Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Washington Post Defines "Wealthy" as Someone Who Earns $60,000 a Year
Tens of millions of Americans will no doubt be delighted to find out that they are wealthy. Okay, at least the Washington Post considers themselves wealthy.
The Washington Post told readers that members of Congress are looking to cut benefits for "wealthy Americans." While it doesn't provide an exact cutoff for this definition, in order to save more money than it would cost to implement this cut, it would be necessary to get quite far down the income distribution, certainly in the neighborhood of $60,000 a year.
The definition of "wealthy" that the Post uses in the context of Social Security is striking, since it went to great lengths to tell readers that people earning $500,000 a year were not wealthy in the context of President Obama tax increases.
Such inconsistencies pervade the arguments of those wanting to cut Social Security benefits. For example, Peter Peterson, who has devoted much of the last two decades to cutting Social Security, has personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars through the fund managers' tax subsidy.
Those who care about logic would note that the lost of more than $10 trillion dollars of wealth in the housing crash and stock market plunge would be an argument against cutting Social Security benefits for retirees and near retirees. Remarkably, this enormous loss of wealth is not mentioned once in the Post article.
--Dean Baker
COMMENTS (10)
Off-topic to this thread, but did you catch the NPR story on social security this evening? Despite the lede, it was the closest thing to getting the facts straight on this that I have heard in the mainstream yet.
Posted by: Malcolm | May 12, 2009 11:28 PM
[...would be an argument against cutting Social Security benefits for retirees and near retirees.]
Except that these benefits must be funded via taxes paid by the very people who've suffered the staggering losses you note.
Posted by: eh | May 13, 2009 5:27 AM
People should get get out of the USA for a little bit, I was calling myself rich back when I made 15K per year. IMO there is no good reason to give any SS retirement recipient more money because they paid in more.
Posted by: Floccina | May 13, 2009 10:25 AM
Hopefully, they will turn America into a place that no one will want to live in anymore. This will solve the immigration problems.
I think it's great that Peter Peterson is rolling in dough from his corruption. He is a model for Americans everywhere. I can't wait until he starts giving seminars on how to get rich quick by being corrupt.
Posted by: Alphonse | May 13, 2009 11:45 AM
>Except that these benefits must be funded via taxes paid by the very people who've suffered the staggering losses you note.
Sigh. The idiocy of this post is staggering.
Posted by: a different chris | May 13, 2009 12:52 PM
If there were a real progressive income tax, and social security was paid out to all (which it is) and the rich paid in their 7.5% to 12% on all income (not just "earned"), then rich people would pay back as much in taxes as they receive in social security, at the very least. After all, despite what people think, social security benefits are taxable if someone makes a certain level of income (I don't have the figures at hand, but I know because my husband gets SocSec and more than 2/3 of his income is subject to taxes due to my earnings).
Hence, there is no real problem removing the SocSec cap on income, since it is absurd on its face. Then there would be no problem with SocSec.
And I guess I am almost wealthy, but not quite. Too bad that I have to pay about 37% of my income in miscellaneous taxes!
Posted by: Carol | May 13, 2009 2:54 PM
Oh Carol, dear ...
Do you and your husband earn+receive ABOVE or below the median US household income?
Cap or no cap on income, with respect to Social Security: demographics now make it just another Ponzi scheme.
And it sounds like you're quite happy being one of the fortunate few who got in at the bottom.
Posted by: ds80 | May 13, 2009 4:52 PM
Really???? "The definition of "wealthy" that the Post uses in the context of Social Security is striking, since it went to great lengths to tell readers that people earning $500,000 a year were not wealthy in the context of President Obama tax increases" I would like to be that lucky...
Posted by: Rose Seguros Baratos | May 14, 2009 6:55 AM
Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.
classic ugg boots
Posted by: ugg boots | November 18, 2009 8:51 PM
thanks
Posted by: ed hardy | January 18, 2010 10:07 PM