Please define class warfare

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Social security has become an entitlement because most recipients now receive far more than they pay into the system, due to an outdated model that has not been adjusted for life expectancy. Ironically, those arguing for "means testing" of SS want to make it even more of an entitlement program.

This is actually not true at all. In addition to SS taxes being regressive, benefits are also regressive.

Yes, it is true. From the CBO: "Undoubtedly, the perception that beneficiaries were simply getting back what they had paid in--even though most retired workers have received much more in benefits than they have paid in Social Security taxes--has been a deterrent to changing the program." Did you catch that? Most retired workers will receive much more in benefits than they paid in.

It is true, to an extent, that the SS portion of the FICA tax is regressive, because the taxable income is capped at something like $106,200 (I think that's the latest figure). Thus, a person earning $500k a year pays the same amount of SS taxes as someome earning $120k a year. But, the person earning $120k (or $500k) pays more in SS taxes than someone earning $40k.

As for the comment that SS benefits are also regressive, I have no idea what that even means. Benefits are tied loosely to contributions. Pay more in, you should get more out.

[06wildcat]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

Rather than make trite statements, why don't you explain to me how benefits are regressive? Heck, maybe the "Urban Institute" has done a study on it. Just give me a link.

[06wildcat]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

Rather than make trite statements, why don't you explain to me how benefits are regressive? Heck, maybe the "Urban Institute" has done a study on it. Just give me a link.

In much the same way as race and sex factor into longevity, socioeconomic status does as well. See if you can figure out the link.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

Wow. That theoretical couple could have invested the $728,000 over their working careers for retirement, but instead gave it to the government in return for $910,000. What a shitty return over 40 years.  I think the the government should get out of the retirement business.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

In much the same way as race and sex factor into longevity, socioeconomic status does as well. See if you can figure out the link.

Ah, so benefits are regressive because the poor live less healthy lifestyles, like smoking, drug use, and not getting an education, and therefore don't live as long. Thank you for bringing this grievous injustice to our attention. We should all be outraged!

[06wildcat]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

Wow. That theoretical couple could have invested the $728,000 over their working careers for retirement, but instead gave it to the government in return for $910,000. What a shitty return over 40 years.  I think the the government should get out of the retirement business.

Why don't the just invest the made up numbers now John Doug?

But at least you get at a more valid argument against SS.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Notice that there's no actual source in your link for the statement. Lots of other footnotes included in the link, but not one for that claim...hmmm...

But here's my source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html

Notice it's actually from this decade as well.

Also, I know you don't understand how Social Security benefits could be considered regressive, that would take some independent thinking.

Wow. That theoretical couple could have invested the $728,000 over their working careers for retirement, but instead gave it to the government in return for $910,000. What a shitty return over 40 years.  I think the the government should get out of the retirement business.

Why don't the just invest the made up numbers now John Doug?

But at least you get at a more valid argument against SS.

It must be hard being a liberal. You should switch.