There aren’t enough workers to fund the Baby Boomers once they all leave the workforce at current tax rates. This has been known for some time, yet Boomers have escaped having to pay the higher rates needed to fund their retirement.
The consequence of that should not be higher rates for workers today. It should be lower benefits for Boomers. And I think most workers today would agree with that.
But go ahead, try to raise the payroll tax. I dare ya.
It would only have to be raising or eliminating the cap and/or indexing the rate and/or extending the tax base to unearned income, the burden of which would generally not fall on actual workers.
What is your factual basis for that statement?
Generally. And it’s not and/or. It’s and. You’d also have to not raise benefits for higher earners, but keep the max in place. Which would turn SS into a welfare program. This is especially true if you’re taxing unearned income, which defeats the whole purpose of Social Security.
So we agree that one way or another, Social Security is going to be a very different program in 20 years.
I said I think. We won’t know until Democrats are dumb enough to try raising the payroll tax.
Know what? 
What do you think that purpose is, if not to provide a basic income for retirees, then? This oughta be good …
“Very”? Not so much. Unless you succeed in killing it, via voucherizing or dumping it onto the stock market or any of the other schemes you’ve tried to eliminate one of the Democrats’ major achievements. Perhaps you could remind yourself about how well any of that shit went over with the public?
Be more careful about what you assert as fact.
*You *seem to “know”.
All of which has jack-all to do with the fact that privatizing Social Security is a lame idea that hardly anyone supports.
Social Security is a workers’ insurance program at both ends: money is paid in by workers, money goes out to retirees. Once you start adding in funding from other sources, it’s a different program.
Why do Democrats usually oppose means testing? Cutting rich people’s benefits would help insure the solvency of the program.
That’s not really true. Most polls have shown the public supporting private accounts. Support went down when Bush tried to sell it, of course, but the young remained supportive.
http://www.pollingreport.com/social2.htm
At minimum, it is far from a “lame idea that hardly anyone supports.” It polls at least as well as ACA, which at least some people support.
Does that mean you agree about the purpose? It’s not clear.
If the purpose is to provide retired workers with a basic income, then so what? You claim it “defeats the whole purpose.” Perhaps you’re simply confused?
What makes you think they do?
Because it changes the nature of the program. IT becomes a welfare program. Changing the funding in does the same thing.
Politically, whereas the SS system today has only winners, it’s going to be a system where there are losers and winners. The losers will only be people who are more likely to vote and fund campaigns. No risk to the system there.
Not so fast. Many different programs can serve the same purpose, which is what you’re claiming would be defeated. If you’re ready to acknowledge that it would not be, then we can move on.
Again: Know what?
A minority, a small one - most voters would benefit, as is the case with ACA - only more so, since that actually affects only a minority while SS is for basically everyone.
Perhaps you should peruse this:
**eans-testing runs against this fundamental idea by turning Medicare and Social Security into welfare programs that become bargaining chips for politicians. The programs become provisional rather than fundamental. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this point well, which is why he designed Social Security to be attached to a payroll tax so that “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”
Conservatives have dedicated themselves to making Americans feel as though benefits they have earned are undeserved. Consider Mitt Romney’s infamous comments at a 2012 fundraiser:
“There are 47 percent of the people…who are…dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”
By turning Medicare and Social Security into welfare, means-testing feeds right into the Romney view of the world, an us-against-them mentality that pits the self-righteous wealthy against ordinary people. Means-testing would divide the population and further emphasize the difference between the haves and the have-nots by transferring a sense of receiving handouts to those getting Social Security and Medicare.
Alicia Munnel , director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, has explained that programs like Social Security represent “the payoff of a lifetime of premiums.” Contrary to what Romney would have you believe, she points out that “the government writes the check, but in most cases individuals have paid for the benefits.” **
What you propose is disconnecting SS benefits from the payroll tax and turning it into a more generally funded program. What you forget is why it was designed to be funded the way it is funded, rather than just be funded out of general revenues like food stamps.
I absolutely do not forget that.Because that is the only way Wall Street and its party would have accepted it. I’d be interested in seeing your own explanation.
You are also continuing to fail at the problem of explaining this concept of “purpose” you brought up, and are now evading by claiming it to be the same as “method”.
Being classy in your victory speech has absolutely nothing to do with your opponent, it has to do with the thousands of people who voted for him. Any politician who does not understand something that basic about politics really has no potential to the be the future of anything.
The purpose of Social Security is to provide retirement income to retirees, to keep them out of poverty.
So you seem to believe that we could just fund it out of general revenues and that wouldn’t change the nature of the program?
Adaher: “…Granted, it’s the smallest faction of the Republican Party, but it’s the faction young people like best, which means *it will grow *in power.”
Can you spot the logical fallacy?
HINT: if younger voters skew much more to the Ds than the Rs, will any faction of the Rs “grow in power?”
Not all politicians, especially lower ranking ones, are good at politics. The Republican corporate establishment has been trying to destroy the Tea Party and have not been magnanimous when the Tea Party fails to die. I don’t see why Tea Party can’t respond in kind. Justin Amash’s war isn’t over just because he won this primary. He’ll continue to be denied committee assignments and they’ll try to beat him two years from now as well.
This is an ongoing war for the soul of the GOP and frankly I can’t figure out why liberals seem to have more sympathy for the corporate lackey side of the party.
If young people trend libertarian, that will change the makeup of both parties.
Good. Glad you get that finally.
It would not “defeat the entire purpose”, which was the claim you originally made, have abjectly failed to defend, and now no longer try.
For this liberal, it’s because the Teahadists are hellbent on the utter destruction of government and the social safety net, plus the fact that racism is much more at the core of the Teanuts than of the corporate Republicans.