferring wealth to those with more from those who must work?

dns_snek 1y ago
I don't know, I've never heard of this distinction before. As far as I'm concerned we decide which types of programs we want to have in our society, and then we find the funds for these programs. The only moral option then is to take more from those who can contribute more through progressive taxation.
- mgh95 1y ago
  > I don't know, I've never heard of this distinction before. As far as I'm concerned we decide which types of programs we want to have in our society, and then we find the funds for these programs. The only moral option then is to take more from those who can contribute more through progressive taxation. It's an increasingly common distinction today, and is actually cited as a reason for social securities high support (see: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-about-social-security https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...): > Finally, Social Security’s nearly universal nature ensures its continued popular and political support; 79 percent of Americans oppose cuts to the program. It is not an exaggeration to say that politicians explicitly argue against means testing because they want universality to keep it a third rail and became an increasingly prevalent sentiment during the COVID crisis when money was cheap. For example (https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social-spending-reconciliation-bill https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social...): > “We can choose to strengthen the bond Americans have to one another by proposing universal social insurance benefits that broadly benefit all Americans, or we can pursue complicated methods of means testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us with false narratives about ‘makers’ and ‘takers,’” leaders in the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. while simultaneously arguing social security is necessary for the economic security of every family (https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social-spending-reconciliation-bill https://www.vox.com/2021/10/15/22722418/means-testing-social...). And that's the point: there is a very real portion of the party that, rather than cutting Jeff Bezos', Warren Buffets, Bill Gates' and other wealthy individuals who can survive without the cuts social security would rather raise taxes to pay more benefits because it is good politically. It's absolutely absurd, and highlights how the discussion is manipulated to ensure that social security as a political third rail continues rather than addressing seniors actual needs.