From a
study done by Matthew Greenwald & Associates for the National Academy of Social Insurance:
- Americans don’t mind paying for Social Security because they value it for themselves (80%), for their families (78%), and for the security and stability it provides to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers (84%).
- 84% believe current Social Security benefits do not provide enough income for retirees, and 75% believe we should consider raising future Social Security benefits in order to provide a more secure retirement for working Americans. [The study shows that even 74% of working Republicans agree with this.]
- 82% agree it is critical to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans, and 87% want to preserve Social Security for future generations even if it means increasing taxes paid by wealthier Americans. ...
- Of those currently receiving Social Security, 96% say it is important to their monthly income, and 72% say that without Social Security they would have to make significant sacrifices or would not be able to afford the basics such as food, clothing, or housing. Of those not currently receiving Social Security, 87% say it will be important to their income when they begin receiving benefits.
- 57% of Americans say they are not confident about the future of the program.
- 69% of those not currently receiving Social Security benefits lack confidence that they will receive all their earned benefits when they retire.
The study shows that 68% of Republicans favor gradually, over ten years, eliminating the cap on earning that are taxed for Social Security. Only 10% of Republicans oppose this. Only 26% of Republicans favor increasing Social Security's full retirement age to 70. A higher percentage of Democrats favor increasing full retirement age to 70 than Republicans!
Your headline demonstrates what is wrong with American politics. You should be applauding them for doing what they believe in, NOT what is "politically feasible". Instead of sticking their finger in the air to determine what's best politically, at least they have core values (which you and I may disagree on) that they are willing to stand up for.
ReplyDeletein addition to above...
ReplyDeleteWho cares what is "politically" feasible. Politicians are elected to make difficult decisions. If the economics require cuts, then they should make them, regardless of what people want.
My kids want to eat cereal every night for dinner. Yet, somehow, I make the tough political decision to say no every night.
Conversely, if you asked all the same people who many want to pay higher taxes, the number would be close to zero.
ReplyDeleteat some point the FICA cap on taxable income is going to be abolished, and a cap on benefits that can be received will be implemented. I fully guarantee this.
ReplyDeleteRaise the FICA tax cap to $350,000.
ReplyDeleteFIXED!
The problem is you are talking apples and oranges. No one wants to cut Social Security Benefits. All think we should do away with or disengage supplemental security income (a Federal welfare program) from Social Security. It is not one and the same. Entitlements are something one has invested in. Welfare is something for nothing, however, somebody is paying for it, just not those receiving it. It is the largest wealth transfer system from the wealthy to the poor ever conceived and it is breaking the legitimate system called Social Security.
ReplyDeleteHow is SSI breaking Social Security? The administrative cost and benefits are separately funded, not taken from the trust funds.
ReplyDeleteSo, to "all (those who) think we should do away with SSI," should society just turn their backs on these individuals? Allow them to starve?
ReplyDeleteI'd rather pay some higher taxes to keep those peoples' checks coming than have my city and country turn into a hole where property crime and probably violent crime runs rampant.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it's better to pay a little more upfront to keep the system (that benefits you so well) running smoothly. I mean, we could have a libertarian society, but I don't want to have to shell out most of my labor-units on personal security.
They wouldn't starve, they have food stamps, they wouldn't freeze because they have subsidized housing. They would have lights and gas because they get utility allowances. Maybe they wouldn't have cable tv or smart phones. Humans adapt, they would survive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that has nothing to do with Social Security. Raise the taxable limit on income and reevaluate the parts that don't work. Start small - eliminate the lump sum death pmt of $255.00. Most people laugh at it anyway. But, they will continue to take it because we offer it.
I agree with the questioning or thought in comment 1:25 PM, February 01, 2013.
ReplyDeleteAll seperate trust funds, killing SSI does nothing to save Retirement. Changing the GRID in SSDI does nothing to save Retirement. It is not one huge SSA cash pool, they are seperate. Inform yourself, dont listen to anyone, even me!
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, SSI is administered by SSA, but is not financed by the FICA tax, which is solely dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. SSI is paid by general Federal revenues.
ReplyDeleteBut using your logic, wouldn't the reverse be equally true?
ReplyDeleteAnd since SSI is paid by general Federal revenues, including borrowed funds from FICA, how can you possibly say that SSI is not part of the problem of SSA running out of funds? Without SSI, the general funding would not be borrowing as much from FICA monies. SSA does not have a funding problem, the general Federal revenue has a borrowing problem with no ability to pay back the "loans". Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not make Peter unsuccesful, it makes him a victim and Paul a thieve..
ReplyDeleteI agree unless you consider the extent to which "Piuante's Theorem" is evaluated
ReplyDeleteThe borrowing of the funds from FICA is the problem.
ReplyDeleteIt is a similar problem with 28 other trust funds, making up the $5 trillion or so of intragovernmental debt.
Where in our laws does it provide for "regular" government spending through intraagency loans?
I do realize and understand the Treasury borrowed from the defense retirement fund recently, but that was due to an "emergency" cash shortfall in the general budget.
Don Levit
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete