Conservative Ben Stein Calls For Tax Hikes on Millionaires, Billionaires (say it ain't so!)

OK. First a little history about Social Security. It's not meant to be your average tax in, pay out government scheme. It's an insurance policy, not a tax and disburse system. That was how they got it past the Supreme Court back in the '30's. We've been forced to pay in to this insurance policy ever since. (And folks wonder if Obamcare's force insurance policies will get past the Supremes! They will.) Thus, the claim: "I paid into this beast!" People pay into this insurance policy, and they are demanding their return. Isn't that proper?

It's not the same as caterwauling for welfare scraps as we hear about all the time. "I need my food stamps to feed my family." "If I don't get my Unemployment, I can't make the mortgage/rent." "I'm freaking helpless and irresponsible."

Social Security is payoff on an insurance policy people are asking for, not feeding at the government trough. Or, at least, that was it was supposed to be.

Enter the '60's, and LBJ's thirst for cash to fund The Great Society in the middle of the Viet Nam war (liberals would say at this point that the funds were tapped to fund an illegal war in the midst of The Great Society). We know what happened: He attached the value of the SS trust fund to the General Fund, thus, in practical terms, converting it from an insurance policy to a government cash transfer system. A Ponzi scheme, if you will.

Ever since, we've been maintaining the concept of SS being an insurance policy.

Now, here we are, 45 years or so later. The system is FUBAR. We all understand it is underfunded and over promised. Something must be done. Sacrifices (of the real, not Democrat kind) must be made. They shall be made. But what of the manner of these sacrifices? Must the sacrifices be brought down on specific people, or shall they be shared equally?

This is where we need to think about this, Huck. Does one believe some specific group, say "wealthy people," need to bear the burden? Or does one think the burden would be best borne by all, equally? Maybe a combination?

Well, here is where I come down on the SS argument: I am willing to take some losses on my SS Insurance benefit: I will take flat out reductions in benefits. (BTW, that's been going on the past few years where SS folks have gotten no raise in insurance payments.)

I'll accept a later date of maturation on the insurance policy. OK, you want to raise the age a few years? Fine. It makes sense. (As long as it's realistic to reach that age. Keep raising it 2 years every other year, and it's war!)

If you want me to start paying more now, well I don't like it, but everybody's in on it, and it better be protected (as in putting the funds in private accounts instead of leaving it to congressional predation).

Up to now, there are many things I'd do, because the burden is shared equally.

Then up comes the term "Means Testing."

There's this notion out there that it's ridiculous that Steven Gates and Warren Buffet can collect SS. Go on Medicare, even! This is absurd! Well, I ask, "Why not, as long as they have labored and received wages?" Sure, SS is a drop in the bucket for Steven and Warren, but if they don't care, let them give it back! But let us not decry their qualifying for the SS payments: It's an insurance policy. They paid into it (at least Gates did. I don't know about Buffet). Is it their bad fortune they're multibilionaires?

The idea is born! Let's means-test these guys! If they're poverty-stricken, pay them all we can! If they're rolling in dough, they get nothing! That's what means-testing is, Huck. If you've ever tried to get a college scholarship, you know what I mean. Can't afford the tuition and housing, yet Dad makes too much money to qualify for the $$. That's "means-testing" in action.

Well, College is long ago, and I got by. I've been working hard at a skilled job, and I've put away a good nest egg. Now, should I be willing to subject the insurance payout I've earned (that's part of my financial plans) to a big loss, just to see it go to people who have not prepared for their retirement? Irresponsible people that frittered away, living paycheck-to-paycheck, their whole damned lives? Do they deserve a portion of the insurance payout I earned? Maybe my sister, or your brother-in-law (That's made up. I have to say I don't know you that well!).

If one thinks not, then one must oppose this "Means-Testing" crap to the bitter end. It's not just a way of getting a handle on the cash flow crisis, it's a shifting of gears as we head into another exercise in wealth redistribution. It's taking money from the haves, and giving it to the have nots. Do we REALLY want a modern-day Robin Hood here?

I can abide almost every idea you mentioned, but I go ballistic at the notion of "Means-Testing." That's all there is to my spirit on the subject. I hope this helps.

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.