Someone should ask him if that applies to his pension as well?

So this is how they plan on taxing the rich.

Needs Based?

That would make SS a tax, not a retirement plan.

Thanks
JK

The author of the piece Matt Bai gives away his thoughts when he derides one of the SS defenders with his parenthetical comment: "In other words, the two parties might actually work together on something. They must be stopped!"

Sometimes the "deep thinkers" of both parties do need to be stopped when they're in agreement. That whole Iraq War thing worked out so well, for instance, with the all the "serious" Democrats like Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, etc. stroking themselves into a frenzy along with the Republicans to get them WMDs.

Blumenauer's probably seen the way the wind's blowing. After all, it was Barack Obama who appointed Alan "Man of 1,000 Tits" Simpson to play the clown and draw fire from Catfood Commission co-chair Erskine Bowles as they propose the gutting of Social Security.

"more affluent Americans would have their benefits — at least when they first retire — pegged to the consumer price index, rather than to wages, which would have the effect of reducing payouts."

Can we sic Earl on PERS then?

So let me get this straight we from each according to his ability to pay and to each according to his need.

Stop me when capitalism falls like an over-ripe fruit from the tree.

When I and my employer pay into SS, then Earl says he wants to pay me back if I have need, then I have a need to get rid of the guy. Fellow Demo

Welcome to the Third Rail, Earl. You're going to need a bigger inbox.

Who decides if you are rich enough?

How would this be determined?

Would anyone reveal all of their assets knowing this scrutiny was coming?

Would we have any obligation to do so?

This would then push more money out of the country and of course that would in turn create more regulations to repatriate or lock money within the US.
Just what we need.

Sounds like one more step in a larger plan that has been taking shape incrementally for a number of years.

Not well thought out pandering to the Hoi Polloi. I personally believe SSI to be an insurance safety net, to keep you alive and fed if, for you, it hits the fan. My auto insurer does not buy me a new car every few years, but will (?) if an accident befalls it. My preference for SSI would be for some sort of means test so that Bill Gates gets checks only if he becomes nearly destitute. My Preference.

The poorly thought out part is that the gap between wealthy and starving is widening -- and there are more folks on the bottom. So risking trashing the SSI system for millions by trying to keep a relatively few wealthy folks away from the trough is stoopi...er, highly sub-optimal thinking.

Just my two cents. (Which I don't expect to get back.)

You only collect on unemployment insurance if you become unemployed, likewise disability insurance. .though that often takes years.

Don't see the difference. But then again, those regs probably wouldn't impact me anyway.

I remember a wealthy friend's father fighting to get a "disabled veteran" designation so that she who get hiring preference for VA positions. He no longer worked as he had made all his money. He belonged to most of the exclusive clubs in town. I imagine the designers of said preference imagined someone who had been injured serving their country, and maybe couldn't provide the best of homes, schools and cars for their offspring. That was before today's mindset of "I'm getting mine AND his whether I need it or not"

I'd love to know how the $$ I've been paying into social security since I was 16 yol is make believe (unless of course the govt made believe it was being put aside for my retirement and spent it on wars and corporate bailouts and pork barrels). We all paid into this expecting it would be part of our retirement and now we are being told that it's not for everyone who paid in.

The richy rich do get taxed a bit on the SS payments. Personally I do not have a problem with "means testing" for SS. If you have so much money that you really do not need what you paid in, why should you get payments that just get taxed anyway?

Top earners for years have been able to stop getting tagged for Social Security payments once they meet a certain income level. Thus, they've put a smaller percentage into the SS kitty than anyone else.

So there's some rationale to this.

"If you have so much money that you really do not need what you paid in, why should you get payments that just get taxed anyway?"

Everyone imagine for a moment that you're "rich" (use whatever definition suits you). Now apply this philosophy across your life. You paid for a new car, but already have three other ones - do you really "need" it?

And I agree with Ms. Contrarian that SS is just like unemployment, as long as you never retire.

Roger do you happen to know what the cap is for SS. I bet you don't. I do. And paying at the cap doesn't mean that you will be filthy rich at retirement. Quite the contrary. I know first hand. I'd be much more in favor of raising the point of capping the amount where SS withholding stops than being forced to forfeit any payments because for one or two checks a year I don't get SS withdrawn from my pay. The lower end of the upper middle class sees the cap kick in. The true rich don't even feel the cap. Hell let's just remove the cap altogether. That would be a lot fairer.

Why soak the Rich when we could eat them?

Seriously though, redistribution of wealth should be in a Democratic Tax Plan, not a repudiation of Social Security obligations.

Social Security deductions from a paycheck represents an agreement between the government and the citizen: any changes to that agreement should be forward looking; not retroactive.

Instead of this brain dead idea; why doesn't Earl and the jerks in Congress look at all the foreign-born people getting Social Security payments that have never contributed a dime into the system?
Or is that somehow a "racist" idea?

Mister Tee -

You can do both. Marinades are fun!