You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Richard (RJ) Eskow
Published: Saturday 21 April 2012
“They insist that Social Security beneficiaries should be submitted to a “means test” before they can receive the benefits they've paid for all their lives.”

Should We “Means Test” Your Auto Insurance? Then Why Do It For Social Security?

Article image

Picture this: You're driving down the road one rainy day as someone bearing an uncanny resemblance to Mitt Romney approaches you from the other direction in a Cadillac. One of you hydroplanes and there's a collision.

After both of you have confirmed that nobody's hurt - and that the dog and his carrier are still securely fastened to the roof - you call your insurance companies. Soon the claims adjusters show up in their little cars - you know, the ones with the insurance company logo on the door. (I know that doesn't happen in real life. This is a story.)

Your claims adjuster punches some figures into an electronic device, then smiles and says "You're all set! The check will be mailed out tomorrow." So far, so good.

But then you overhear the other driver arguing with his adjuster: "What do you mean, my claim is rejected! The headlight is cracked. On a car like this that's going to run me six grand, easy! Why won't you guys honor my claim? I paid my premiums just like everybody else."

"I'm sorry, sir," the adjuster replies. "At your income level you're not entitled to file a claim. But we sure do thank you for all those payments. Keep 'em coming - and have a good day!"

If that scenario doesn't make sense to you, why do it for Social Security?

And yet that's exactly what conservatives and their media enablers keep proposing. They insist that Social Security beneficiaries should be submitted to a "means test" before they can receive the benefits they've paid for all their lives. They're pushing the idea for three reasons: The first is to convince people that Social Security isn't really a social insurance program, or that they've earned their benefits. They'd rather have us think that it's a generous government "entitlement" we don't deserve. The second is to add another costly bureaucratic layer onto the program, which as of this writing is one of the most cost-efficient administrative systems in government.

And the third reason is a plain old bait and switch: If you study the "means testing" proposals it quickly becomes clear they're not targeting "millionaires" at all. The Concord Coalition, a right-wing group that first pushed this idea, thinks that the "means-tested" cuts should begin with people who have earned more than twenty thousand dollars per year during their working lives.

Twenty thousand dollars.

Funny thing: The people who express outrage over millionaires collecting Social Security are the very same people who keep lavishing tax cuts on them. And if you try to stop them they cry "class warfare"! There can't be any worse example of "class warfare" that demonizing some old well-to-do couple as they're going to the Post Office to pick up their checks.

If you're so outraged, folks, why not just lift the cap on payroll taxes and restore the program too 100-percent actuarial balance for the next seventy-five years? (In actuary-speak, "seventy-five years" has roughly the same meaning as "eternity.")

The answer is, because they're not really outraged at all.

As a recent Kaiser Family Foundation brief confirms, only a tiny fraction of upcoming retirees fit the "don't need Social Security" profile anyway. And, as the paper reaffirms, most of them depend on Social Security, and will use a significant portion of their Social Security income for medical care.

("Hey!" Our Romney look-alike is saying to his adjuster. "I think I hurt my neck! Who's gonna cover my medical bills?")

Cuts to Social Security - whether they're in the form of means-testing or the Ryan/Romney proposals to raise the eligibility age and reduce cost-of-living benefits - will hurt most seniors. They'll cause the most pain to elderly and disabled women and minorities.

And yet the ludicrous idea persists that Social Security is some sort of welfare program. "By all rights," writes financial columnist Robert Samuelson, "we should ask: Who among the elderly need benefits? How much? At what age?"

Right - and Geico's lizard people should have the right to pore through your personal financial records whenever you file a claim.

There's no time here for dissecting all the foolishness and dishonesty in Samuelson's piece, which has already been addressed by Lawrence Hunter and Dean Baker. We'll just point out that Samuelson doesn't even understand basic insurance financing. His figures lack internal coherence for anyone who does.

Samuelson repeats this bit of silliness: "The trouble is that contributions weren’t saved. They went to past beneficiaries. The $2.6 trillion in the Social Security trust fund at year-end 2010 sounds like a lot but equals slightly more than three years of benefits."

No, their contributions were saved. Saying the Trust Fund's account equals "three years of benefits" overlooks the fact that most baby boom retirees are still paying into the fund, and shows an unawareness of the way reserving and cash flows work in an insurance program. (Funny thing - Samuelson doesn't even mention the idea of lifting the payroll tax cap.)

You know it's a phony argument whenever someone says we should cut benefits to protect young people. Every cut on the table, including means-testing, would hit today's young people a lot harder than they would hit older folks.

Samuelson and the other means-testers don't like to point that out. Instead they fall back on a argument that's the equivalent of saying "No fair! The guy who had the auto accident got way more money than I did!" That's what it means to pool risk. It's one of the many ways we act together within the social economy to serve the greater good. The right question to ask about any insurance program isn't "Who's ripping off whom?" It's "Is the program fair, effectively, and actuarially sound?"

The answer for Social Security is "yes," "yes," and "yes - with a minor adjustment." But they're not interested in that.

Picture this: Someday you're in an auto accident and you find out you're not covered. You're not covered for your car, you're not covered for you're medical bills, and you're not covered for your living expenses while you're laid up with your injuries. And when you ask why, you get a lecture on getting over your "entitlement mentality."

Now picture that happening when it's time to retire - because if these people have their way, it will.

(There's more about the means-testing scam here.)

Author pic
ABOUT Richard (RJ) Eskow

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a well-known blogger and writer, a former Wall Street executive, an experienced consultant, and a former musician. He has experience in health insurance and economics, occupational health, benefits, risk management, finance, and information technology.

Auto insurance is mostly need

Auto insurance is mostly need for we people. Since using car's on the road we may face a accident or some traffic problems in that case an auto insurance can helps us as well. Thanks and keep it up!!

Social Security has been

Social Security has been means tested for 30 years by the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. A stay-at-home mom normally earns an amount equal to half her husband’s SS benefit. If, at age 50, she goes to work for a government agency, such as teaching in many school districts for ten years, she can lose ALL her Social Security benefits to the GPO. The WEP can penalize people with a pension as little as $900 a month. They will have their $600 a month Social Security benefits cut to $300. These unfair offsets means test low-income retirees who have earned Social Security like everyone else. We need Social Security Fairness as well as lifting the cap!

It's a tax, not a defined

It's a tax, not a defined retirement plan. Eliminating the cap would reduce the percentage of contributions of everyone if the cap was elimated.

The Social Security taxable

The Social Security taxable income cap of $106,800.00 should be abolished -- billionaires and millionaires should have to pay FICA taxes on all of their income.
Who gives a damn if the filthy rich bitch and moan about being taxed on every penny above $106,800.00 they get?!

Norman Allen's picture

We should mean test (test how

We should mean test (test how MEAN they are) the Tea Partyers and the GOP who want to mean test SS, a system paid by young people to receive retirement benefits when the orange is squeezed and there is no more juice left in the poor sucker to give to Mr. CEO/Board members.....SS is old age income insurance and should be off limit to any politician who is pandering to the banksters and corporate chiefs to steal even more of that cash from the SS fund. Congress should be responsible to pay back what is taken out of the fund to bankroll corporate wars and deficit spending for no good reason....

Straight to Hell with these

Straight to Hell with these idiots. I paid Social Security taxes all my working life, and now that I must retire from a hard outdoor job that I've worked since 1970 because my body can no longer do it, some chair-borne desk jockey calls the program 'welfare'!Nuts to him. I paid in with the knowledge that I would draw out checks when I needed it, not because some jerk makes it sound like largesse gifted me by a royal government; it's mine. I worked, I paid, I intend to collect. Is that too hard for some pin-headed conservative to understand?Reagan the Antichrist raised the retirement age. Not everyone has a cushy featherbed job that they can perform until they're 100; some of us labored for a living.What the hell, just shoot all us disabled people, the old, the lame the halt, and the blind, then take all the money saved and split it up between folks like Mitt. He'll never notice our widow's mite combined into what he's got, and we'll be out of the rich politician's hair.I'm finished, now...

I'm sorry this is stupid.

I'm sorry this is stupid. You're all for higher taxes on the rich, isn't this, by definition, a higher tax on wealthy individuals. You get them to pay their social security tax, and then don't give them the benefits if the government, in it's wisdom, deems they don't need it. The question becomes, is the government right in their calculation?

No, this isn't a "higher tax"

No, this isn't a "higher tax" on wealthy individuals. If a person making under $106,000 pays into the SS fund on his entire earnings, then so should those who make millions. There never should have been a cut-off point to begin with. No one is really going to refuse wealthy seniors their social security. That is DOA. In addition, they will collect it longer than most people because they live longer having had access to excellent and expensive health care and tend to live, for the most part, in the least environmentally-polluted places.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...