# Can you debunk these claims about Social Security? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193 "2010-08-04T21:29:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/1 "2010-08-04T21:29:01Z")
[http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-7594488-u9bkMLx&t=1](http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-7594488-u9bkMLx&t=1) > [@MoveOn.org](#): > > Myth: Social Security is going broke. > > Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves. This sounds credible to me. What they’re not mentioning is that FICA is no longer the cash cow for the rest of the government it became in the 1980’s. Once FICA goes back to just funding SS, I worry a lot of pols will want to chuck both. > [@](#): > > Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. > > Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut. If true, this explodes one of the main assumptions of those who would defund SS/Medicare. It doesn’t directly address the actual usual argument, that there are specific demographic peculiarities deriving from the Baby Boom that will create problems. But if SS was workable in 1955, before the Boomers entered the workforce, it could be workable today. > [@](#): > > Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security. > > Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share. I agree with lifting the cap on FICA, certainly. No reason that pensions should only be funded by the poor-to-median households. > [@](#): > > Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs > > Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be. I did not know that. > [@](#): > > Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit > > Reality: It’s not just wrong – it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit. Er…what? This sounds blithe & simplistic. Casts doubt on the rest of the page. There are cites on the site, I cut out the footnote markers. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/2 "2010-08-04T21:49:59Z")
It’s kind of a circular argument. The SS trust fund isn’t full of IOU’s, it’s full of Treasury bonds. Okay. What is a bond? It’s an IOU. The Treasury doesn’t have enough money to pay all its debts (bonds wthat mature) so it borrows money from SS. Then when the bonds it sold to SS come due, the Treasury has to borrow money from somewhere else to pay them. Thanks to the miracle of accounting, SS stays solvent while the Treasury has the debt on its books. If I have ten dollars in one pocket, I put it in another pocket, and promise to pay myself back, that doesn’t magically give me 20 dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/3 "2010-08-04T22:05:08Z")
One of the biggest myths about social security is that we are living far far longer and because of that we need to change SS, which isn’t true. People are confusing life expectancy at birth with life expectancy at 60/70, which is something different. Even Alan Simpson talked about this, and if he doesn’t know the difference that is terrible. > **[Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011](https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011)** > > The expectation of life at a specified age is the average number of years that members of a hypothetical group of people of the same age would continue to live if they were subject throughout the remainder of their lives to the same mortality rate. Life expectancy for white men at 60 was 15 years in 1940. By 2004 it was 21 years. White women gained 7 years from 17 to 24. The rates for non-whites are about the same, 4 years for men and 6 years for women. People aren’t living very much longer. Much of the gain comes from decreases in childhood mortality. I have no idea what the gains are at age 62, 65 or 67, but I’m sure they are even smaller. [http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog\_Life\_Expectancy\_Income.jpg](http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Life_Expectancy_Income.jpg) Also life expectancy gains change with income. The lower half of the income ladder gained 2 years from 1972-2001, the top half gained 6 years. When you consider that SS is a regressive tax, they are asking people to add extra years to retirement w/o the growth in life expectancy at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Full retirement has gone from 65 to 67, now people are pushing for 70 as the new age. But life expectancy hasn’t gone up by 5 years for the bottom half of income, it has only gone up by 2 years. in the last 3 decades. As far as them saying SS is seperate from the rest of the budget by law, you have to wonder how the gov. managed to spend several trillion in SS surpluses then. The concept that SS isn’t broke is something I agree with. I think raising the tax from 12.4% to 14.2% and lifting the cap to 95% of income rather than 90% would keep it solvent until the 2080s (can’t remember where I read that though). Much of the push to ‘fix’ social security seems to come from those who are opposed to it for ideological reasons and either want to destroy it or privatize it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/4 "2010-08-04T23:14:48Z")
[SSA’s own website](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirementpolicy/fund-solvency.html) projects insolvency. Not the Dems, not the Repubs, the SSA itself. From the report in the link: > [@](#): > > Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement. > > Conclusion > > The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges. For Social Security, the reform options are relatively well understood but the choices are difficult. Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties—indeed, because of the difficulties—it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/5 "2010-08-04T23:37:22Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > One of the biggest myths about social security is that we are living far far longer and because of that we need to change SS, which isn’t true. > > … > > Life expectancy for white men at 60 was 15 years in 1940. By 2004 it was 21 years. White women gained 7 years from 17 to 24. The rates for non-whites are about the same, 4 years for men and 6 years for women. If six and 7 years greater life expectancy don’t meet your definition of “people are living much longer in retirement,” I’m really not sure what to say. At the current 67 year retirement age, that’s a 42% increase (from 8 years to 14) in retirement years for men and a 41% increase (from 10 to 17) for women. You must be using that definition of “myth” that means “completely true,” or else your own post is self contradictory. We’re talking about more than a 40% increase in payments based on life expectancy increases alone, using your own numbers. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/6 "2010-08-04T23:40:11Z")
> [@TimeWinder](#): > > > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > > > One of the biggest myths about social security is that we are living far far longer and because of that we need to change SS, which isn’t true. > > > > … > > > > Life expectancy for white men at 60 was 15 years in 1940. By 2004 it was 21 years. White women gained 7 years from 17 to 24. The rates for non-whites are about the same, 4 years for men and 6 years for women. > > If six and 7 years greater life expectancy don’t meet your definition of “people are living much longer in retirement,” I’m really not sure what to say. At the current 67 year retirement age, that’s a 42% increase (from 8 years to 14) in retirement years for men and a 41% increase (from 10 to 17) for women. > > You must be using that definition of “myth” that means “completely true,” or else your own post is self contradictory. We’re talking about more than a 40% increase in payments based on life expectancy increases alone, using your own numbers. That or he was having problems with the quote functionality, like about 80% of the board is right now. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/7 "2010-08-04T23:40:49Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > [http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-7594488-u9bkMLx&t=1](http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/?id=22141-7594488-u9bkMLx&t=1) > > > [@MoveOn.org](#): > > > > Myth: Social Security is going broke. > > This sounds credible to me. What they’re not mentioning is that FICA is no longer the cash cow for the rest of the government it became in the 1980’s. Once FICA goes back to just funding SS, I worry a lot of pols will want to chuck both. A cash cow is a product which contributes a big stream of profits to the rest of the business. SS is not a cash cow, since it is loaning money to the government. You don’t call your mortgage company a cash cow now, do you? > [@](#): > > If true, this explodes one of the main assumptions of those who would defund SS/Medicare. It doesn’t directly address the actual usual argument, that there are specific demographic peculiarities deriving from the Baby Boom that will create problems. But if SS was workable in 1955, before the Boomers entered the workforce, it could be workable today. As Wesley noted, this is not quite true, since life expectancy is not the way to measure this. However I disagree with him that the increase is trivial. His numbers show a 50% increase in expected years of life left, which is rather significant in considering how much money is paid out. Someone dying at 64 is a big win to the system, since they have paid into the system all their lives and get nothing out (except survivor benefits.) If you look at your SS statement, you’ll see that this is considered both by raising the age in which you get full benefits and giving an incentive to delay receiving benefits. If a 65 year old has 5 more years of life than he could be expected to have 20 years ago, asking him to work another year is not that unreasonable. > [@](#): > > I agree with lifting the cap on FICA, certainly. No reason that pensions should only be funded by the poor-to-median households. Definitely. A good bit of the year I don’t pay into the system at all. It wouldn’t kill me to pay a bit more, it would hurt someone who makes real money even less. > [@](#): > > I did not know that. You didn’t? This was the Big Lie of the 2004 -2005 debate, during which Bush and friends tried to make government bonds sound like a worthless investment. I must admit they did their best to destroy the economy and their value through soaring deficits and mismanagement, but even today the world if flocking to buy them. As for IOUs - what is a savings account but an IOU? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit > > > > Reality: It’s not just wrong – it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit. > > Er…what? This sounds blithe & simplistic. Casts doubt on the rest of the page. They are absolutely correct. Now, it is possible that 40 years from now some stupid Congress will refuse to increase the cash inflow and/or decrease the outflow and have to pay out of the budget - but they’d have to change the law to do so. At the moment (except for this year) SS has a surplus. Even the shortfall this year, a result of unemployment and thus a decrease in revenue, is cutting into the stockpile of money, not affecting the deficit. The argument here is usually that without this easy source of borrowing, Congress would all of a sudden stop spending money. if all the deficit came from SS, this might even be plausible, but it obviously does not. So this argument is nonsense also. SS is nowhere near the trouble it was in during the 1980s. Back then Reagan chartered the team which fixed it. If we only had Republicans as fiscally responsible as him (hardly too much to ask for!) we could have a bipartisan law to fix it in no time. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/8 "2010-08-04T23:48:18Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > [SSA’s own website](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirementpolicy/fund-solvency.html) projects insolvency. Not the Dems, not the Repubs, the SSA itself. The projection depends strongly on the strength of the economy during that period, and they have usually been relatively conservative in their projections, as they should be. Longer life after retirement obviously has an impact, and is a good reason to further delay benefits. Now, if the immortality people come through, SS is screwed. On the other hand, if global warming kills us off, SS will be loaded when they go. Is your point that we will have to make changes to reflect the change in demographics, or that we should throw up our hands and trash a working system because some things might change? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/9 "2010-08-04T23:48:20Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > [SSA’s own website](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirementpolicy/fund-solvency.html) projects insolvency. Not the Dems, not the Repubs, the SSA itself. From the report in the link: > > > [@](#): > > > > Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement. > > > > Conclusion > > > > The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges. For Social Security, the reform options are relatively well understood but the choices are difficult. Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties—indeed, because of the difficulties—it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs. There seems to be a problem with that. When I click it, I get some bizarre message that > [@](#): > > You have attempted to execute a CGI, ISAPI, or other executable program from a directory that does not allow programs to be executed. And btw, it’s not “the report in the link” it’s a report that is linked to on the page that you linked to. I was expecting to find the text you quoted from, but that was another link away. Anyway, the page you linked to talks about 2 trust funds that the SSA is in charge of, the Disability Insurance fund and the Old Age and Survivors fund. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/10 "2010-08-04T23:55:36Z")
Does anyone disagree with lifting the cap on taxable income? Even if that doesn’t take care of the whole problem (and I don’t know if it would or not), this seems like a good place to start to me. Why did they cap it to begin with? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/11 "2010-08-04T23:57:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As for IOUs - what is a savings account but an IOU? No, this is just an obfuscation. In its most basic iteration, a savings account is money under the mattress or gold in a safe. It is a real asset that exists in the real world. It’s true that in our modern world we give our money to a bank, who issues us an IOU, but that IOU is backed up by real (i.e. existing) assets. On the other hand, a loan or IOU to yourself is a fictional creation of accounting sheets. There is no gold in a safe or cash under a mattress. All of SSs saved wealth is really nothing more than ink on paper saying that one part of the US govt will pay back another part of the US govt. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/12 "2010-08-04T23:59:30Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > Does anyone disagree with lifting the cap on taxable income? Even if that doesn’t take care of the whole problem (and I don’t know if it would or not), this seems like a good place to start to me. Why did they cap it to begin with? Possibly because above a certain point it becomes obviously socialistic, which some people have philosophical objections to. ETA: I’d be happy to remove the cap, but then again I’d be unaffected, as I’m middle-class (at best). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/13 "2010-08-05T00:00:40Z")
> [@treis](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > As for IOUs - what is a savings account but an IOU? > > No, this is just an obfuscation. In its most basic iteration, a savings account is money under the mattress or gold in a safe. It is a real asset that exists in the real world. It’s true that in our modern world we give our money to a bank, who issues us an IOU, but that IOU is backed up by real (i.e. existing) assets. > > On the other hand, a loan or IOU to yourself is a fictional creation of accounting sheets. There is no gold in a safe or cash under a mattress. All of SSs saved wealth is really nothing more than ink on paper saying that one part of the US govt will pay back another part of the US govt. But debt is an asset, I thought. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/14 "2010-08-05T00:08:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Possibly because above a certain point it becomes obviously socialistic, which some people have philosophical objections to. I don’t understand. Why would it be more socialistic to tax your pay at the $150,000 level than to tax it at the $50,000 level? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/15 "2010-08-05T00:14:46Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > But debt is an asset, I thought. It’s not an asset if you owe it to yourself. Let’s say **Snowboarder Bo** writes a note to himself (e.g. a contract, a bond, an IOU, a pledge, etc) saying that **Snowboarder Bo** will pay **Snowboarder Bo** $1,000,000,000 in 2 years, does that mean your net worth has actually increased by $2 billion dollars? Hopefully, the above paragraph will sound absurd. Well, that’s what the government self-issued IOUs are. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/16 "2010-08-05T00:19:07Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > > But debt is an asset, I thought. > > It’s not an asset if you owe it to yourself. > > Let’s say **Snowboarder Bo** writes a note to himself (e.g. a contract, a bond, an IOU, a pledge, etc) saying that **Snowboarder Bo** will pay **Snowboarder Bo** $1,000,000,000 in 2 years, does that mean your net worth has actually increased by $2 billion dollars? > > Hopefully, the above paragraph will sound absurd. Well, that’s what the government self-issued IOUs are. AHA! I got it! You thought you’d trick me, but I’m not falling for it. According to your scenario above, my net worth has only increased by $1,000,000,000. That’s all the IOU was for! HA! Damn, you financial guys are sneaky! ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/17 "2010-08-05T00:21:04Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > Possibly because above a certain point it becomes obviously socialistic, which some people have philosophical objections to. > > I don’t understand. Why would it be more socialistic to tax your pay at the $150,000 level than to tax it at the $50,000 level? I think the thought process is that taxing the very wealthy at a higher rate means they are paying for numerous other’s SS benefits, thus it’s socialism. Mind you, I don’t necessarily agree, I’m just explaining. Remember: explanation is not justification. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/18 "2010-08-05T00:26:46Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > I don’t understand. Why would it be more socialistic to tax your pay at the $150,000 level than to tax it at the $50,000 level? You’ll want to read some history of how Social Security was successfully passed in the first place. The way to sell it in Congress was to emphasize that it was a quasi-pension-quasi-insurance plan and **not a wealth transfer program**. Therefore, it would have been logical to put a cap on taxable earnings since wealthy people don’t need the quasi pension plan. If you remove the income cap, the folks against it would’ve opposed its passage because they’d see it as a wealth-transfer disguised as a quasi-pension program. It’s only now that we’ve had 2+ generations removed from the debate context and passage of SS that we’ve forgotten the original merits of the program. Therefore, those ignorant of SS history think the income cap doesn’t make any sense. Having said that, I can also see a different perspective: yes, we can acknowledge the historical roots of SS but have come to realize that SS benefits are too valuable for us to cling mindlessly to its original tenets as if there’s some type of nirvana in maintaining historical purity. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/19 "2010-08-05T00:28:22Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I think the thought process is that taxing the very wealthy at a higher rate means they are paying for numerous other’s SS benefits, thus it’s socialism. > > Mind you, I don’t necessarily agree, I’m just explaining. > > Remember: explanation is not justification. Oh, I know you’re just explaining it. And I appreciate the explanation, because I honestly don’t understand. Would it be at a higher rate on the very wealthy? When I think of lifting the cap, I’m assuming it just means applying the same rate to the rest of their income. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193/20 "2010-08-05T00:30:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > AHA! I got it! You thought you’d trick me, but I’m not falling for it. > > According to your scenario above, my net worth has only increased by $1,000,000,000. That’s all the IOU was for! HA! Yep, I suck at math. I head a story that [Jim Carrey wrote a $10 million dollar check to himself](http://ezinearticles.com/?The-10-Million-Dollar-Check&id=660378) before he got really big and famous. The accounting technique worked for him, therefore, it will work for the government. QED. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-debunk-these-claims-about-social-security/549193.md?page=2)