The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: Future of retirement Date:  9/18/2011  11:46 PM
Author:  JAFO31 Number:  69616 of 88487


AC: {"Furthermore, the benefits are progressive in that they replace a larger percentage of a lower earner's income than a higher earner's."}

<<<Point taken, but I believe that would be regressive, not progressive.>>>


But upper income people are charged more for their benefits than lower income people. In other words, upper income people are paying higher taxes.

I think that's progressive."

First, you were previusly discussing benefits, now you are discussing taxation.

Also, the tax rate is flat until the income and then goes to zero, so I would suggest that the taxation is also regressive.

<<<It has always been a welfare program.>>>

"Well, no.

It would be a welfare program if the benefits flowed only to the poor. The difference is that everyone gets SS benefits."

So only the poor collect welfare? TARP was not welfare? What then is corporate welfare (which often goes tot he wealthy and well-off)?

"Welfare may be funded by governments out of general revenue, typically by way of redistributive taxation."

[Kind of like those with earned income paying taxes to support those without earned income {like many, but not all, SS recipiients.}]

"Social insurance-type welfare schemes are funded on a contributory basis by the members of the scheme. Contributions may be pooled to fund the scheme as a whole, or reserved for the benefit of a particular member." Id.

[Social security taxes are nor reserved for the benefit of the taxpaying member. "Many people believe that Social Security is an "earned right." That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as "contributions," as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time." ]

It is clearly not an real insurance program because an insurance contract would create legal rights not so easily dismissed, altered or eliminated.

See the USA government's own website -

"like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility" Id.

"The expression has been, "Programs for the poor are poor programs." "

I have never heard that expression before and I fail to see its relevance to the discusssion at hand.

Regards, JAFO
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us