Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits

[portlander23]

Why It's Misleading to Swear to Protect the Poor's Social-Security Benefits
The Atlantic

In the Democratic debate in Las Vegas last week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked by CNN’s Dana Bash whether she supported Bernie Sanders’s plan to expand Social Security. She didn’t give the clearest answer: “Well, I fully support Social Security … and the most important fight we’re going to have is defending it against continuing Republican efforts to privatize it,” she responded, in part. She didn’t say yes. Instead, she said that she favored increasing benefits for the poorest people in the program.

That specific phrase, which is similar to Donald Trump’s stated position on the matter, worried some who want to protect Social Security. Their concern is that any deal that increases benefits for the poorest retirees will also involve cutting benefits for the middle class—and they fear the political consequences of doing so.

This is a problem for those who want to see Social Security survive. As the old adage, common in policy circles, has it, programs for the poor have poor support: A change that cuts benefits for the middle- and high-income Social-Security recipients could at the same time cause those groups to be less supportive of the program as a whole.

While raising this cap would indeed raise revenues for the program, it has a downside: It could also make the highest earners sour on the system. On average, about 6 percent of workers end up making above the $118,500 cutoff. If the cutoff were to be raised, that group would be paying more but receiving the same benefits from Social Security—something that could strike them as unfair, and which could reduce public support for the program.

That said, raising the cap is a good way to make the system solvent. That, in addition to slightly raising the Social-Security income-tax rate from about 6 to about 7 percent, would help the system survive and allow room for benefits increases for the poorest recipients.

So while Clinton has not yet put forward a plan to keep Social Security solvent and equitable, the choices she has are limited and well defined. Social Security simply needs more revenue to stay solvent, and even more revenue on top of that to raise benefits for the poorest earners, who need it most. In the end, all the candidates face that same math.

Much like Mrs. Clinton's position on education, it seems she'd rely on means testing. This is just bad policy; means tested programs that target the poor make them go through hoops to get benefits, cost more money to implement, and are hard to defend against attack. What's worse, means testing is government viewed through a conservative lens. There's nothing wrong with a society where we administer the commons through government, for everyone.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. It's the conservatives and Third Wayers' way of demonizing it. SS is a retirement

account that workers pay into. It is their money. Workers should not have to beg to get money from a program they paid into. Do the rich have to beg their brokers when they want to sell stock? Means testing demonizes the program. I do not support it.