# Why is taxing the rich so terrible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532 "2004-07-30T01:24:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532/201 "2004-08-07T19:14:22Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Before I go off and do hours of research, would proof that social security saves lives have any effect on your opinion of it, or would you still oppose it for ideological reasons? Yes. If you have conclusive proof that Social Security is saving significant numbers of lives, I’d change my opinion about how large it should be. > [@](#): > > And does anything short of starving to death not warrant help? What if someone is in a situation where they have to sell their house in order to afford prescription drugs they need? No, this is the fals dicotomy that you have built. You are the one claiming that senior citizens are barely getting enough to prevent them scrounging through garbage cans to stave off starvation. I’m suggesting that the situation is not nearly that bleak. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532/202 "2004-08-08T00:46:51Z")
Not to steal **Blalron** ’s thunder, but I happen to be familiar with a few sources that talk about quantifying the benefits of Social Security, so I thought I’d mention them here. I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about Social Security “saving lives” in the way that CPR or seatbelt use “saves lives”. But there seems little question that Social Security does indeed significantly reduce poverty for the elderly, and I think it’s fair to argue that poverty reduction indirectly saves lives. Elderly people can and sometimes do literally starve or freeze to death if they don’t have enough to live on, after all. From the [Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco](http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr99/el99-20.html), Economic Letter 99-20: > [@](#): > > Estimates suggest that when Social Security began close to 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. By 1959 the rate had fallen to 35%, but remained higher than that of other groups, including children and working-age adults. During the 1960s and early 1970s, Social Security benefits increased substantially and poverty rates among the elderly declined rapidly (Figure 1). By 1974, the poverty rate for elderly Americans had fallen below that for children, where it has remained since. In 1993 it fell below the rate for working-age adults. Today only 11% of the elderly have incomes below the federal poverty line. From the [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities](http://www.cbpp.org/4-8-99socsec.htm): > [@](#): > > Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today [1999] of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor. > > As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line. > > Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it. That is, over the past several decades the rate of elderly poverty has fallen as SS benefits have increased and become more widespread. And the reason that we think that that correlation indicates a causal relationship is that SS benefits make the financial difference between poverty and comfort for large numbers of elderly people today. So yeah, it looks as though SS does play a very significant role in reducing elderly poverty. - You are the one claiming that senior citizens are barely getting enough to prevent them scrounging through garbage cans to stave off starvation. I’m suggesting that the situation is not nearly that bleak.\* In light of the above statistics, in which nearly half of all elderly people would fall below the federal poverty line if it weren’t for their SS benefits—and many of those whom SS lifts above the poverty line don’t get very **far** above it—I don’t think such a claim is as exaggerated as you might think. (Your own experience will probably confirm this if you know any non-wealthy elderly people, especially widows with little work history and consequently no significant pensions or retirement savings of their own. In my experience, their SS checks make a big difference to these people, although they are admittedly much less important to well-to-do retirees who’ve had high-paying jobs with generous benefits and been able to accumulate hefty private savings for most of their working lives.) ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532/203 "2004-08-08T03:58:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Not to steal **Blalron** ’s thunder, but I happen to be familiar with a few sources that talk about quantifying the benefits of Social Security, so I thought I’d mention them here. I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about Social Security “saving lives” in the way that CPR or seatbelt use “saves lives”. But there seems little question that Social Security does indeed significantly reduce poverty for the elderly, and I think it’s fair to argue that poverty reduction indirectly saves lives. Elderly people can and sometimes do literally starve or freeze to death if they don’t have enough to live on, after all. Of course, do do others. > [@](#): > > - You are the one claiming that senior citizens are barely getting enough to prevent them scrounging through garbage cans to stave off starvation. I’m suggesting that the situation is not nearly that bleak.\* > > In light of the above statistics, in which nearly half of all elderly people would fall below the federal poverty line if it weren’t for their SS benefits—and many of those whom SS lifts above the poverty line don’t get very **far** above it—I don’t think such a claim is as exaggerated as you might think. No, it doesn’t. Do you remember where the poverty line is? How many times a week does a frugal person have to rummage through garbage cans who lives at or just above the poverty line? 😉 > [@](#): > > That is, over the past several decades the rate of elderly poverty has fallen as SS benefits have increased and become more widespread. And the reason that we think that that correlation indicates a causal relationship is that SS benefits make the financial difference between poverty and comfort for large numbers of elderly people today. So yeah, it looks as though SS does play a very significant role in reducing elderly poverty. I agree. SS obviously has addressed elderly poverty. If **Blalron** had said this, I might have quibbled over the amount, but I would not have said the claim is tiresome. My objection is that arguments for reasonable debate on the size of government are characterized as some sort of modest proposal for the elderly. You know what I am talking about. Think of it from the other side. Calls for repealing the recent tax cuts are characterized as calls for workers to cast of their chains. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532/204 "2004-08-08T06:02:42Z")
**pervert:** _Do you remember where the poverty line is? How many times a week does a frugal person have to rummage through garbage cans who lives at or just above the poverty line?_ Well, according to the Census Bureau, the 2003 [poverty threshold](http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html) annual income for an individual 65 or over is $8,825. Just pulling some numbers _ab ano_, that means that if such an individual is spending, say, $550 each month for rent/utilities/phone, $25 for transportation, $25 for prescription drugs or other medical expenses not covered by Medicare, and a wicked splurgy $2 per day or $60 a month for all other expenses (including gifts, clothing, personal and household items, and an occasional newspaper or magazine), then their annual non-food expenditure comes to $7,920. That is not at all a lavish lifestyle in most places, but it leaves them $905 to buy a year’s worth of food. Or $2.48 per day. I hope that frugal elderly people can indeed get by on that without having to rummage through garbage cans (though I’m not sure I could do it myself; geez, that’s less than $17.50 a week for all my food). But it helps explain why I see so many older folks when I help out at the soup kitchen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-taxing-the-rich-so-terrible/257532.md?page=10)