Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cool! We finally agree

I'm not sure we'd agree on determining just who needs it though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not sure we'd agree on determining just who needs it though.

If the solution is to shaft the wealthy by having them pay in but not let them be able to collect, then why not shaft them by lifting the income cap for SS tax and leave the benefits be? It's the same population getting the shaft...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the solution is to shaft the wealthy by having them pay in but not let them be able to collect, then why not shaft them by lifting the income cap for SS tax and leave the benefits be? It's the same population getting the shaft...

Sounds good to me. What is the current cap?

[rika60607 215]

Around 100K?

But truly rich have most of their income coming from sources that are not taxed by social security...

Sounds good to me. What is the current cap?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sounds good to me. What is the current cap?

$106,800.00.

Around 100K?

But truly rich have most of their income coming from sources that are not taxed by social security...

Well, stop giving preferred treatment to passive income. Why should the buck that's earned actually working be treated worse than the buck that's earned sitting on the beach or on the yacht?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hyperbole anyone?

These things tend to go badly for the bourgeois and ethic minorities.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah. Social security is a handout? I would have never guessed. I've seen it deducted form my paychecks many times enough. Therefore if I ever get any payments back from SS, how is that a handout? I think it is safe to say that these days anyone receiving Social Security payments for their retirement, is not receiving a handout, but is paid back for the money they contributed to the system. Same goes for the Medicare for the old folks. They paid for it in advance.

Unemployment? That was an insurance paid for by my employer. When you go to see a doctor and pay only $20 because you have a medical insurance, you are not given a handout, are you?

Disability benefits given to those who never worked are probably the only type of wages that could be called a handout.

Just like with the union spiel. If they want to make union membership optional, then so should they make Social Security taxes and benefits as optional too. Then don't whine when your private-held retirement plans tank out due to some CEOs vacation plans or some manager's new ponzi scheme with your money.

Of course, angry, bitter people will always have something to whine about. More so on the internet.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'm ok with the insurance model - if you never get sick, you never use it.

Similarly, if you don't *need* social security benefits, you shouldn't get them just because you paid into the system.

Social Security should be a *safety net*, not an entitlement program.

I agree. It shouldn't be an entitlement program, although by paying into it, you are entitled to your share when the time comes.

Quite a few retirees on SS I know supplement their incomes by PT teaching. That's called motivation and staying busy. Live longer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite a few retirees on SS I know supplement their incomes by PT teaching. That's called motivation and staying busy. Live longer.

That's fcuked up. The longer they live, the longer they draw SS. We should require retired folk that draw SS to do absolutely nothing to ensure they kick the bucket as early as possible and stop being a drag on the system. Which makes me think, maybe paying higher benefits would actually save money.

[Zero Sum 305]

That's fcuked up. The longer they live, the longer they draw SS. We should require retired folk that draw SS to do absolutely nothing to ensure they kick the bucket as early as possible and stop being a drag on the system. Which makes me think, maybe paying higher benefits would actually save money.

My example is probably not the best. These people actually continue to contribute something back to society, although I am sure some will have a problem with having more educated people.

A slight increase in contributions may help, I agree.

[mawilson 2,133]

That would be great, but hard to accomplish. How do you measure who actually needs support? By the house they own? Amount of money in their bank account? They can easily transfer all that to their children, younger lovers or companies who will hold their wealth for them.

By the Adjusted Gross Income when they file their tax returns.

[mawilson 2,133]

I agree. It shouldn't be an entitlement program, although by paying into it, you are entitled to your share when the time comes.

You're not. Like any insurance program, you're entitled to it only if things go wrong.

[mawilson 2,133]

If the solution is to shaft the wealthy by having them pay in but not let them be able to collect, then why not shaft them by lifting the income cap for SS tax and leave the benefits be? It's the same population getting the shaft...

Your assumption is incorrect. People accumulate more wealth as they get older -

retirees have way more money than the young people paying into the system.

Edited March 9, 2011 by mawilson

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Everyone can dance around all they want but the facts are still the facts. One third of the money in this country is not earned but given. How can we sustain that? Remember that as the boomers age this ratio will only increase. 20 years from now we could have one half of the country supporting the other half. Do you really think that will work?

[Zero Sum 305]

You're not. Like any insurance program, you're entitled to it only if things go wrong.

Interesting. So call it Social Security Insurance, not Retirement.