tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post321239199889149469..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Social Security is not welfareNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-50200032660887329082016-07-30T15:20:16.140-04:002016-07-30T15:20:16.140-04:00You must never look at your paycheck. Check for FI...You must never look at your paycheck. Check for FICA. That's social security. Your employer also contributes the same amount. That's money that could have been paid to you in the present but is deferred so people who have no self control will have at least some income when they are older. Welfare is a straight government payout without contribution. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141682401002771058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53536678873476338032013-01-29T15:30:12.434-05:002013-01-29T15:30:12.434-05:00It is welfare. Period. It is a government funded p...It is welfare. Period. It is a government funded program. You worked, you got your checks already. After that you apply and get Social security. money and not working. That is welfare. Accept it. Just because you put a saddle on a donkey does not make it a horse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-707636372089707782013-01-29T15:27:43.535-05:002013-01-29T15:27:43.535-05:00lol that is ridiculous.lol that is ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23585347359808868092013-01-28T02:17:03.040-05:002013-01-28T02:17:03.040-05:00Oh please, it's welfare. Many do die before dr...Oh please, it's welfare. Many do die before drawing many benefits, but lots don't. All the expensive meds, bypasses, knee replacements, treatments, etc. Very few ever paid in what they collect before death. Not to mention the wives who never worked or earned as much as husbands. So many elderly alive now collecting at least a thousand per month and more in meds and health care. They never paid in that much. It's welfare and free. No criticisms like the younger get who need food stamps. Free money til death after paying in a pittance. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21429059233335965692012-09-17T14:25:18.874-04:002012-09-17T14:25:18.874-04:00If the social security retirement age had been cor...If the social security retirement age had been correctly adjusted for life expectancy none of this would be a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-87874195229117897142012-09-17T11:37:22.678-04:002012-09-17T11:37:22.678-04:00Noah,
You're description of social security ...Noah, <br /><br />You're description of social security as a forced savings scheme rather than the transfer program suffers from the same extreme categorization as Eberstadt's. As you noted, it’s "complicated" but almost all of the complication is about the effective transfer portions of the scheme. <br />For instance, 90 cents on the first dollar versus 15 cents on the last dollar means that the last dollar gets a lot less benefit than the first, or, in the language of your savings analogy, the effective interest rate paid is dramatically lower (i.e. negative in some cases). You classify this as a “small transfer from rich to poor” by which I take it to mean that it’s small relative to the need of the poor (I agree). However, if I am earning $106,800 a year, then I earn about 9,000 at the top rate, about 46,000 at a rate of 36% (32/90) of the top rate and about 52,000 at 17% (15/90) of the top rate, I have a right to feel like I am being taxed pretty heavily on much of my earnings. <br /><br />You are right that "simplification" would be desirable if you mean that taking the "savings" portion of the program and separating that from the "transfer" portion. Otherwise, attacks on it as a transfer program are as justified (partly) as any other attack on a transfer program. <br /><br />P.S. these are not transfers from “rich to poor” unless you find some way to classify those making $100,000 a year as rich. More fairly, they are transfers from everyone else starting at the bare middle class to the poor.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-22366393764378117762012-09-13T07:59:12.711-04:002012-09-13T07:59:12.711-04:00Attempting to make ends meet when someone disabled...Attempting to make ends meet when someone disabled or unable to work due to illness can be a challenging and frightening task. Fortunately, if someone cannot work a 40-hour week due to documentable disability or illness, the Social Security Disability program offers the financial assistance you need from the Social Security Administration, allowing you to focus on your health and recovery.DeniedSocialSecurityBenefitshttp://www.deniedsocialsecuritybenefits.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24653689990689474332012-09-07T02:03:09.249-04:002012-09-07T02:03:09.249-04:00This is all fine and good but the ss shortfall is ...This is all fine and good but the ss shortfall is still a reality due to demographic changes bla bla bla... <br /><br />We still need a conversation about how to deal with that. <br /><br />Social Security != welfare might be an emotionally satisfying proposition, but it doesn't help us avoid structural realities.... Davydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15161743272166194930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20868364719972119412012-09-06T17:36:06.034-04:002012-09-06T17:36:06.034-04:00Wrong! Contributions to 401K's lower your pre ...Wrong! Contributions to 401K's lower your pre tax earnings. SSI contributions do not. nanutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526158764171117978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67360470825556989922012-09-06T11:16:59.186-04:002012-09-06T11:16:59.186-04:00Those that paid into SS are entitled to the return...Those that paid into SS are entitled to the return of their investment as promised by this government mandated program, I have no issue with that. However, like any retirement program, mismanagement of the funds or the overpayment of benefits in the past can leave it substantially short of funds to continue paying the previously promised payouts.<br /><br />Life expectancy has changed substantially from the original conception of SS as a retirement plan. Early surpluses in the plan because of few recipients also allowed the managers and politicians to expand the the pool of recipients, thus increasing the financial burden of the plan. <br /><br />One underlying complaint I have with all Government programs--if they are so good, why are they mandatory? Even government plans should be left to the consumer as the whether or not to participate. Is it because government programs are really inferior to private sector plans? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08632559308245598170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11918756307457110162012-09-05T17:56:24.369-04:002012-09-05T17:56:24.369-04:00I agree on the points regarding Social Security.
...I agree on the points regarding Social Security. <br /><br />Regarding healthcare- from a fiscal standpoint, most of the difficulties we face in dealing with healthcare costs (private, Medicare and Medicaid) have to do with inflated billing on the part of pharmaceutical and medical supply companies as well as hospitals. The actual costs billed, which ultimately impact insurance costs (Medicare certainly included), support extravagant profit margins.<br /><br />This is not a matter of free-market supply and demand so much as market manipulation. These companies have nearly unending resources to create political pressures that allow them to continue with this behavior.<br /><br />Noting that, cutting back on payments to the entities should be the plan in general:<br /><br />Many studies have drawn attention to the fact that the United States spends roughly twice as much on health care – as a fraction of GDP and on a per person basis – than the average of other economically developed nations without achieving substantially better health outcomes. (see http://1.usa.gov/TpfQ10) ML_EngAmernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64856746163253179942012-09-04T20:25:22.129-04:002012-09-04T20:25:22.129-04:00Well, first off, it's finite. Second - What d...Well, first off, it's finite. Second - What do you consider infinitesimal? Another year? Another decade?<br /><br />Third - what do you recommend - death panels?<br /><br />Should we not clean out her carotids? Not treat her emphysema? Not do the PET/CAT on the nodule on her thyroid? Not give her 24 hour skilled nursing care that she temporarily needs?<br /><br />I asked a serious question and got back a fatuous platitude.<br /><br />One of the reasons I read here regularly is that I know you can do better than that.<br /><br />JzBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-34886641919174811642012-09-04T00:26:48.112-04:002012-09-04T00:26:48.112-04:00The inability to understand the views of the oppos...The inability to understand the views of the opposite side these days is related more to the level of bias in the reader than the incoherence of the writing. I see better opinions out there which clarify why social security is actually welfare. But they too are partisan. If there was a real Economist who had control over his own bias he would tell us what is the actual percentage because that leaves no space for partisan haggling.<br /><br />But as I said, coherent uselessness is the current standard in Economics blogging these days. So I get it.DGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401242927167108684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43402035649245782982012-09-03T19:34:30.472-04:002012-09-03T19:34:30.472-04:00Whenever I read Eberstadt, I am reminded of Rose F...Whenever I read Eberstadt, I am reminded of Rose Friedman's observation, that political ideology trumps reason and evidence in that so very curious economics profession.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04291324176681636975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-61890758798067479272012-09-03T18:59:50.739-04:002012-09-03T18:59:50.739-04:00The first step is to stop using drugs before you p...The first step is to stop using drugs before you post! ;-)Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16608741668263776372012-09-03T18:58:24.096-04:002012-09-03T18:58:24.096-04:00We can't spend infinite dollars keeping old pe...We can't spend infinite dollars keeping old people alive for infinitessimal amounts of time, Jazzbumpa. At some point it has to stop.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-31020607802520891752012-09-03T17:49:42.820-04:002012-09-03T17:49:42.820-04:00This is an interesting perspective that has some m...This is an interesting perspective that has some merit, but if Social Security is a forced savings program with benefits considered (essentially) withdrawals later in life, then the payments into the system should not be considered federal "taxes." Deferrals into 401(k) and similar plans are not "taxes." Payments into the Social Security system should be considered investments or deposits or deferrals. That, however, is exactly contrary to what progressive (!) analysts contend when trying to rebut the notion that only the relatively wealthy pay federal taxes. See, for example, here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505 ("These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay.") Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1672231402246876892012-09-03T16:18:45.172-04:002012-09-03T16:18:45.172-04:00You don't make much sense, but I get the gist ...You don't make much sense, but I get the gist of it. I agree with Noah's comment. In future posts, please focus on clarity and brevity. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-19366221456702843632012-09-03T16:14:40.153-04:002012-09-03T16:14:40.153-04:00This is the minimum to qualify for SS, not the his...This is the minimum to qualify for SS, not the history over which the amount of the benefit is calculated, which is 35 years. Lordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-77351142622018473582012-09-03T14:46:57.357-04:002012-09-03T14:46:57.357-04:00Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is welfare paid...Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is welfare paid for out of the general fund not a dedicated trust fund like Social Security. The payments bear no relationship to the career earnings of a beneficiary.<br /><br />SSI requires that one be low income and disabled or aged to be eligible. The maximum an SSI beneficiary can receive from the federal government is $698 a month (adjusted yearly). You cannot have more than a certain amount of resources (real property, savings, etc.) to receive it. SSI beneficiaries are either not eligible for Social Security (typically not insured) or the amount they receive in Social Security disability payments is particularly low.<br /><br />This is distinct from Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). DIB is based on earnings and what one pays into the system. Unlike SSI, assets are not considered when determining eligibility. In my opinion, while DIB seems like welfare, it's insurance. This is because pooling risk underlies DIB. Also, DIB maintains the connection between working and receiving benefit (though the eligibility and earnings calculations are modified).<br /><br />SSI and Social Security DIB are easily confused because SSI is administered by the SSA and the acronym SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is so similar to the acronym SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). Some Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32171372936818009702012-09-03T13:08:58.839-04:002012-09-03T13:08:58.839-04:00@Anonymous: Thanks for proving that I was not enti...@Anonymous: Thanks for proving that I was not entirely incoherent before :)<br /><br />In my confused state I found this to confuse me further. Of course I will persist with this confusion as long as possible because it seems to lead me more easily to the truth. Closer to it at least.<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.htmlDGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401242927167108684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66382184721143172452012-09-03T12:27:57.891-04:002012-09-03T12:27:57.891-04:00As I read Eberstadt's article, his point seeme...As I read Eberstadt's article, his point seemed to be "Gee, we spend a lot on welfare." So I wondered how our "social protection"<br />spending compared to Europe's. This was what I found with a quick Google, so let me know if I missed anything. But it doesn't really look like we spend an inordinate amount on transfers.<br /><br />Expenditures:<br />Eurozone (avg) healthcare - 7.5% of GDP<br />US Medicaid/Medicare - 5.5% of GDP<br /><br />"Social protection services"<br />Eurozone - 19.9% of GDP<br />US Social Security - 4.8% of GDP<br />US income security programs - 2.7% of GDP<br /><br />http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/General_government_expenditure_statistics<br /><br />http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33074.pdfNateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428471228818070571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88624446989037909352012-09-03T11:55:10.216-04:002012-09-03T11:55:10.216-04:00Thank you Kabir. Your trenchant ad hominem attack ...Thank you Kabir. Your trenchant ad hominem attack has convinced me that I am indeed a psuedo-intellectual fool with a constipated worldview. I am forever in your debt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-73734035137283570702012-09-03T11:48:28.788-04:002012-09-03T11:48:28.788-04:00I'll check later - thanx. Now I have to go de...I'll check later - thanx. Now I have to go deal with my mother in law, spending some time in an extended care facility, courtesy of Medicare.<br /><br />What is the right approach to old people in decline? This is expensive as hell, and without Medicare she would literally be penniless.<br /><br />Should society just abandon her?<br /><br />JxBJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60237024862422673112012-09-03T11:44:43.735-04:002012-09-03T11:44:43.735-04:00You can tell Eberstadt is a reactionary hack by hi...You can tell Eberstadt is a reactionary hack by his language. "Taker mentality" is pejorative and inaccurate.<br /><br />But there is context here that you haven't mentioned - the growing wealth disparity and declining economic mobility.<br /><br />Entitlement programs are more important to the bottom 50% of society because the top 50% - and, of course, proportionally up the scale - have claimed every penny of productivity and GDP growth over the last 40 years.<br /><br />As tax rates have declined, so have Economic growth and the last tattered vestiges of what used to be <b>The American Dream.</b><br /><br />JzB<br /> <br />Jazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com