Then if the intent is to help the lowest SS beneficiaries, those folks need to be included in the improvement.Yes, They are off the hook with regard to SS.
Then if the intent is to help the lowest SS beneficiaries, those folks need to be included in the improvement.Yes, They are off the hook with regard to SS.
You're welcome to believe that.I could see "means-based" SS happening but it wouldn't affect anyone on this forum. It would only affect people with at least 8 figures, probably 9 or 10+. I have no problem with that.
I don't see that happening, ever. It is so blatantly unfair and penalizes the ant and rewards the grasshopper (of Asop's fable fame) that all the ants would quickly modify their behavior to become grasshopper-like because the rewards to save and invest went away.
.... I know that some people will say that Bob and Chuck paid more taxes than Andy, so they should get a higher benefit. I don't see that. ....
I don't see that happening, ever. It is so blatantly unfair and penalizes the ant and rewards the grasshopper (of Asop's fable fame) that all the ants would quickly modify their behavior to become grasshopper-like because the rewards to save and invest went away.
I think "welfare" is a loaded word.If SS were a welfare program then you might have a valid point, but it isn't a welfare program. Public support for the program would die a fairly quick death if it was turned into just another welfare program as you seem to suggest.
I think "welfare" is a loaded word.
Medicare, public schools, and the criminal justice system are all programs where higher income people pay more, but everyone gets (or should get, IMO) the same benefits. I support that funding/benefit relationship. I don't see why it is bad public policy to use the same approach for Social Security.
Yup. The whole notion of greater good has been replaced by a "what's in it for me" attitude that IMO could ultimately result in the failure of the republic.