From WNYC:
The president of the Harlem Children Zone said he's on the college campus circuit to gin up student activism around entitlement spending. As it is, Geoffrey Canada said, seniors are erasing any chance for the next generation to have the safety net they will need and deserve.
"There are a lot of folk who have a lot of money who simply don't need social security. And we can't even begin to have a conversation around means testing for that group," he said. "It's unfair to the next generation."
9 comments:
Part of the social contract with social security is explicitly that you get something back for having paid in, within some limits. It is not means tested welfare, it is insurance that pays off under certain circumstances. The degradation of this principle will kill it and is the reason why many who hate it want to means test it, because then it's easier to castigate the program, it becomes about welfare rather than seniors who vote GOP but who realize that this was earned, not given to them. The secret to saving social security is to expand that principle by not taking from the recipients but increasing the base for paying in. No one should not get social security if they paid in, billionaires included.
It seems the me, a better fix would be to increase or even remove the limit on the social security tax. Most people are under the impression that they "paid in" this huge amount over they're working lives, but inmost cases that just isn't true. Within about 3-5 years, most people have exhausted everything they paid in and are now pulling from the current workers. This is socialism at its finest, therefore the argument if "fairness" does not apply.
I'll vote to keepp benefits the same for current and very-soon-to-be SS collectors just as soon as they all guarantee not to support raising the retirement age or otherwise changing the program substantially after it won't impact them. How's that?
Social Security is already means-tested. High income beneficiaries pay inocme tax on their SS benefits, and they pay more for medicare.
Social Security is one leg of the stool I have balanced my retirement on. I have paid for 45 years and have been told how much I will receive for retirement. It is not a welfare system for me. I have earned my retirement. If I had the money I have paid in and the interest it would hav earned or the amount I could have gotten out of an Index 500 fund, I would be farther ahead than I am. By the way, I am 66 and plan on working until I am 70. Originally I was told I could retire with full benefits at 65, but someone changed the rules without my consent, although I was paying in at the time. Get rid of the welfare section of Social Security and leave those alone that have paid in and give them what you promised them.
Charles, I've asked you before but I'm still waiting for you to chime in--
Social Security benefits--whether under Title II or XVI, disability or retirement--are paid to compensate somebody (the worker, his spouse, his widow, his children, etc.) due to someone's inability to work (whether due to disability or being retirement age).
So why kid SSI? I've noted the only work-related reasoning I've ever seen from advocates of kid SSI is that parents/guardians of children with disabilities lose income taking care of the children. Ok, fine. So then kid SSI should not be paid to kids whose parents aren't working, are on disability themselves, or are retired. If you aren't missing out on work income, your disabled child isn't costing you any work income, right?
Please, I'm dying to hear your explanation of how giving SSI to a child fits within the overarching scheme built around compensating people for income unable to be received from work.
Anon 3:19
I will take a crack at your question on justifications for child SSI. One of the reasons you hit upon, which is replacing lost income of patents or guardians who must care for the disabled child. The other justification is that there are significantly higher costs of living for most people with disabilities, independent of the lost income. There is plenty of research out there on that if you look for it. A family that is so poor that it qualifies for SSI will need some support to handle the higher cost of living caused by the disability. It is an eye opener to look at the detailed budget of an SSI eligible family caring for a seriously disabled child. Even getting SSI, they are usually in dire straits. Without it...even worse.
I didn't write the post you're responding to, but I agree with it. As to your argument, it's not valid. Perhaps if you were speaking about children of working parents, but not poor, SSI entitled children. The cost of their care falls on the county, state, Feds, taxpayers. If they get SSI, they also get health insurance with no spend down or deductible. They also get food stamps, usually done form of rental assistance and child care vouchers. Now, why pay the parent to sit home? Especially when the child becomes school age and is out of the house most of the day. Furthermore, the (usually) single mother sits home, becomes dependent on the kids money and never develops her own work history. So say she's 30 and her 5 yr old gets approved. He gets SSI til he's 18 (very common). Then it stops - she's 48, no work history, not able to get a job because she's been out of the work force for do long. Now you have another potential lifelong gov dependent. I see it daily at my office, crying when the kids turn 18 because they have no idea what to do. Btw, you also have an 18 yr old "adult" who's been told his whole life he can't work because he disabled. Livery, very sad.
Anon 8:27:
I agree that in some cases parents or guardians can and should work, especially when the care needs of the child are stable, predictable, and manageable. Sadly, that is often not the case. Consider the disability standard...marked impairments in two major categories of function or meeting a listing. These kids have serious problems, and when they are symptomatic it's usually not something your average babysitter can handle.
Even a family with SSI, Medicaid, food stamps and some rental assistance will usually not be able to meet all their basic needs and that of their disabled child. You are right that the state pays for most of their expenses at a very rock bottom level.
However, if the family needs anything significant that is not covered, it busts their budget. The unfortunate reality is that it's not very unusual for Medicaid to deny or short change on services and equipment that are in fact needed, leaving SSI kids in a bind. In some communities it is next to impossible to find housing with all accessibility features needed for some people with disabilities, and even when it is available it costs more than rental assistance can help you with. Disabled kids may need assistive technology or other costly devices or services to function adequately at school or the home. Sometimes it is covered, sometimes not. The list of extra, non-covered expenses is usually substantial enough that lack of a SSI cash benefit would deprive the child of basic needs, especially when the parent or guardian cannot work because of the circumstances.
Post a Comment