In today's NY Times, their tendentious resident economist Paul Krugman writes: "
Social Security and Medicare Are on the Ballot."
If you're accustomed to either Krugman's style or typical discussions on Social Security, you'll be unsurprised to find that this argument is long on emotional appeal and short on numbers:
All of this has, I believe, encouraged Biden and his officials to stake out a firm position opposing cuts to America’s social safety net — indeed, calling for increased benefits, to be paid for with increased taxes on corporations and high-income individuals.
Yeah, baby! Is there anything easier than asking somebody else to pay for your benefit? But as I've regularly noted: Social Security is (by law) a universal program that requires benefits to (roughly) equal the amount of money paid into the system (by law). Is Krugman OK with Bill Gates receiving a monthly million-dollar benefit check?
To ask is to answer.
Because Social Security benefits are tied to the amount of earnings on which taxes are paid, however, some of that increase in revenues would be offset by additional benefits paid to people with earnings above the maximum taxable amount under current law.
Also: how long would we extend the solvency of Social Security with these huge tax increases and unprecedented changes to the program? Answer: 13 years until we're facing insolvency again:
The first alternative, which would increase the taxable share of earnings from jobs covered by Social Security to 90 percent, would delay the exhaustion of the combined trust funds by 4 years, until calendar year 2037. The second alternative, which would apply the 12.4 percent payroll tax to earnings over $250,000, would delay the exhaustion of the combined trust funds by 13 years, until calendar year 2046.
Having destroyed the universality of Social Security, what will be the next gimmick? Do Paul Krugman and the NY Times even care? Nope: we're just trying to get past the next election.
