Posted on 08/21/2015 9:42:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and raising the retirement age for Social Security are two causes Republicans tend to favor more than Democrats. But different groups of Republicans are enthusiastic about each idea: very roughly speaking, the base and the establishment, respectively. (There is, of course, some overlap: Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul are for both ideas.)
These ideas seem to me to have a few things in common. They’re neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the underlying problems with which they are associated (too much illegal immigration and insolvent entitlements); campaigning for them would carry very significant political costs; and they have nonetheless becomes tests of seriousness about the underlying problems.
Raising the retirement age doesn’t have to be done to make Social Security solvent: The growth of benefits for people with high lifetime earnings could instead be moderated. That will have to be done anyway, even if the retirement age is raised. (Obviously, I’m not considering raising it to 100. Then, it’s true, you’d have a nice surplus.) And trying to raise the retirement age opens you up to a potent line of attack–what about the guy who’s had to do backbreaking labor all his life?–that changing the benefits formula wouldn’t. Notice that Paul Krugman, in attacking Republicans this week for being willing to make Social Security solvent, merely mentions the idea of changing the formula and concentrates his fire on the retirement-age proposal.
Merely end birthright citizenship, and there would still be a lot of illegal immigration. To get it down to tolerable levels you’d still have to impose e-verify requirements for new hires, build a border wall or walls, and crack down on visa overstayers; and if you did those things, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants with citizen-children. Going after birthright citizenship also puts conservatives on weak ground. Notice how much advocates of liberal immigration policies have wanted to make illegal immigrants’ children the subject all along.
There are of course differences between these ideas. Ending birthright citizenship has done better than raising the retirement age in polls; on the other hand, the bar for getting it done–whether or not the Supreme Court would be right to say it’s constitutionally required, it seems highly likely that it would do so–is much higher. Raising the retirement age would increase incentives to work, not just save money for Social Security. Still and all, neither of these fights seem like the right ones to pick.
More on immigration, and the seeds of a compromise that are hidden–well hidden–in Donald Trump’s plan, here.
Money being paid in by today's workers is going out to pay for more than the number of retired workers. Today it takes three workers for each retiree today; today's worker is getting squeezed even worse than numbers suggest because one-third of payments go out to non-retirees.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/icp.html
Graphic there shows retired workers receiving benefits is 66.5 percent of total receiving benefits.
Spouses 4.1 percent.
Children 7.3 percent.
Widow(er)s and parents 7.1 percent.
Disabled workers 15 percent.
Money being paid in by today’s workers is going out to pay for more than the number of retired workers. Today it takes three workers for each retiree today; today’s worker is getting squeezed even worse than numbers suggest because one-third of payments go out to non-retirees.
I have no problem with those figures. SS confers benefits on spouses and survivors. My wife never paid into SS, but she gets a benefit thru me.
SS is a product of law. It has been changed and amended by Congress and approved by the President. In 1983 President Reagan and Tip O'Neil changed the law by increasing the age for full benefits from 65 to 67. They also mandated that all new Federal employees would have to join the system. Changes are made all the time.
You are correct. A retiree with a low average indexed monthly earning (AIME) gets 90% of his monthly income. The next group gets 90% of the low amount and 32% of the next higher set of AIME. The highest earners get the same but only 15% of their highest covered earnings. What the Bolsheviks want to do is deny SS retirement coverage for the high earners.
“Social Security would be best cut off for those 55 or below.”
Nice try but I’ve already “contributed” more than $200,000 to the scheme. Better to kick all the bums and frauds off SSDI and shift that to SS.
No it isn't, it is fully funded with treasury bonds. </s>
I just looked up the author - Ramesh Ponnuru. Wikipedia calls him ‘conservative’....
Except that the life expectancy for women is higher than men, and the life expectancy of minorities is usually less than whites. And single people have a lower life expectancy and on average lower incomes than married couples. And lower income people have lower life expectancy than the middle class and wealthy.
So while overall your proposal is theoretically revenue neutral, in practice it exacerbates what is already a wealth transfer from lower income males and minorities to middle class and wealthy white women.
Being married to a white woman and having studiously pursued a career that does not contribute to social security until I achieved financial independence, I’m OK with this. I don’t have any illusions that Social Security will ever be moral or fair, because in the end it’s just theft coupled with a biased welfare program.
If it was yours you could leave it to your children when you die. Federal Insurance Contribution Act
Heavy emphasis on the Contribution part.
It was just a question. It sounds like you have a way to go before you have to decide. I'm there; I could apply if I wanted to. I'm trying to decide if I should.
So I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak.
Amen. I already lost half of what I put into SS in order to get my teacher retirement pension, of which I contributed half.
Next will come means testing to see if you even get it.
Right now, you get socked with income taxes anyway, so if you’re well off, you give roughly a third of it back.
Yeah, in 1984 SS benefits were made taxable up to 50 percent. Then in 1994 made taxable up to 85 percent. We know where those changes are headed; to take more away and give less out. I'm currently receiving SS, but realize it won't always be there in the future.
Well, I’m 50 now. I’ll hit 65 right when the shit really hits the fan as far as boomer numbers go. Depending upon who is talking about it, 1965 is either the last year of the boomers generation, or the first year of the next, so basically, I figure I’m screwed. Not that I really care. Plan to work ‘til I die, or longer if that’s an option.
No kabar it was robbed when the politicians started to transfer the money to the general budget for spending directed elsewhere.
It was never transferred to the General Fund. The money comes in and is immediately put into T-bills, which are just as valid as those held by the Chinese.
Not paying what is promised is theft plain and simple.
Probably an anchor baby!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.