Romney: Wants Means Testing for Social Security

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
On 60 minutes Romney stated he wants to implement means testing for social security recipients.

If you study the "means testing" proposals it quickly becomes clear they're not targeting "millionaires" at all. The Concord Coalition, a right-wing group that first pushed this idea, thinks that the "means-tested" cuts should begin with people who have earned more than twenty thousand dollars per year during their working lives.

Twenty thousand dollars.


source

60 MINUTES interview
edit on 24-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: remove




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Republicans are usually the ones accusing the right of class warfare. Isn’t this a true form of class warfare? I do not know how to feel about this yet. When I watched the video I then read some articles and it doesn’t sound like a good thing to me. If it was done correctly it could be good but I do not trust them and the possibility for it being abused is too great I think.


Funny thing: The people who express outrage over millionaires collecting Social Security are the very same people who keep lavishing tax cuts on them. And if you try to stop them they cry "class warfare"! There can't be any worse example of "class warfare" that demonizing some old well-to-do couple as they're going to the Post Office to pick up their checks.


Source in OP.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
If it's not against the wealthy then it's not class warfare. The middle class and poor are just peons they don't count as a class.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
In the spirit of denying ignorance I read the transcript of Romney's interview on 60 minutes..


PELLEY: How would you change Social Security?

ROMNEY: Well, again, no change in Social Security for -- for those that are in retirement or near retirement. What I'd do with Social Security is say this: that again, people with higher incomes won't get the same high growth rate in their benefits as people of lower incomes. People who rely on Social Security should see the same kind of growth rate they've had in the past. But higher income folks would receive a little less.

PELLEY: So that in the Romney administration, in the Romney plan, there would be means testing for Social Security and for Medicare?

ROMNEY: That's correct. Higher-income people won't get as much as lower-income people. And by virtue of doing that -- and again, that's for future retirees. For -- by virtue of doing that, you are able to save these programs on a permanent basis.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Pretty simple. The other article cited in the OP from Huffington seems like pure nonsense and is no way tied to Romney's 60 minutes INterview.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Perhaps you didn't notice there are two sources so thank you very much captain obviouse. It is about Means Testing. The thing Romney wants to implement.




PELLEY: So that in the Romney administration, in the Romney plan, there would be means testing for Social Security and for Medicare?

ROMNEY: That's correct. Higher-income people won't get as much as lower-income people. And by virtue of doing that -- and again, that's for future retirees. For -- by virtue of doing that, you are able to save these programs on a permanent basis.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Your Huffington Puff piece is comparing means testing in SS to means testing in Auto insurance.... then goes on to cite some proposal from the Concord Coalition... which Huffington paints as a "right wing" group.

What utter BS. It was founded by two Dems and one Rep.


The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) serves as co-chair of the Concord Coalition.

The Concord Coalition is dedicated to educating the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs, and how to build a sound economy for future generations. The Concord Coalition's national field staff and loyal group of volunteers cover the country holding lectures, leading interactive exercises, conducting classes, giving media interviews, and briefing elected officials and their staffs.

www.concordcoalition.org...

Nothing wrong with fiscal responsiblity in an effort to SAVE Social Security....



Huffington???



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Educate yourselves..

This is from 1997!!! and was originally proposed by the Senate Finance Committee in regards to Medicare


With its proposal to reduce Medicare's Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) subsidies to affluent beneficiaries, the Senate Finance Committee is pushing the budget debate in the right direction.

The Concord Coalition has long argued that means-testing is an equitable way to reduce the rising burden of entitlement spending -- not just for Medicare, but for all major federal benefit programs. We have also pointed out that the public's reluctance to think realistically about entitlements could pose obstacles to any such proposal. Most people believe that they have some sort of property claim to their benefits. And while the idea of means-testing is popular, few people understand that it must include the middle class to save real money.


Remember this was 1997 and look at the state that our nation is now in...


Again, the Concord Coalition supports the Senate Finance Committee's means-testing proposal. Although in its present form it won't save much money, if passed into law it will familiarize Americans with a concept that rightfully deserves much wider application.

Unfortunately, both ends of the political spectrum are less than enthusiastic about means-testing. The right doesn't like it because it's steeply progressive, the left because it shrinks the welfare state. America had better move beyond this senseless gridlock. To be sure, we need to do much more to restructure health benefits than means-test them. But, as we have often argued, means-testing is one of the best overall strategies by which an aging society can preserve (or even strengthen) its floor of protection while ensuring that the total cost of its senior programs remains sustainable over time.

www.concordcoalition.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I don't see anything wrong with means testing for social security. Though, I think it should be based on current earnings of seniors. Say, if a senior is making 100k a year, then perhaps they don't need social security until that incomes falls below 30k a year.
edit on 24-9-2012 by Kaploink because: meh



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


So one senator is dead (democrat) and two of them are alive one (republican) and (democrat).

Two founders left from different political parties that have founded a nonpartisan organization that did the study.

It sounds pretty solid.

Well those are the sources can you find a different study that refutes their claims.

Also don't you always sight www.breitbart.com. as your source? If you are complaining about the source isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.
edit on 24-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


The only thing I see wrong with it is where is the cutoff and what are insurances that it wouldn’t be abused like when they cut money from VA benefits. I know my father would have a problem with it because he paid into it all his life and to him it isn’t a handout it is his money that he is just now getting back.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by jibeho
 


So one senator is dead (democrat) and two of them are alive one (republican) and (democrat).

Two founders left from different political parties that have founded a nonpartisan organization that did the study.

It sounds pretty solid.

Well those are the sources can you find a different study that refutes their claims.

Also don't you always sight www.breitbart.com. as your source? If you are complaining about the source isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.
edit on 24-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add


I'm not trying to refute the claims of the Concord Coalition or Romney. I simply asserted that Huffington is deliberately trying to misrepresent the Coalition and what they stand for. Did Huff. run a study refuting it?? I didn't see that study just someone's opinion.

What is wrong with means testing in this context of keeping Social Security Viable? Do you support it?? Something has to be done...


I only cite Breitbart when necessary or relevant. I also cite, townhall, cns, newsmax, american thinker, daily caller, the blaze, fox news, washington post, NYT, Reuters, The guardian, etc etc even Huffington at times when they get their facts straight.
Glad you read all of my posts. Enough to state that I ALWAYS cite Breitbart. Breitbart would be proud!!! God Rest his weary soul!!! RIP Andrew!!!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
In this, even as a person who detests everything about Romney, I agree with him and so do most economists. Both SS and Medicare should be means tested, but not against earned income, but against all assets. Many wealthy have no earned income to report but have millions in assets. The difficult part is figuring out where the line begins where benefits are reduced relative to assets.

Incidentally, I also think that there should be no income cap for SS and Medicare deductions and that should include capital gains and estates taxes.

Change both programs to remove the caps and use means testing and the programs are immediately 100% solvent into perpetuity.

It is long past time our tax structure stops favoring the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else. The "job creator" argument has been empirically proven to be completely false. The ONLY people who create jobs are CONSUMERS spending money, not business people. If consumers have no money to spend there is no demand to trigger hiring. It is the most remedial fact of supply and demand and proven correct across decades. Hiring is at its HIGHEST when income disparity between rich and poor is at its lowest. Hiring is weakest...ALWAYS, without exception....when income disparity is at its greatest, as it is now. How rich the rich are has been completely proven to bear ZERO % influence as to whether jobs are created.

It is one of the greatest shames that most Americans simply do not know this most simplest of realities, choosing instead to believe the "job creator" myth completely in spite of the simple facts right in front of them. Bush cut taxes to their lowest levels in decades for the rich and we've seen now for over 10 years that this has had NO impact on job growth. I mean, this stuff is so obvious that if you can determine your own sex by looking in the mirror nude you should be able to figure this out.

The basic point: tax increases on the rich have NEVER hurt the economy and no one can find proof in the historical record otherwise...it simply does not exist because it is simply not true and has NEVER been true.

edit on 24-9-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Why would any Democrat be against this? It's sticking it to the wealthy, which is your campaign slogan this year.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Do any of you partisan hacks even understand the premise of SS??? It isn't a tax, it is supposed to be an INVESTMENT! There is NO MEANS TESTING! This is YOUR money and you are entitled to it. If these politicians - ALL of them - had kept their damned hands out of the SS cookie jar, then everyone who contributed would have the means to take some out!

No, moving forward, if you would like the youngest generation to have varying participation plans with means testing, then fine. Me? I'm approaching 50 years old and have paid into this damned system for 25+ years! I'll be damned if some pandering politicians decides if I can have any of MY money back!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
This hits my gut feeling center as one of those "Seemingly really good ideas" and bizarrely bipartisan subjects that could lull us into a trap. We've been down this road before too many times where a great idea is really just a ploy to open the floodgates for a deluge of bad legislation predicated upon the "spirit" of the original good idea.

Means testing seems rational. But what's the next step? Lowering the threshold? Raising the threshold but creating a new tax to "offset" it? Applying means testing to Medicare?

I really see this is a Pandoras box and it really does have my internal warning bells ringing.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The real problem with this is that is only the first step. Once the wealthy no longer qualify for SS benefits how long do you give it before they will fight to not pay into the system? Let's just say it wouldn't be very long and their odds of winning would be extremely high.

I would fix SS by raising the income levels subject to the tax. Raise the levels to $150,000 and give 1% off the rate for every additional $10,000 of income above the current threshold. Like this:

up to $110,000 6.2%
then add:
for 110-120,000 5.2%
120-130,000 4.2%
130-140,000 3.2%
140-150,000 2.2%
above $150,000 = no additional tax

roll back the retirement age a year for those less 50.

I think this would do it.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not a bad idea.

Too bad they have it backwards.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Agreed! But something has to give as a result of the endless pilfering that has plagued the system over the years if it's going to be saved. We can't change the past.... but we can correct our future course.... All the reason to push for Individual accounts that are secure from the pick pockets. That should have been phased in years ago. It worked in Chile archive.newsmax.com...


The system has had immensely positive effects:

• It generated surpluses without raising taxes, inflation, or interest rates
• Old-age pensions are 40-50 percent higher than the public pension system
• Disability and survivor pensions are 70-100 percent higher than the public pension system
• Significant decreases in the payroll tax have contributed to an unemployment rate below 5%
• Savings rates have sky rocketed and have deepened investment
• Growth rates have more than doubled in the past 10 years

At a critical time when America’s debt is upwards of $14.7 trillion and unfunded future liabilities are more than triple that number, isn’t this is the kind of growth and freedom we deserve?

www.freedomworks.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


The only thing that needs to be done to fix SS is rather simple. You simply either raise or remove the limit that only allows the first 250k of income to be taxed for it. Then you wait for the Boomers to die off in enough numbers and you can go back to having the cap. SS just didn't account for the baby boom and then the baby bust that happened afterward.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Do any of you partisan hacks even understand the premise of SS??? It isn't a tax, it is supposed to be an INVESTMENT! There is NO MEANS TESTING! This is YOUR money and you are entitled to it. If these politicians - ALL of them - had kept their damned hands out of the SS cookie jar, then everyone who contributed would have the means to take some out!

No, moving forward, if you would like the youngest generation to have varying participation plans with means testing, then fine. Me? I'm approaching 50 years old and have paid into this damned system for 25+ years! I'll be damned if some pandering politicians decides if I can have any of MY money back!!!


With all due respect, SS is not an investment and never has been. Were it so, we'd get back what we put in, plus earned interest less costs for administering the program -- no more, no less. Were it so, the money put in would actually be invested in something. It is not. In fact, it is not even put into escrow but rather is treated as part of the general federal funds. The government issues IOUs to the "fund," meaning it has to invent money to pay back the SS deductions government steals and uses for general funds. This attack on what was the fund began decades ago and cannot be put at the feet of Obama or Bush or any of their immediate predecessors.

What it IS is part of the social contract whereby we collectively made a moral decision that people who have worked there whole lives should not be left to rot once their income earning years are over. It was meant to supplement pensions and only provide a base level of support to keep people from eating dog food and living in the streets when they get old. Unfortunately, businesses decided that since SS was put in place, they no longer need to offer pensions and now unless one is a public sector worker, there are virtually no more pensions. This means SS has morphed into the sole method of financial life support for the vast majority of retirees.

Historically, people received many times more than they put in. This year, in fact though, is the FIRST year that people are expected get back LESS than the total they put in to the system.

The electorate needs to demand -- as Al Gore unsuccessfully pushed -- that SS receipts go into a "lock box" that CANNOT be used by government except to pay out to beneficiaries, thus removing the accounting gimick that has been used for decades.
edit on 24-9-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join