Joe 5859. Sorry about all my spelling errors on
this post. A combination of “android”, one-finger typing, and auto-correct I think.
Hello Ridgerunner.
The problem with “means testing” Social Security is several fold.
“Means testing” for other readers, is when the Government obtains financial information about you (more than they already have), and start shaving your benefits based on your assets and/or monies.
It also has other potentially intrusive aspects (like a wealth audit) possible.
With “means testing” if Government politicians think you are have “over” a certain arbitrary amount of wealth, then they get to confiscate your wealth (under some form) that you’ve already EARNED or withhold monies you otherwise have coming to you.
But in the case of Social Security, it is NOT the Government’s monies. At least it is not supposed to be. Rather the Government allegedly acts as a “trustee” of YOUR MONEY and gets to borrow YOUR MONEY free of interest for MANY YEARS.
This “free interest” is ALREADY a “means” augmentation of monies received by the Government from these taxpayers.
The most obvious problem (there are many) with “means testing” Social Security recipients, is your arbitrary definition of wealthy or “let’s say, $250,000” (the same amount Obama has used when describing “the wealthy” incidentally).
Obama has already done that arbitrary definition of “wealthy”. Obama has already promised no new taxes except for “the rich” or the $250,000/year mark (see it
here for example).
Then the Obama administration went to the Supreme Court arguing for ObamaCare based on . . . . taxation authority.
This after telling the American people ObamaCare was . . . . NOT a TAX.
The Supremes fell for it and the middle class got hit for this RE-DEFINITION of “taxes”.
Obama’s no-tax-on-the-middle-class talk is also ignored by rules, regulations and other unfunded mandates which in essence ARE taxes at least some of the time.
This in addition to
Obama’s new $10.00 per barrel oil tax that he is pushing (don’t people who make less than $250,000 year buy gas?).
Washington politicians are not trustworthy with your arbitrary number, and will change it downward sooner rather than later (or re-define it like they are doing with ObamaCare, new gas taxes, etc.).
So in a year or half a decade later, “the wealthy” gets RE-DEFINED as “let’s say, $150,000” or a “sur-tax” gets invented or some other change to further squeeze the taxpayer.
Then so on and so forth.
All the while, Washington keep inventing MORE PROGRAMS and regulations.
Listen to Bernie and Hillary at a debate. They are promising people “the moon”.
**The problem in Washington D.C. is NOT lack of dollars from taxpayers.
The problem in Washington D.C. is lack of fiscal responsibility and restraint from Washington politicians.**
You don’t tell the people all their life that their pay-in will allow them a proportional pay-out, then when they get older, RE-DEFINE it because of Washington fiscal mismanagement.
This is dishonest and TAKING from them TWICE.
Many of the wealthy don’t need Social Security. They don’t need to pay into Social Security either (except by law). They can do better without the Government and still have money left over to bequeath to their children (if the Government didn’t TAKE those dollars too).
Sooner or later the “wealthy” and the “powerful” either use their influence to get the laws changed for themselves (
leaving the middle class and poor retirees and disabled with even less), or they just leave the country.
As a matter of fact some “powerful” groups HAVE dodged Social Security (i.e. the Railroad Retirement Board).
If you keep “turning the vice” on these “wealthy” taxpayers
penalizing them for their success, eventually you CAUSE more problems than you solve.
**And WHY throw more taxpayer monies to a program that has already dishonestly taken taxpayer monies and transferred it away to other new programs? **
There is** in essence no “Social Security Trust Fund” anymore except for accounting gimmicks. Accounting gimmicks that John Kasich helped add onto the country as a Congressman.**
And now Kasich brags about “balancing the budget” when he was a Congressman without telling you about adding to the IOUs that others before him had already began. IOUs that preyed upon . . . Social Security.
When the Government has made grievous spending errors with taxpayer dollars in the past, the answer is NOT to give them MORE taxpayer dollars in the future.
PS - Somebody is going to read what I wrote above and say: “means testing” is not a wealth audit.
But the natural extension of “means testing” would lead to such.
