What do you think of a system that says that people who make or have over a certain amount of money are entitled to less assistance from the government via social security ?
Personally, I think it’s almost a good idea in theory, but that it would and could never happen. It came up in a conversation with my parents, who are approaching retirement age, the other day. Naturally, they hated the idea and kept saying "you’ve just cut off your own parents! ". However, it seemed like they hated it because it would deprive them of money first, and then thought of other reasons afterwards. So here are some thoughts:
First of all, NO politician would ever propose such a thing and be elected / re-elected. It would be political suicide . Old people vote reliably, and they typically vote for what’s in their own interests, not necessarily what’s in the best interests of the community ( e.g. school funding ).
Second of all, it could be viewed / skewed as almost ‘punishing’ successful people / ‘rewarding’ those who didn’t have the foresight or will power to save for retirement, much as some people argue that about income tax. Of course, there are many other factors that go into how much one might have saved for retirement. Obviously someone who inherited a lot of money, had enough seed money to start out with that they were able to make a lot from investments / real estate, or was in a highly paid profession will find it easier to put some money aside than a waiter / store clerk / warehouse stocker will, even if they both worked just as long and hard as each other. This point is also highly debatable, I’m aware.
Third of all, I believe it would lead to widespread cheating and gaming of the system so that rich people could hide their true assets in order to collect SS benefits. It would be the modern day analog of scenes from the old days when people would hide all their valuables when the tax man knocked at the door in order to hide their true wealth, pretend to be poor, and thereby be taxed less.
On the other hand, given that there is a finite amount of money to go around, is it the best or wisest idea to give the same amount of money and benefits to a millionaire as to an indigent senior citizen? Putting aside notions of who earned / contributed more, if the government only has $100 to give, would it be the best practice to give it to the person with $3,000 or the person with $3,000,000? Maybe the person with $3,000,000 worked their ass off all their life to be successful and made many sacrifices to save money , while the guy with $3,000 never worked an honest day in his life, was frequently in jail for killing puppies, and blew any cent he got on hookers. OTOH, maybe the guy with $3mil never really worked, just was lucky enough to be born to rich parents, inherited $10mil in seed money, and then was able to collect money from being a slum lord, while the guy with $3k worked his ass off all his life, but doesn’t have money because of some tragedy / sent his kids to college / lost it all, etc. The point is we don’t know, and it would be impossible to generalize because there are too many possible permutations. So, just given the amount of money they have, which one should get the $100, or should they both each get $50?
Another point is that social security was arguably not designed to be what it has become and has to change. My understanding is that it was supposed to help out poor old people in the last few years of their lives after a lifetime of hard work. Life expectancy was lower when they set the age at 65. People were not generally expected to live many decades beyond that, as they more frequently do today. For example, in some districts, police and fire fighters can retire at age 50 with full benefits and 100% pay being given to them or the spouse that survives them for the rest of their lives. Now, you can argue that they deserve it and that in some districts they put their lives on the line, I’m just saying that social security arguably wasn’t intended to be giving people full pay for 30+ years (more if the spouse is considerably younger) and that it has been demonstrated many times that the system cannot survive in it’s current state for much longer; it is just not possible .
That’s another issue, should there be separate ages for retirement based on the type of work? I.e. if someone sits at a desk all day, I think the age at which they can retire with full benefits (not full pay) should be raised to at least 70. I am a teacher and I walk around all day ( never want to be one of those teachers that sits at their desk all day), but I think my retirement age should be raised to 72 (I am 30 now, FWIW) because walking around is nothing compared to the physical demands made on my body when I take side jobs at restaurants. My mentor is 80, but he is still going strong and loves it. However if someone is a lumberjack, has one of those horrible warehouse stocking jobs, or some other physically demanding job, then the age should stay at 65 or perhaps be lowered because of the reality of what such work does to a 65 yr old body, and what that body can be expected to do.
Well, this wall of text is already too long, rambling, and devoid of several key points I’m sure, but what say you?
TL:DR - Should the government give less money in social security to people who already have a bunch of money and arguably don’t really need it?
Should someone who does back breaking physical labor be allowed to retire earlier than someone who sits at a desk?