The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Well on Less
|Subject: Re: SS conclusion||Date: 11/9/2003 11:17 PM|
|Author: cliff666||Number: 217 of 1755|
My thoughts exactly. The problem I see with means testing is: are we going to base a person's needs on lifetime income, lifetime savings, or something else? Why reward personal irresponsibility, or refuse to pay back money rendered when someone of modest means has made sacrifices to build up some personal savings? It seems to me that a means-testing scenario that would actually take into account these dynamics would be an expensive labyrinthian bureaucratic nightmare.
The jury is still out on means testing. If a person has $10 Mil in assets, and an income from those assets of $1 Million, that person hardly needs SS. Yeah, he paid his chits, and should not be denied.
And, yes the guy who frittered away a lifetime earnings and is now destitute is a scumbag. A stupid, irresponsible scumbag.
But what are the choices? Let the improvident person starve in the street? Or raise the taxes on Gen-X so that Mr. Multi-Millionaire can get his $1700 a month?
To me the answer is clear. Means testing is the only reasonable way out. I may well be aced out of my SS, but it would go against my grain to let someone starve in the street, no matter how big a jerk he is.
|Copyright 1996-2017 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|