Are you saying that Congress lacks the authority to make changes such as means testing?
Of course not. In fact, I have proposed a version of means testing in this thread.
As someone has pointed out, if our hands are tied and we can do nothing, then de facto result will be that benefits will have to be reduced across the board. Surely Congress has the authority to change this and make more reasonable adjustments to benefits (assuming adjustments aren't made on the tax side to cover the changing demographics).
I have argued in favor of reasonable changes to both benefits and revenue gathering several times in this thread. If we disagree, it is about what would constitute
reasonable changes.
Social Security really is not an IRA.
I have argued exactly that position in this thread.
It really really is a tax.
I have argued exactly that position in this thread.
You don't have any guarantee of a personal benefit based on paying a tax.
No one has a reasonable expectation that they will receive a defined benefit. Every American of working age has been promised that they will receive some benefit from Social Security. the defining difference between Social Security and every other tax/benefit program we have is that Social Security has always promised to pay everyone something.
Rather, the idea is that we all benefit from having a better society--one where unfortunate retirees are less likely to be compelled to subsist on dog food.
That is your vision of what Social Security should be. I agree, with allowances for some differences in the details.
It is not what Social Security has always been, however.
At any rate, I wish the discussion you and I are having here could be the discussion we're having nationally rather than the silly "Ponzi Scheme" debate.
That isn't a debate. It isn't even the product of ideology. That is rank partisanship.
I'm not opposed to other moderate adjustments to account for the changing demographics. I'm personally in favor of both modest adjustments in benefits (including some degree of means testing) as well as adjustments to the amount of earnings the tax is based on to increase revenues (and potentially lower the SS tax rate).
Because it is easy to lose any one individuals propositions in a thread of this size, I'll list my positions. Perhaps rational people can start from here and discuss actual, workable solutions to the SS "problem".
1. Social Security is a successful benefits program and merits retention.
2. Social Security will suffer a revenue shortfall if we don't change some combination of taxes collected and/or benefits paid.
3. Social Security is solvent, and will remain solvent for a couple of decades. It would not be prudent to wait until SS is insolvent to agree on a solution.
4. Social Security taxes are regressive. I propose immediately eliminating the cap on earnings subject to SS taxes.
5. Current wage earners have a reasonable expectation that they will receive SS benefits at some point, no matter how high their other retirement income. That expectation is reasonable because SS benefits have always been paid to retirees without means testing.
6. I oppose any form of means testing that would eliminate SS benefits for those that have already paid into the system significantly. I oppose this only because these taxpayers have been tacitly promised some benefit at some point.
