P
pnewton
Guest
I am not offended by that word. It is used as a pejorative by some, but I always remember that we are called to put the welfare of others ahead of our own. The word is not negative for Christians. It is a mandate.
- Status
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
I thought it was “charity”, the fruits of our faith that match your description. If someone should state social security is “Welfare” in the connotation of a government dispensation, I believe that is faulty. it is not government “charity” government “love” government “handout” nor Welfare within the context of which it was referred to.
It is a safety net that people put into a great majority of their lives and at a determined time draw from as part of their retirement. That is not welfare.
It is a safety net that people put into a great majority of their lives and at a determined time draw from as part of their retirement. That is not welfare.
That’s the impression I get, too.
SS is self-funded and doesn’t get anything from general revenues; therefore, it doesn’t have anything to do with the budget or the deficit.
SS invests in treasury notes. But that’s not the same thing as the government “raiding” the system to pay for something else. One of the Democrats, in a debate last night, brought up the 2017 Republican tax cuts for “the rich” and then said the Republicans were threatening to cut SS, implying that the SS cuts were to pay for the tax cuts, when the two have nothing to do with each other.
It’s like years ago my mother explaining why I was collecting interest on my child-size bank account. The bank can afford to do this because it’s lending my money to someone else in our town borrowing money to buy a house. That’s not the same as that person’s stealing the money from my account.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
L
Lifeisbeautiful3
Guest
Another possibility: inflation that erodes the underlying value of the SS payouts.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Okay, so if tax cuts are such a wonderful thing, then why don’t they cut the payroll tax as well, on the principle that as there will be more money in circulation, it will stimulate the economy as to increase the SS revenues as well? That will never happen, of course.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
It is when when the banks use that money for risky purposes other than lending and leaves depositors without money as happened under Bush but that’s another topic.
D
dochawk
Guest
No.
Not only are SS benefits and contributions fully indexed for inflation, but calculated inflation always overstates (a mathematical consequence of how it is calculated).
Now, there could be a deviation between the regular wage and goods inflation used to calculate SS and the different basket of goods (notably with more medical) purchase by the elderly. But in that case, you’re looking at making a lifetime adjustment with lower early payout and higher later payout.
Of course not. That’s not where the money is, and not why certain (not all) tax cuts result in increased revenue (Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Thatcher). The cuts that have historically reduced revenue come from far higher rates than the payroll tax. Further, most workers don’t have the ability to shift the amount they work in response to tax rates.
hawk
P
pnewton
Guest
That is correct.
P
ProVobis
Guest
“Fur ther, most workers don’t have the ability to shift the amount they work in response to tax rates.”
It’s more than the workers though. Employers pay 6% of all/most payroll into that as well. But you know that.
It’s more than the workers though. Employers pay 6% of all/most payroll into that as well. But you know that.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Yes, well enough to know that it’s actually the worker footing the whole bill.
hawk
hawk
O
o_mlly
Guest
Raising the retirement age seems to be the best option. Using the IRS life expectancy table, assign a retirement age based on birth year minus some number of years. That number of years being that number that achieves statistical solvency for the system for the next 80 years. The assumptions on future growth, inflation and interest rates would be a tough, but not impossible negotiation.
Congress has already showed that negotiating the alternatives – reducing benefits or raising taxes – is politically impossible (for those that want to keep their jobs in DC).
Congress has already showed that negotiating the alternatives – reducing benefits or raising taxes – is politically impossible (for those that want to keep their jobs in DC).
P
ProVobis
Guest
They could just change the formula for those retiring at 62 or 70. But that wouldn’t get you votes.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
What’s up Doc?
Do you think this bias is a good or rather quite fair thing, like throwing a bone for the working-class or providing even a small measure of respite for those workers who for whatever reason (i.e struggles with stable employment due to frequent layoffs, those who choose work or even a calling (i.e social work) that wasn’t lucrative)?
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
It’d be a solution or I guess “responsible” thing to do considering issues with the system but I don’t think many people would be too fond of retiring at 70. Additionally, I understand that in some instances (implicitly), Social Security is meant to help folks retire so jobs can be passed on towards the younger generations (if those jobs stay which doesn’t seem to be a concrete possibility nowadays). Am I wrong?
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re not wrong. I’ve seen a lot of jobs go away with the retirement or resignation of some. Makes you wonder if they were really needed. Or maybe just irreplaceable. 
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Hopefully, there is still enough jobs to go around though.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As we move toward more and more automation, it looks like jobs and careers will need to be created. It’s been that way since I can remember.
D
dochawk
Guest
Not the stock market the last week . . . .What’s up Doc?
That’s not a “positive” but a “normative” economic question. That is it’s value based rather than something testable. That is, whether it is “good” is normative; how much relief it provides is positive.
Economists have no claim to superior knowledge on normative issues . . .
Personally I think it makes sense and is a good idea.
In practice, yes, it is a significant amount, especially for those who never earned enough to make it to the second tier. . . without that SS boost, society would have to find another way to feed them!
hawk
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There is an assumption here that those who benefit from the “welfare” are in some sense deserving or in need through no fault or responsibility of their own. The problem with that assumption is that when welfare becomes an entitlement offered by the State it redefines what constitutes real “need.”Theo2:
I am not offended by that word. It is used as a pejorative by some, but I always remember that we are called to put the welfare of others ahead of our own. The word is not negative for Christians. It is a mandate.
When more than half of the country receives more In government transfer payments than it pays in taxes, that completely changes the nature of the debate.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-24/more-half-america-gets-more-welfare-it-pays-taxes
Since when would a Christian responsibility to put the welfare of others ahead of our own imply that those in need of charity would and should outnumber those who have the means to be charitable?
Something is wrong with this picture, since it plays up dependency rather than responsibility, and privileges receiving above giving. Those who have must give more, without question; and those who receive should receive more, equally without question.
As the article points out …
There are all kinds of potential problems with this scenario, not the least of which is that it focuses more and more economic clout in the hands of a wealthy few while creating dependencies beyond what can or will be sustained, long term.
Sure, socialism will appear to represent the majority – the recipient classes – but the majority are in reality being stripped of the actual means by which to effectively control political change, not least of all because they are the dependent and not autonomous class.
The wealthy have long term benefit for promoting social and judicial policy to grow and increasingly centralize political and economic power in the hands of a few under the guise of “helping” those in need – well at least until they have created sufficient numbers of the “needy” to control them.
We don’t seem to have learned much from the events of the past 150 years.
P
pnewton
Guest
Do you have that assumption? I don’t. If not you and not I, then how can this assumption be presented as some sort of axiom. The only thing that is needed for need is need itself.
- Status