Neil Irwin at the New York Times thinks Social Security isn't fair. The rich get a much better deal than the poor.
I hate to point it out but Irwin's analysis like every other analysis that attempts to compute a rate of return on Social Security is deeply flawed since it fails to take into consideration dependent and survivor benefits. However, in this case I don't know that this flaw necessarily detracts from his point. Both rich and poor receive dependent and survivor benefits. I don't know that either gets a better return on dependent and survivor benefits. Just don't take the rates of return that Irwin is giving literally. They're useful in making comparisons but in absolute terms they're meaningless.
But the article makes a point that is important - some people argue for raising the normal retirement age (which means cutting benefits) because life expectancies are increasing. The problem is that life expectancies aren't rising equally for everyone (and for some groups, it's actually declining).
ReplyDeleteThis article is actually an arguement for increasing the SS payroll tax cap. Many Republicans claim SS is going to go bankrupt, but modest increases now would be able to keep it solvent! The medical part, however, needs new ways to keep costs down. I know one thing that could help. I have seen multiple specialists for the sole purpose of getting the "evidence" I need to "prove" I'm disabled. I KNOW I'm disabled, but in this atmosphere, I'm trying to get as much "evidence" as possible, which is especially difficult when doctors won't go out of their way to help anyone!
ReplyDeleteIda May Fuller from Vermont received the first monthly SS check. She lived to 100. First check was for $22.45. She paid $24.75 in SS tax and received $22,888 in benefits.
ReplyDeleteBut try and live on 8 or 9 hundred dollars every month. How many years did she work prior to SSA first check that didn't get counted. Oh but maybe she didn't deserve SSA if she was just a mother & wife for many decades that didn't pay any wages.
ReplyDeleteCertainly had many workers not been exposed to injuries or illnesses do to due corrupt corporate govt parasites, many would've worked longer for livable wages, contributing more to both SSA & Medicare rather than the 8 or 9 hundred a month they get, living in total poverty. Folks in jail have more necessities given to them than those living on SSA benefits. The prisoners can count on a cot, 3 meals a day plus a roof over their heads & some rather nicely built jails. while some SSA recipients live on the street & that includes VETS too. Oh wonderful SSA & MEDICARE GOD'S, I GET DOWN ON MY KNEES & THANK YOU FOR colluding with the DOL, AFLCIO VIA THE CONGRESSIONAL GOD'S to give meless than 900 a month when I could'v had several thousand a month per retirement.(minus the paltry SSA benefits).
Social Security benefits are a very important part of an individual’s retirement security. However, Social Security was never intended to provide for all of a worker’s retirement income needs. Income from an additional retirement programs and personal savings should be part of an individual’s sound financial plan.
ReplyDelete9:27 nailed it!
ReplyDeleteFair is a place they judge pigs.
ReplyDelete