Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pixy...

Please don't jump off the Washington monument. That sais, in your latest missive you stated "transfer is intentionally skewed to those who earned the lowest wages while working".

Please clear up that statement.

Thanks.

bilden
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
May I jump in? According to the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin:

By design, Social Security involves massive subsidies from the next generation of retirees to this one, from single workers to married couples, from two-earner couples to one-earner couples, from high-income earners to low, from the able-bodied to the disabled, and from those who die early to those who die late.

Subsidies to this generation of retired people are evident: retired people receive the checks and working people pay the tax.

"From single workers . ." There are spousal and survivor benefits in social security. Since everyone at the same level of wages pays the same Social Security tax, the unmarried and childless are subsidizing this benefit for parents and non-working spouses.

"From two earner couples . . ." Sure, they pay approximately double tax but do not receive nearly double benefits.

"From high-income earners . . ." Social security replaces a larger fraction of the income of low-wage earners than of high-wage earners. It's built into the calculation of benefits and is part of the social welfare purpose of Social Security.

"From the able-bodied . . ." The working able-bodied people pay the tax, some of which goes to the disabled. Social Security has a disability insurance component.

"From those who die early . . ." Putting aside the small death benefit in social security, people who die young lose all their benefits, leaving that money in the pot for those who live longer. This generally benefits people who live longer (women, whites and non-smokers, for examples) at the expense of other people (men, blacks and smokers, for examples).

Chips, who cannot change his race or sex, but does not have to smoke
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chipsboss...

Thanks for the explanation of the "skew". I see what Pixy is driving at.

By the way, it is possible to change your sex, but I'm not certain there is a social security benefit.

bilden
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
By the way, it is possible to change your sex, but I'm not certain there is a social security benefit.

You are correct and I completely overlooked the possibility. Here I am living in what must be the elective surgical capital of the world -- the Hollywood area, and I made that error. (Wanna hear about my surgery to correct myopia?) It would be mildly interesting to know whether Social Security recognizes "transgendering".

Chips, who will now go back to his assumption that his immutable chromosomes determine his sex
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bilden asked:

<< in your latest missive you stated "transfer is intentionally skewed to those who earned the lowest wages while working".

Please clear up that statement.>>


Chips did a great job of doing so. I'll just add that in 2000 a worker who earned $20K will see about 45% of that wage replaced by SS in retirement. Someone making $76,200 will only see about 23% despite having paid far more into the system. Thus, the higher paid worker helps subsidize the benefits of lower paid workers.

Regards..Pixy
Print the post Back To Top