Don't Means Test Social Security

Reader Comments
Back to article

We must preserve Social Security as it is set up today. ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS TESTING!!!! This is a very important safety net for all seniors and seniors should stand up and fight for their right to protect this safety net going forward into next years 2012 election. The next election is going to be very crucial in determining our future and future generations to come.

Lawrence Zock of PA 11:22AM October 12, 2011

but only on a person making over 250k a year or over 500 k in holding exemping one house and 2 cars.
As it socal security is not a socal benefit but a security of a min wage
what so wrong is what we pay for those who become disabled which is often not even a living wage

David of FL 8:26PM July 07, 2011

social security was first introduced to insure everyone in America would have some money to retire on. Let's face reality, most americans do not make the kind of income that the policy makers of this country make. Most americans are cheated because employers set the income they make. They have very little left to put into a retirement account. How many americans work for a co. that contributes even 50% of the amount employees put into a 401 account, much less match it? VERY FEW.
So lets look at social security as an insurance program. Eveyone pays into the program. If a worker succeeds in making huge amounts of money during his working career, he does not need a payment from the ss fund. However if the worker suffers a debilitating accident, illiness or an investment wipes him out, he will be able to draw on his retirement insurance, social security. Lets do make social security for the people who need it. This will not stop employees from trying to earn more than the amount that qualifies someone for social security, as long as the income to qualify is low and the benefits are just to provide for basic necessities of life. (ssi which is capped at $674 is a joke. No one can live on that amount ) It is a waste to give benefits to a person who has a million in cash, owns 4 cars, a boat, plane ect... :I do not think that was the original purpose of social security. Let's face the truth. If it were not for all the employees who do all the low paying jobs in a company, not employer would have a hefty bank account, and affluent retirement. The least all americans can do is make sure all people who do an honest days work have the basic necessities in life from a social secutity insurance program.

tony tiger of TN 9:51PM July 05, 2011

"Social Security's enduring popularity reflects the insurance nature of the program: Recipients have an earned right to their retirement benefits. Everyone who pays into the program is entitled to benefits."
"The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs."
Social Security is not an insurance program nor does it even have an "insurance nature." An insurance program takes your money and guarantees to cover you for an agreed upon maximum amount if you suffer a loss. There are absolutely no guarantees of benefits under the law that established Social Security nor in any subsequent amendment to that law. "Earned right?" You have no right to benefits under this law.
The term "Social Security" is an oxymoron. This is a payroll tax pure and simple. A "tax," not an earned right. It is a government sponsored ponzi scheme that takes from the current investors and pays to the previous investors. And like every ponzi scheme, it eventually runs out of enough new investors to pay the earlier investors, a la Madoff et al. When Social Security is broke (not enough money coming in to pay the "benefits"), and we can't afford to support it any longer, the benefits will stop (or the eligable age be so high and the benefits so trivial as to make it worthless) and we will be fortunate to get an apology from the government. Greece and Ireland have already past the point of no return. France is already at this point. Germany, England, Spain, Italy and Portugal are not far behind.
I say we need extreme Social Security reform now! I do not advocate a means test, but privitization (at least partial) sounds good. Whatever the reform, it will not be painless.

Javidan of GA 9:53AM December 10, 2010

Means testing Social Security benefits is just another method to redistribute income based upon the old time worn failed adage "From those based on ability, to those based on need"...
If we can "means test" social security, why not means test bank accounts...?
Jack Welch, who is a proponent of means testing, can't possibly need all the money in his bank account.. let's give some of Jack's money to other depositors that have a greater need for bank deposits!
While we're at it..... Let's means test salaries... real estate holdings.... or life even insurance payouts...
Social Security payments are based upon, and directly related to contributions made by the recipient.. The payments aren't a gift extracted from the public treasury like other entitlements...
Any attempt to reduce or eliminate Social Security payments based upon "means testing" needs to be thought of as illegal expropriation... no matter who is doing it....

Lou Ianacone of FL 9:48AM November 28, 2010

I can't agree with means testing. It encourages a person to not save and not have a pensions plan. Raise the ceiling on SS taxes if you want. Higher income people already receive less for their contributions than lower paid people. But don't penalize people any more than is already the case for working hard and thinking ahead.

Charles Sainte Claire of CA 5:04PM November 26, 2010

Jack - If I had a collision or flood, I wouldn't want my insurance company to deny my claim because of the size of my savings account.
Do you think "those with need" include people who believe in the retirement fairy? If so, maybe I should cash out my 401K and Roth IRA and buy a shiny new Hummer. That'll ensure my monthly check in retirement. Look around - do you think everyone has the same spending/saving priorities? They don't. And that's why means testing would be completely unfair.
One big problem with society today is lack of forethought and personal responsibility. Let's not do anything to discourage saving.
Speaking of lack of forethought, was the government unaware that baby boomers would eventually start drawing SS? Did they not run any projections before raiding the fund for other purposes? Apparently not. Apparently they just saw the SS surpluses as a result of a larger workforce and deemed it a free for all. If I know that my home's roof will need to be replaced in the next few years, I plan for the expense. I expect the same -- and better -- from elected officials.

Trish of WI 1:06PM October 28, 2010

G.H.W. Bush correctly stated that SS was a welfare program and he did not need the $, he is multi-milionaire. Does he really need it or deserve it?

chris of TX 10:16PM October 22, 2010

I'm against any means test.
If I had an identical twin bother that was the same in every way except that I saved and he spent. Why should I be penalized when it comes to getting what I deserve?
What would a proposed means test look like? Even if it started out very high/low, a very high means cutoff you make over $1,000,000 per year and have a net worth of over $10,000,000 and they cut back on your benefits be 1%. Wait about two weeks and see what the means test is!
It's the principal of the matter.

Dave of WI 2:11PM July 16, 2010

Posted: May 12, 2010 / 8:50 pm Eastern
Internet giant Google today was hushing up the new dispute over President Obama's strange Social Security number by diverting searches for news reports on the issue to unrelated stories about Elena Kagan, oil, Tampa and the Federal Reserve.
The actual story, posted on WND.com, explained how two private investigators – working independently – are asking why Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.
Under a Google news search for "President Obama Social Security number," the top four results all quoted, "By Jerome R. Corsi Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants…"
However, the first link is to Politico's story about "Gay rights central to Elena Kagan fight," the second links to Politico's "Senate clears measure to audit Federal Reserve" story, the third links to a Politico story about the GOP plans for a convention in Tampa in 2012, and the last links to a Politico story about "Oil executives play pass the buck."
Google spokesman Jake Hubert told WND that it appeared to be a "bug in the snippets."
He said the company was looking into it.

call me roy of SD 12:14PM May 13, 2010