• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: American understanding and attitudes about Social Security

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
81,902
Reaction score
45,027
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is depressing.


55% of Americans don’t know how Social Security is funded

...A majority of Americans (55%) believe the main purpose of Social Security is to replace seniors’ income. Less than half, 45%, believe the program is to ensure that seniors don’t fall below the poverty line, which is how the program was originally intended. ... An overwhelming majority of nonretired adults (79%) do not believe they will receive their full scheduled Social Security benefits when they retire. About one in ten (13%) go even further, saying they expect to receive nothing at all. ...

Most (60%) understand that workers who paid more into Social Security get higher benefits than those who paid in less. Fifteen percent think all retirees receive the same benefit, and 25% aren’t sure. However, there are considerable knowledge gaps pertaining to the actual amounts disbursed. Ninety-one percent of Americans did not know that the highest annual Social Security benefit can reach $60,000 a year. When it comes to estimating the average benefits Americans receive, only 25% correctly answered that the average benefit is $20,000–$29,000 per year.....




To avoid tax hikes or benefit cuts, a plurality (38%) of Americans would support switching to a flat Social Security benefit of about $1,800 a month for all retirees regardless of their prior earnings. This would require lowering benefits for high earners and increasing benefits for low earners compared to what they get now. A little more than a quarter (28%) would oppose this change, and 34% aren’t sure either way. Support declines when framed in terms of equality of benefits. Slightly more oppose (35%) than support (32%) switching to a flat monthly benefit when framed as giving everyone the same benefit regardless of how much they contributed to the system. The results suggest Americans may be open to replacing Social Security’s earnings-based formula with a flat benefit for all. However, support for this change appears conditional; many are skeptical unless the alternative is broad benefit cuts or tax increases.....​


That's interesting. So is the Generational Divide:

 


Shouldn't you need to get their explicit permission first?
 
If we're not going to permanently fix Social Security why not just make the FICA tax a progressive tax rate like the income tax?
 
Individual said:
If we're not going to permanently fix Social Security why not just make the FICA tax a progressive tax rate like the income tax?
Click to expand...
Or lift the cap on income. But we need to face reality: Social Security was established under the New Deal philosophy that we are all in this together, that it is a good thing that we provide for one another. The opposing philosophy is that we are all in this separately, that all men are indeed islands, despite what John Donne said. Most of the world rejects the latter belief, but in the US we still have to deal with some bitter-enders who want to repeal the reforms of the 20th and 21st century, from anti-trust to Obamacare. Their nirvana is the 1890s, when children worked and some women had to trade sex for jobs.
 
We can continue kick the can again and again, or we could just permanently resolve the issue.
 
Nickyjo said:
We could go a long way to resolving the issue by removing the income cap governing contributions.
Click to expand...
Why not go ALL the way and resolve it completely, without raising the benefit payments to high income earners?
 
Nickyjo said:
We could go a long way to resolving the issue by removing the income cap governing contributions.
Click to expand...

That would give those who don’t need any retirement supplement a larger public subsidy.
 
Individual said:
Why not go ALL the way and resolve it completely, without raising the benefit payments to high income earners?
Click to expand...

Going “ALL the way” would give everyone the same ‘retirement/disability’ monthly benefit amount regardless of their prior ‘contribution’.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Going “ALL the way” would give everyone the same ‘retirement/disability’ monthly benefit amount regardless of their prior ‘contribution’.
Click to expand...
Why would it?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Wasn’t the “go ALL the way” idea to base benefits on need rather than ‘contribution’ amount?
Click to expand...
No, just to resolve it to where it never again becomes a solvency issue needing attention.
Though I would have no problem with making some changes to how the benefit amount is determined as well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would give those who don’t need any retirement supplement a larger public subsidy.
Click to expand...
Fine with me if they pay up and put the program in more solid ground. As things stand now, someone making less contributes a higher % of their income to the fund than those making far more.
 
Nickyjo said:
Fine with me if they pay up and put the program in more solid ground. As things stand now, someone making less contributes a higher % of their income to the fund than those making far more.
Click to expand...

Those making (thus contributing) less get a better return on their SS ‘investment’.


*above quote is from Google’s AI Overview.*


How Do Benefits Compare to Earnings? -

Social Security retirement benefits are designed to replace part of a worker's earnings from work. The formula used to calculate these benefits takes into account lifetime earnings over 35 years. Social Security benefits replace a larger share of past earnings for low earners. While high earners...
www.nasi.org
 
Realize fixing is considered third rail issue.

Going to have to tackle.

Raise thresholds of income not subjected SS taxes.

Have ways to tax income not subject to SS taxes.

Some means testing. Maybe offer tax deductions for those who get reduced benefits because of assets that exceed thresholds. Controversial I know, but would rather those who have no other income streams to have full benefits than to have all recipients get reduced payments to keep SS solvent.
 

I especially loved this part:


In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”
 
Ahlevah said:
I especially loved this part:



In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”
Click to expand...

More like: we know what you really need ($1800/month is the FTE of a $10.38/hour job) which is below the MW in many states. BTW, is that $1800/month before paying a Medicare Part B premium of $206.50/month?
 
Well, thanks to Reagan I dont get the benefits promised.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
More like: we know what you really need ($1800/month is the FTE of a $10.38/hour job) which is below the MW in many states. BTW, is that $1800/month before paying a Medicare Part B premium of $206.50/month?
Click to expand...

I would assume so, because not every Medicare beneficiary pays that. That’s also means tested through the Income-Related Monthly Adjusted Amount (IRMAA).
 
cpwill said:
This is depressing.


​
Click to expand...

A little depressing, but not surprising. Americans understand less about their government than they should, but there is just too much to know to expect people to really grasp SS and all of its intricacies.

A lot of the problem has been politicians making SS a political football, with those who oppose it falsely claiming that we can't afford it, etc. Just like many of the same people who like the ACA also hate Obamacare, people have been misled about SS and its funding.

All taxes, FICA included, go into the same pot, because there is only one pot, and all expenses, SS included, come out of that pot, which also includes deficit spending. The internal accounting around SS is just that, internal accounting, like putting some money from your right pocket into your left pocket. The legal basis for this can be changed. They should just eliminate the FICA taxes and make adjustments so that SS is no longer constrained by that internal accounting an instead is paid for out of the general pile, like most other expenses. Adjustments like raising the cap or lowering benefits is just another ploy to get more out of the poor, and it's regressive as hell.
 

Let's face it, it was the Silent Generation that made out like bandits.

Paid in little, got the top benefits the program has had.
 
Ahlevah said:
In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” otherwise known as “communism.”
Click to expand...

The program is meant to be a hedge against poverty in old age, not an income replacement.

If boomers wanted more money out of it, they should have funded it better, more wisely, and accepted reasonable cuts to benefit growth rates. They refused to do all those things - and killed off like a quarter of their kids, most of whom would otherwise be paying taxes into the system - and that is going to have consequences.

And, like with every other decision they've made, our most selfish and self-unaware generation will do their best to put the consequences for their decisions onto their children and grandchildren
 
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank

a biased REPUBLIKAN source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…