I'm with Chris.

This is not the first time you've speciously used the "unconstitutional" argument.

 

Yes, they do. At least until you exempt them from paying in to begin with. What I would prefer is that all 'social security' revenues actually are the property of the person who paid them, and remain their property, so that even if they die at say 64 years, 364 days, the value of their contributions plus an ROI will be part of their estate to leave their spouse, kids, or whomever else they choose, rather than every penny being stolen by Uncle. I have no issues whatsoever with this as a mandatory savings vehicle, but it needs to be the property of the donor, not the public.

Chris is a leftist, anyway, as there is really no true republican's in NJ, at least not that get elected to any statewide position.

I am not at all surprised to see you suggest even more stolen income from the citizens to feed the Monster.

 

Won't be the last, neither.

 

Means testing SS would be complicated at the very least. For means testing, do we include income only from all sources, or all income and assets? Given that assets appreciate over time and liabilities generally depreciate over time, many millionaires who were prudent with their assets would be stuck in the middle where SS is helpful to them financially. With means testing, you have to look at a three-year average on income. Millionaires and billionaires get very little, overall with the rest of their income, of earned income. Where millionaires and billionaires get most of their income is residual, passive income such as dividends, interest, passive income from pass-through entities, and so forth. Even nonpassive income from pass-through entities is not counted towards SS. Then you have to look at is this going to be a one-time means test or continual every year, similar to the annual earnings statement one gets from Social Security.

One of the complications is how to deal with fraud in reporting earned income. In this case, millionaires and billionaires would create ways on not to report all their income to SS in order to receive those benefits even though 85% would be taxable at their ordinary income tax rate. This would occur at a one-time three-year average means a testing requirement. If the means testing is continuous, then the millionaires and billionaires may put their efforts into eliminating SS altogether, or at least make it like a regular investment for them to use instead of a social insurance contract. And the millionaires and billionaires have the moxie to make the latter true than ever under the adage "If I can't have it then no one can."

Even though the tax and benefits are mutually exclusive under the law, given how the GOP wants to eliminate SS, the means testing may be the final straw to have the GOP eliminate SS as we see it. Further, I don't think this solves any of the long-term issues with SS and the SS Trust Funds if we do this either.

 

It is not that means testing is unconstitutional, but the fact that it will never pass the House and Senate, even if the GOP controls both houses of the legislature and the WH. Means testing would simply be the catalyst to end SS and make it as an investment tool sponsored by the government.

 

You do realize the taxability of SS benefits came in 1983 with bipartisan support and was signed by President Reagan. The original plan was to tax a maximum of 50% of the benefits above a certain threshold. today, it is 85% maximum since the TRA 1986 law was enacted. Originally, very few were taxed since $25k was a lot of money, almost equivalent to $76k. But since the law in 1986 excluded SS benefits, AMT, Credit for the Elderly and the Disabled were never included with the Cost of living increases that TRA 86 is known for. Personally, the taxablity of SS benefits should be linked to Cost of living increases as with standard deductions and other items on the tax return.

 

Christie is not a leftist. He is alot like Kemp. Conservative, BUT not MAGA Conservative.

 

What’s it take to be a millionaire these days is my question. Seriously, retired with a net worth of 1M doesn’t provide enough financial independence to give up SS imo….

 

No it is not and they probably haven’t. Our SS is means tested - it is a safety net not a right

 

Social Security has been a political football forever. It’s been used as a bank, repeatedly, by both teams. When they have to payback what they stole, people complain that SS is a drag on the budget. Sure, if you break my piggy bank with a promise to pay it back, it’s my right to not have everyone bitching that I want my money back. Republicans treat SS the way democrats treat student loans.

Everyone pay the *******n loans back or quit borrowing the money. This government can’t suck any worse, except it absolutely will.

 

Your dependents continue to receive Social Security after you die. Your spouse until death and your children until 18.

 

Absolutely ridiculous. That would mean noone who really needs support could ever receive more than their own contribution. That isn't Social Security, it's called "Savings".

 

That statement is only true in specific circumstances. If a person who is widowed with children over 18 (on no children) passes away, not only does SS stop paying, they will pull back the full payment made for any month the receiver did not survive.

Anecdotal, but my father passed away on Jul 31th, at 4:30pm. SS demanded the return of July's payment. We fought it and won, and only had to pay back $100.

 

Acknowledging your mistake is a step in the right direction. Good for you.

 

Clearly there would have to be a formula taking wealth and income in to consideration. If other remedies have the effect of making SS solvent I have no problem ditching the means test idea. But clearly there are some people for whom it is inconsequential.

 

How did I make a mistake?

 

See post #26.

 

Do the extraordinarily wealthy need to pay into the system? Be honest now. Is it a savings account or just a "wealth redistribution scheme? The wealthy don't need it. They don't need to pay.

If I was wealthy I would go berserk too! You hoodwinked me into paying into this scheme.....now pay up!

 

There are just not that many "extraordinarily wealthy" people in this country. Social Security payouts to this very small group of people, in the big picture do not add up to that much money.

In exchange for capturing this relatively small amount of money, this would require every single American to have to create a traceable balance sheet of all of their assets and liabilities. This would cost FAR more money to Americans then it would save the treasury. Unlike income that has a w-2 from employers, a balance sheet is not nearly as easily trackable, and auditing these balance sheets would be a literal nightmare as a result.

Basically, your desire to soak the rich here is akin to biting off your nose to spite your face. This principle even moreso applies to the left's desire to tax accumulated wealth.