Columns – Means-testing could save Social Security
February 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm in Alexandria Echo Press
In this current budget-cutting frenzy, it is a frightening prospect for millions of senior citizens and their loved ones that Social Security could become Social Insecurity. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
16
Hmmm…means-testing – so I get “punished” for living within my means and saving for retirement for the 45 years preceding social security eligibility? If this is our future, I may go out and buy a boat this spring. Why save?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
“The best way…is to make Social Security a means-tested program so that individuals whose annual income…exceeds…$100,000 will not receive Social Security payments.”
So, in other words, this whole thing has been just a scam. The 7% of my salary and the 7% that my employer kicked in wasn’t for my benefit after all; it was just a transfer payment to the government? I wasn’t told that when I started working thirty years ago. I wish someone had told me that all that money was for someone else. Maybe I would have taken it easier all these years. All those 401K dollars could have been blown on Florida vacations so that I wouldn’t have the money now that might put me over Mr. Alhman’s threshold.
Your analogy to insurance is ludicrous. You’re comparing social security to property and casualty insurance or term life insurance. It’s not that. It’s a trust. It’s money that has been involuntarily taken from us with an expectation of a return.
As for the idea of privitization being “ludicrous,”
give it all back to me–give me every cent I’ve put into it, without interest for the last thirty years, and I won’t ask for a single cent in return. I, and just about everyone else who’s worked for a living, and saved their money, would take that deal in a New York minute.
Liberals need to think more than thirty seconds ahead of their “feel-good” instincts. This isn’t a common sense solution. It’s common nonsense.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
Thank you for writing your column, I really believe that it will help open other people’s eyes as to what could possibly be expected in the future.
So, I ask, are we being forced to ‘buy’ a service for our retirement that may or may not get paid to us?
Insurance may be a poor word for this situation. Insurance, it is a legal binding contract to transfer risk of a loss caused by covered perils from the insured to an insurer; nowhere in an insurance contract will you find anything that says ‘we will not pay any benefits if you make more than $XXXXXX, regardless of contribution’. If others believe that insurance is the correct word… is this social security thing just like the healthcare bill that big “O” in Washington passed?? A mandate to purchase a service… to really explain the said proposed social security change and the healthcare bill well: an unconstitutional requirement to purchase a public service without guaranteed return. If I knew that I was going to make more than $100,000, or ever thought that it might happen, I would have never contributed to a guaranteed $0 return program; that is common sense. Sounds like a change like this would ring around as unconstitutional since it would mimic the healthcare bill’s credibility as a required service purchase.
Interesting enough, lawmakers in the Dakotas proposed a bill to exemplify a law such as these that are required service purchases; as I read in a recent published article: Dakota lawmakers proposed a bill that would require all citizens age 18 and over to purchase and own a gun for personal protection. Sounds absurd doesn’t it… They went on to say that they knew that the bill would not pass, but rather proposed it to prove that you cannot require people to buy a SERVICE constitutionally.
I believe, as it is a requirement that we must all contribute to this fund regardless of income, that it is a requirement that social security pays its benefits to ALL of those who have contributed regardless of financial standing, period. I believe that if the terms of fund distribution changes and becomes capped based on income levels that the legislators that passed the changes would find themselves in a legal bath of really hot water. And angry constituents would also rise over the issue of being forced to contribute to a capped service that they may or may not be eligible to collect from.
This can go further, please express your opinions and views!!
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I think you’re on the right track, David. However, Social Security is a form of insurance, just not in the way Mr. Dahlman describes it. SS provides benefits to your family in case you die early or become disabled and, I suppose as it was originally conceived, it provided income benefits in case you just plain out-lived your savings for retirement.
Keep in mind that social security treats people who make $1 million dollars a year in their earnings years the same as it does someone making $96,000 a year or whatever the cut-off is these days. Under means-testing, you could have two people making the max under social security all their lives. One decides to spend every cent they make. The other is responsible and puts away money for their future. Under means testing, the spend-thrift gets a full benefit, while the person who planned for their future, and didn’t spend every buck that went into his pocket, gets nothing, even though they both contributed equal amounts into social security all their lives. That is inherently unfair. Even a child could see that.
The federal government thought they had this all worked out when social security was re-worked back in 1983. For whatever reason, that plan has failed and social security will have to be re-tooled. I understand that and accept it. But to do so by simply saying that we’ll leave benefits intact for anyone below a certain threshold and deny them to anyone above it, or any kind of examination by the government of one’s other assets to determine social security eligibility, would be simple socialism.
I have a suggestion for cutting the social security pay-out: stop granting social security disability benefits to everyone who asks for them. It seems as though the government can’t say no to anyone who applies for SSD. There are so many people out there collecting SSD who can work, or actually do work under the table: it’s outrageous.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
To the editors of this website: I don’t understand why you are “hiding” Sandra Redman’s comment. Because it’s unpopular? That’s the worst reason I could ever think of for putting her comments under wraps. Open it up, please. Her opinion, as much as I disagree with it, deserves to be heard as much as anyone’s. If you want to live up to your name, “Area Voices,” let everyone’s opinion be heard. The idea of silencing “unpopular” opinions should be an anathema to what this site is truly all about. Keep writing, Sandra!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1