The giant loophole is that social security is specifically not reduced for the ways the wealthy make money such as rental income and investments.
The giant loophole is that social security is specifically not reduced for the ways the wealthy make money such as rental income and investments.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If I’m understanding you right, part of what you’re referring to is “means testing”. Means testing is usually defined as : “if a person has a way to obtain income outside of Social Security, they should have their Social Security benefits reduced”.
This is a hypercharged political issue. Even the wealthy pay into Social Security to receive the same level of benefit as everyone else. The suggestion of means testing is, if someone can afford to live without Social Security, should they get it at all? This raises lots of problematic questions. A few I can think of is:
So far there’s no legislation that supports means testing for Social Security benefits that have passed that I’m aware of, but I don’t claim to be any kind of expert.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
It’s based on the poverty level income and inflation which is also measured/decided by government.
Social Security should be reduced by any income above that poverty level not just working income as it is now. That is the unfair part to me. If you actually work your benefit is reduced, if you just rent out some homes it isnt. Social Security isn’t supposed to be a bonus to retirement. It was literally meant to keep old people off the streets and if you didn’t/couldn’t save up more than that I’m not inclined to do more than that. Essentially old people UBI, keep them off the streets but not a replacement for actual work/savings.
The government uses my taxes to spends billions on things that don’t benefit me directly. I’m a lot more ok with welfare programs(and their massive societal benefits) than bombing Palestinian children. Call it a separate tax all you want it comes out of my paycheck and goes to the government all the same. Fairness or equality of paying in get pay out is not the same as equity or justice of those who have less getting helped more. Those with more having their money go to those with less is exactly how a good society works and is what I hear a lot of the boomers grew up with before pulling up the ladder for everyone younger.
As it is now it is not a 1:1 reduction, it is tiered, I’d still keep that part of it. So if you have more you still have more not equal. It is human to want more than just subsistence living so I don’t see this being an issue. If not, so what? they still paid into it.
Essentially there already is means testing and the way it is done right now favors the haves, when it should favor the havenots.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And here’s exactly one of the problems I listed above. You’re asking that any separate retirement savings or income equaling or greater that about $15k/year should negate a person receiving SS retirement benefits. This would be subtracted by income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits.
You want that program, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it, but that’s not what Social Security retirement benefits are today.
Keep in mind, the reduction you’re talking about for a fully retired person (65 or 67 depending on when they were born) would be earning above $59,520/year or more from their work in retirement. And again, if the fully retired person is getting $59,520/year income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits, you’d have them get zero SS retirement benefits.
You’re changing the terms of the deal that everyone that has paid in agreed to. You can want it to be different, but make no mistake you’re suggesting a “bait and switch” to hundreds of millions of Americans that have planned on having SS retirement benefits granted to them as part of their retirement planning.
You can want SS retirement benefits to be something else, but your desired changes are exactly why its a non-started that isn’t even considered.
phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
It’s not a negation when there is a standard of 28k before any deduction and the ratio of deduction is 2:1 or even 3:1 after that. I’m not proposing a drastic difference, the current system just with more income considered. If you have greater income you still have greater income. Maybe you lose out on a couple k from ssi but you make enough to live better than someone with only ssi.
I’m talking what could be or imo should be. You keep talking what is. I never said anything about the practicality of this getting through congress anytime soon. That’d require a greater cultural shift than I foresee happening anytime soon.
Reality is that under the current system ssi already isn’t going to work past 2035 if things remain as they are. Anyone in retirement after that shouldn’t be including ssi in their retirement plans right now because it very well may not exist.
Your argument is the same as property taxes for schools being so unequally distributed. Don’t want to pay for other kids just your own. As we’ve seem from the past however many decades or centuries this “separate but equal” doesn’t work out long-term we need “united and equitable”. I don’t know when or if these changes will occur, but I know they won’t without being talked about.
I’m by no means an economist, lawyer, or politician and I doubt you are either, chillax on the seriousness and trying to find flaws in what is a random internet musing and certainly not a legal bill or treatise on the subject.