| Author |
Topic:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor [Locked] |
Bobvillas  Posts: 643
Registered: 2008-11-19 12:56:18
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Groucho48 posted:
My argument is that it doesn't need that much help and surveys show folks would much rather pay a bit more in payroll taxes and keep the same retirement age.
Yes that would work.
2% increase to Payroll Tax Rate over a 20 year period would reduce the SS deficit 100%.
The question then is are you willing to wait 20 years in a vacuum for that to work.
I would rather combine the options in order to catalyze the process.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos
http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
theredkay1 Posts: 611
Registered: 2008-5-16 10:37:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
DemonicXH posted:
theredkay1 posted:
Bobvillas posted:
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Life expectancy is not the statistic you are looking for.
If country A has 2 people, one dies at birth and the other lives to 100....avg life expectancy is 50 years.
If country B has 2 people, both live to 100, life expectancy is 100.
A & B are in the exact same situation with regards to a SS system.
The change in life expectancy over the last 50+ years is almost exclusively improvements in birth and a reduction in childhood deaths. Life expectancy for those people who live into their 20's (and would be working) has only increased a few years...and SS age has moved up a couple years.
Changes in life expectancy plays no significant role in the SS budget picture.
Even if you take out infant mortality the life expectancy after attaining adulthood was still in the low 60s when SS was started.
That doesnt seem correct.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v67n3/v67n3p1.html
|
Groucho48 Posts: 821
Registered: 2003-10-22 03:00:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Bobvillas posted:
Groucho48 posted:
My argument is that it doesn't need that much help and surveys show folks would much rather pay a bit more in payroll taxes and keep the same retirement age.
Yes that would work.
2% increase to Payroll Tax Rate over a 20 year period would reduce the SS deficit 100%.
The question then is are you willing to wait 20 years in a vacuum for that to work.
I would rather combine the options in order to catalyze the process.
SS can pay 100% benefits until around 2035. After that, it can still pay out something like 75% of benefits. That's if we do absolutely nothing. It really won't take much to fix it and there is no super hurry, though, we shouldn't lollygag, either.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
paulg_68  Posts: 2,469
Registered: 2009-7-27 18:45:54
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Social Security doesn't have a plug nickel beyond what they collect each month.
They will probably have to dip into the general fund just to make current payments this year.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
"Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48
"Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1 |
Groucho48 Posts: 821
Registered: 2003-10-22 03:00:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Going back to the original topic. Here's a long article that discusses the subject. Basically, very little entitlement money goes to able-bodied non-workers. Less than 10%, a number which hasn't changed in decades. Of course, this doesn't stop right wingers from screaming about how government entitlements are destroying the moral fiber of the country.
Quote:
In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,†predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.†“Government dependency,†he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.â€[2] Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government†and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.â€[3]
The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.
Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677#_ftn2
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
GrilledCheez Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts: 1,060
Registered: 2006-3-22 11:06:32
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making. I'm not sure what that's a sign of. TBH, I think this says more bad things than good.
-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
|
Groucho48 Posts: 821
Registered: 2003-10-22 03:00:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making. I'm not sure what that's a sign of. TBH, I think this says more bad things than good.
No one except the Republican Party. They blow up the economy, then blame the fact that 6 or 7 more million people are unemployed and need unemployment benefits on the fact that these workers are lazy and unemployment checks just makes them lazier.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making.
Except all the people who do. 
If you asked most people to guess what % of federal benefits went to people who can work but arn't working I doubt you'd find most people getting it right. Or that most people would know we've been moving further and further away from a system that just gives people money to sit around even though they could do something else.
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts: 1,674
Registered: 2001-12-21 09:51:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Yukishiro1 posted:
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
No. The first step is to realize they're not "getting paid."
They're getting a "forcibly extracted gift of charity", inefficiently redistributed from me and a steadily decreasing number of other productive citizens.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
Bobvillas Posts: 643
Registered: 2008-11-19 12:56:18
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:01am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Yukishiro1 posted:
GrilledCheez posted:
Yuki is constantly trying to defeat an argument no one is making.
Except all the people who do.
If you asked most people to guess what % of federal benefits went to people who can work but arn't working I doubt you'd find most people getting it right. Or that most people would know we've been moving further and further away from a system that just gives people money to sit around even though they could do something else.
The first step to any discussion about benefits is to understand who is actually getting paid what for what.
I am ok with you laying this foundation as long as you are willing to come to the table.
The public debt to GDP ratio is likely to triple to 146% over the next 20 years, per CBO.
Why? Mainly entitlement expenses.
The costs of these have grown 5.5 times faster than GDP, while revenues have lagged. (Some red meat for you ~ especially corporate tax revenues) Yes this needs reform.
Theoretically, Cumulative deficits from SS could add another 11.6 trillion to the public debt in 25 years.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos
http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
|
