DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Why is there a cap?
If you earn income....you pay SSI.
Done.
There is a cap because there is a cap on the payout end. This is "insurance." I have less of an issue with SS than the other "welfare" programs because it is, essentially, self-funded. I pay in. I get out according to how much I paid in (relatively). What I really abhor, is when the SSI rates are manipulated for political purposes. The actuary says it will be solvent until 2037. Obama lowers the rates. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth over the plight of the future seniors when the actuary states that it will be solvent for less time now. WTF did people think was going to happen?!?!? Of course solvency is going to be shorter when you reduce the amount coming in. Damn!
I am a firm believer that, if we're going to have SSI, it needs to be inaccessible to the rest of the Federal Budget. I have little issue with raising the income cap. I have more, but not much more, issue with raising the rate. I have no issue with means testing, or increasing the stringency of means testing.
My biggest issue with SSI is that it was supposed to be a safety net, in case you weren't able to set enough aside. It is no longer the retirement safety net. It is the retirement plan. That is the nature of Man, though. If it's there, it will be taken. If it's there long enough, it becomes part of life. If it's there long enough, people will order their lives around it always being there and will come to rely on it.
Look at cigarette taxes. Politicians tax smokes and earmark that money for some purpose. Smoking reduces, reducing the revenue from that source. Revenues no longer cover the cost of that purpose. Cigarette taxes are raised, or money is diverted from elsewhere to cover what was supposed to be covered by the previous cigarette tax.
Toledo Public Schools has been in fiscal woes for the 2 decades I've been in the area. They have a ballot initiative set for November to raise property taxes to cover the budget. In the past month, it was found that revenues have increased beyond what was projected, and the future looks as if that increase is going to last.
So, they took the ballot initiative down because they no longer needed to raise the extra cash, right? No.
So, they reduced the amount of increase they were looking for on the ballot initiative because they no longer needed as much, right? No.
Instead, they decided to add programs that will use that money. So, they still need the extra cash for whatever it was for. And, when they find some, they spend it on something else. This happens over and over and over. When the previous Mayor of Toledo wanted something done, the money was "mysteriously found" in an overlooked budget line, or was taken from a different budget line. When something happened and not enough was budgeted, other budget lines weren't available to be raided. It was only when the Mayor was "for" the program or spending did budget lines blur. Anyone from around here won't be surprised that this guy was a Democrat.
What is really sad, is that I'd be shocked if a Republican Mayor wouldn't have done the same damn thing.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Raise the Social Security cap to $250,000 - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread