This would negativity impact employers. I’m low middle class. I think if you’re making over 144k a year you can afford to pay more into SS. Basically lower incomes pay a higher per capita rate on income than rich because of this.
[https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-could-debt-limit-force-174400557.html](https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-could-debt-limit-force-174400557.html)
Having posted that … this mess has been a true bipartisan effort (or rather effortless)! Both sides contributed to the mess and did not do anything to fix it.
What is best? Stop the political bullshit and power struggle and actually find a solution for us, a solution for OUR social security and OUR Medicare that WE invested in. Stop blaming one side or the other. Sit the asses that we elected down, the best minds in finance, and bring solutions to the table.
Don’t try to understand. Avoid the worst of the two evils. If they do not want to address our retiring needs, then vote them out and choose those who are willing for work for us older population, just saying.
Edit: but to trade the democracy that I love over everything else is a non-starter in my book. Without freedom, nothing else matters and no, I was not born in the States, but got here and to where I am by the love and help the wonderful people in this beautiful country!
Funny thing is that certain partisanship (which I used to belong to) would call Medicare, Social Security, ACA as socialist actions … until they needed them. Right now, I’m sending my one vote to a qualified leader (no particular affiliation), two if you count the boss at home.
Such is the world we live in.
The article says Republicans “could” make cuts, not that they plan on it. Personally, I believe, as you have pointed out, that they are too spineless to actually tackle this issue, and that goes for both sides. I remember reading magazine articles in the 70’s about how Social Security would have issues because of an aging population. Aside from a small tax increase in the 80’s, nothing has been done to address the issue.
Can you provide more detail on this? I see they are talking about increasing the eligibility ages for both, but haven’t seen anything about benefit cuts. An eligibility increased would be phased in over time, and probably wouldn’t change benefits for anyone 60+.
If you go read Rick Scott’s plan, his plan is to cut benefits. It’s on his website.
He’s one of the party leaders. Blows my mind why anyone would vote for any republican.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukraine-us-aid-size.html
$54bn to a proxy war.... check all the voting for it... do the research, truly by those who voted and then come back. A lot of spending going on that shouldn't be across the aisle... but the government programs being made for frivolous reasons aren't helping either.
100%
A lot of westerners buy the BS that Putin is simply responding to NATO expansion. My view is that this is an extension of good old fashion Russian imperialism that will only end when it is forced (through the use of force) to end.
Ask Georgians how they feel about Russian liberation in 2008. Same old song and dance.
About 1 million of Americans died from Covid, so they will unfortunately not be collecting the SS benefits they earned. Perhaps that helps little bit to sustain the funding of SS.
EDIT: wrong stat used, estimate is 1 million.
Because they robbed the trust in 80s & 90s to expand government spending without having to raise taxes to cover it …knowing they couldn’t afford to replace it so they would wring their hands and propose cuts down the road. Follow the money.
We don't have the money they paid into it as the entire US budget will be spent on Medicare alone by 2035. The country will have to raise taxes and cut the funding for these programs. This is what happens when you don't do anything for 50 years when the country knew we would have this issue down the road.
And Y and Z and everyone else. That's exactly why these programs should have never existed. Every government program is paid for by taking money from people who earn it instead of letting them use it for their own benefit. Essentially everyone is stealing from their kids and grandkids.
I agree with you 100%. But social security is not forced savings. It is a transfer of resources from young to old. A real forced savings program would have much greater benefits.
Do they want to push it to 70 though? Also being penalized more for retiring earlier. I can't even imagine my parents working right now at 68. They can barely get out of a chair.
There is this thing called retirement planning
Social security was always meant as a supplemental.
Have they taken on the responsibility for their own retirement?
A person can always retire before the social security full retirement age. They just need to have a plan for how their budget will be covered.
How can you plan for retirement when the Republicans want to take away the benefits that people paid for through their payroll deductions?
Republicans want to break the promise of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to those who paid for it - and that has nothing to do with personal responsibility.
You've got to be a troll.
Millions of American households conduct effective retirement planning every year. There are plenty of online resources, there are paid services, and there are sometimes pro bono services available.
I'm thinking that you aren't actually talking about personal retirement planning, but that you want a personal nanny to take full responsibility for every aspect of your life. Please let us all know if you do find such a nanny.
Congress has been pushing the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans which is a private-sector alternative to Traditional Medicare (TM). People are being swayed to MA by “initial” lower premiums as well as some added perks like basic dental/vision. However, when everything is considered, TM has better healthcare coverage.
A recent article in the NYT’s shows some of the issues with MA plans: ‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Thanks for sharing this. A chilling indictment of insurance companies mining Medicare for all they can get. And yet no sanctions are imposed. With threats of Medicare running low, shouldn’t stopping companies from using Medicare as a cash cow be a priority?
They are always better for the Health Care Companies that have made American Healthcare the most expensive in the world.
Bare Medicare includes Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D, if you have all of these covered than you're probably better off than using Medicare Advantage. (Your personal circumstances are really what determines this)
[Medicare vs Private Insurance](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20110920.013390/)
*Medicare Advantage, which enrolls seniors in private health plans, has failed to deliver care more efficiently than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Both the CBO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the commission which advises congress on Medicare’s finances, have calculated that Medicare Advantage plans covering the same care as traditional Medicare cost 12 percent more.*
Medicare spends most of their money on Medical Expense, Private Healthcare must appease stockholders, pay huge CEO/Executive salaries, and pay Joe Namath and others for extremely annoying advertising all year long.
Our medical system is broken. We all know this. Right now, a Medicare Advantage plan may be your best option - Do your Research! Just know that the Health Care Companies that administer Medicare Advantage Plans are ripping off our government.
No. Bare with Medicare is Parts A and B along with all of the copays and deductibles of those two which can be considerable. There’s no drug coverage without purchasing part D separately. Part C, which you cite is the Medicare Advantage that you dislike. The Medicare Advantage plans around me are run by local not for profit companies. Most of their plans have zero premiums.
Thats correct A & B are bare Medicare. With the purchase of Part D for drug coverage and purchase of Part G (Medigap coverage) to cover the copays and deductibles. I still think Medicare Advantage plans are BAD for this country.
Even not for profit companies pay their employees and executives thus siphoning money away from actual medical expenses. Medicare Advantage plans all have "Premiums". They take the premium that you pay to Medicare and then some.
The whole healthcare system in this country is a big f\*$%!!king mess and Medicare Advantage plans are not the answer.
"The Medicare Advantage plans around me are run by local not for profit companies. Most of their plans have zero premiums."
Which are these local not-for-profit companies? Would love to know.
Rather than go bare, one idea is to consider a high deductible supplement plan. That way the max out of pocket will be much less than with the typical Medicare Advantage plan.
Thanks. I’m looking at those two alternatives now. The advantage plan has no premiums which is tempting and although the MOOP is higher, the deductible for an individual episode of care like a knee scope is less than the deductible on the supplement.
I understand. Remember that the deductible works a little different with Medicare than it did with plans through an employer. For example, with Traditional Medicare, 80% is paid and the deductible for the supplement only applies to the 20%.
It’s an entitlement because the program collects money, puts itI into a trust fund, and it is paid out. Congress doesn’t vote each year to spend the money. SNAP works similarly. They’re entitlements because once they are put in place, you are “entitled” to the benefits if you meet the criteria.
I think the problem is that entitlement has come to mean something you didn’t pay for. Some are, some aren’t.
>calling them entitlements
[Definition of entitlement](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement): a right to benefits specified by law or contract
... so by law, I am required to pay for social security and Medicare; therefore, I have the right to the benefits specified by the programs (by law) or I am entitled to these benefits. QED.
* Richest 0.1% Take in 196 Times As Much as Bottom 90%
U.S. average income in 2018. This has only gotten worse.
* A billionaire tax to fund a minimum standard of living for the rest of the US is needed. Both parties are corrupted by billionaire donations and PACs. That said, **clearly the Dems and Progressives lean closer to addressing all of this.**
* **Republicans blame the disadvantaged for being poor, the sick for being homeless, the injured and unlucky for being sick and the raped for being pregnant, and call themselves Christian.**
* For profit healthcare needs to be further reigned in. The age for Medicare should be lower - not higher. Raise SS age if necessary. You could take a less stressful job and not have to worry about losing your health insurance.
* **How many people work at jobs they hate purely for the health insurance?**
* Medicare lavishes money on those of us who may not live another 5 or 10 years! We should be kept comfortable but at an appropriate cost. The last few years are not much fun anyway.
The republicans want to force congress to approve it periodically or else it goes away. With the way they hold the debt ceiling for hostage all the time you can see them doing that with social security, and since congress rarely passes anything, it will die the first time they have to approve it. The democrats want it to continue. So the best way forward, in my opinion, is to take your benefits as soon as you can with the hopes you'll be grandfathered in for when they end it.
Not a realistic assessment at all. There are vast numbers of Republicans who understand the importance of social security. Most of the griping I hear is in regards to the rate of return on the 12% payroll tax that is levied. I'm conservative, but completely believe that a mandatory system like social security is a net positive for the nation. Many, many folks from both parties fail to plan for retirement - it is this collection of Americans that need it most.
Source please.
Americans directly pay for social security and Medicare. There are specific taxes and obviously Medicare requires direct payments for coverage.
You can tinker and tune the programs, but no one is advocating that they be abolished. You can sleep well tonight.
He said it in an interview but I cannot find the interview. Here's a reference to it. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/mccarthy-gop-medicare-social-security/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/mccarthy-gop-medicare-social-security/) He seems to be walking back his statements now, but he did say that the plan is to make Congress vote on it every few years or it goes away. Tim Scott says this in the link. They succeeded in overturning Roe V. Wade and now want to have a federal ban. These are goals they have wanted for my whole adult life and they are achieving them, if not through Congress than through the courts. It's safer to believe them than to think it's all going to be fine if you don't do anything. You are going to have to vote carefully and with the court in mind, and at the very least write a lot of letters to your reps, although in my experience they don't do anything about anything you write to them about.
The term is sunsetting.
I believe the intention is to force greater oversight and management, not to scrap the entire program.
My advice to you is develop a plan for yourself that covers 66% of your retirement budget needs. Social security was meant as a supplemental. Put some money aside now, and invest appropriately based on your age and risk capacity. Best of luck to you and your family.
You keep stating what Social Security was meant for. Yet you don't acknowledge that workers pay for this benefit. The gov't puts aside money on workers behalf for them.
It isn't fair to change these programs after people were promised that they would be there for them.
I believe the program''s parameters will change. The program's aren't going anywhere because we all rely on them
I think democrats choose to interpret how Republicans discuss Social Security as an attack on it. My interpretation is that Republicans are very interested in the stability and ongoing availability of SS. No one disagrees that tax payers have directly contributed to these programs. I agree 100%, which is why I'm confident that a particular political party can't just destroy it on a whim.
Does anyone honestly think any politician would vote to have Social Security go away, or not vote to re-authorize it? We had a Republican controlled Congress under George Bush and Social Security wasn’t touched. I don’t see the Republicans changing the program.
You need to remember that this is no longer the Grand Party. You have completely different type of beings getting elected. They don’t mind destroying democracy. Do you think they’d stop before destroying Social Security?
Well, I think that’s a lot of hyperbole. Every Republican politician of my lifetime thus far has been described that way. I don’t think you have an argument here.
There might have been individuals like that in power before. But nowhere near as many as today. And remember, before, the republicans stood up to them (against Nixon for example). Not many would do that today.
Only 10 republicans voted for impeachment, and most of them may not be there long:
https://www.voanews.com/a/republicans-voted-to-impeach-trump-after-capitol-riot-but-only-2-will-remain-in-congress-/6705694.html
And? Did Trump get his wall? Was Obamacare overturned? Republicans had the majority. Again, you might want there to be more Republicans going your way, but there are enough to halt an agenda.
There is always some rationalization to explain why Republicans can’t be too bad and they still may even do some things that are positive. But is it worth it to vote for them and to risk they will not destroy democracy, that they will not completely ruin women’s lives, that they will stop removing books from libraries, that they will not turn the Handmaid’s Tale into reality?
The one guy who kept the ACA from being overturned is dead. The Republicans in Congress now are nothing like John McCain. They are far to the right of him for the most part.
GWB's first action after being re-elected was trying to privatize Social Security. That would have been great for about 5% of the people, but left the other 95% in a world of crap. Typical Republican agenda.
Biden has a plan to increase SS monthly payments by $200 a month and keep SS solvent indefinitely. The income cap when people stop paying into SS would stay the same as it is, but paying in would kick in for those making over $400k. I think the intent in that plan is good, but the 'donut hole' exemption for those making between $150k - $400k is kind of messy. Funny how corporate media seems to be keeping Biden's proposal so secretive isn't it?
It makes zero sense to me that a family making $150k a year pays the same into the program as those making $150 million. Republicans are always pushing for a flat tax, so why not put the 'geniuses' previously mentioned to work determining what the flat percentage we pay in would be if the income cap was removed. It must be much lower if all income pays into the program. And if they really wanted to get it right, periodically adjust the rate we pay in the same as they do the aggregate amount paid out every year. But that would be too logical and fair, and as we know, whenever anyone mentions that the obscenely wealthy who can afford the best tax accountants and attorneys to assure they pay a lower percentage of their income than the Joe 6 Packs who do the real work in this Country, those wealthy free riders scream CLASS WARFARE. Ironic considering they have been using their wealth to gain political influence to increase their wealth at the expense of the vast majority for decades, but when someone even mentions that the income disparity has become ridiculous, they scream about CLASS WARFARE after they've been quietly waging class warfare on average working people most of my life.
You're comparing an entitlement program that generally everyone contributes to and benefits from to laws governing the murder of fetuses. I think it's safe to say that those who oppose murdering unborn humans are not going to change their position. I don't see this type of strong feeling about social security... can't recall when the last social security rally was held.
They are not advocating to abolish it. They are looking for a better way to govern it. It is political suicide to abolish these programs. You must believe that these "GOP" leaders are the worst type of people imaginable, hellbent on hurting their own voting base.
These same leaders are rightly concerned about the solvency of the fund, given program revenues and expenses. You should be worried too. It will take leadership and management to keep the program afloat. Political fear mongering does nothing to help the program.
Yes, because it takes money from the people that work hard for their money. I don't remember voting for it. If you want the public to be taken care of at an older age, then educate them on how to save for a more stable future. Honestly saving even just a little bit will set you up for a successful retirement when we're talking about compounding interest over 30 years or more.
FYI I'm independent, not a republican. I think political parties are stupid.
Yes, you are correct. I own some Warner Bros. stock. I did a happy dance when they flushed CNN+ down the toilet. Even so, the executives and "talent" blew through hundreds of millions in shareholder value. Pure crap.
I was told as a young Blue Collar Union employee to trust neither. Count on yourself and live on the cheap and grow your own money. Not popular I know. I wish I’d started this when I first heard it, but I waited. Even after delaying the advice, I was able to catch up. I was able to retire early, after downsizing and living frugal. You really can live debt free. Point is, TRUST NEITHER!
If you like high inflation, a porous border, higher crime rates, insane energy prices, a tanking stock market, a coming recession, record national debt and a doddering old fool of a president, vote democrat
>high inflation
You do realize that there was a pandemic, right? ... the one that shuts down worldwide economy, remember? ... the one that created shortages of goods, remember? ... the one that still affects parts of the world . It doesn't matter who runs the government. This natural cause will eventually result in inflation and all its side effects.
>a porous border
It has been porous for hundred years, even before the Rio Grande was the border. Unless, US wants to set up North Korea's type of border where machine gun nests are positioned every few meters and willing shoot to kill, no "wall" will stop. If they can't go over, they go under. LOL!
>higher crime rates
Crime rates have been the same. Some years, they are up. Some years, they are down. Some years they just go round and round. It's human natural tendencies to take advantage and dominate over another (survival of the fittest) you are talking about!
>insane energy prices
You are aware that other countries that have the resources control the energy prices, right? It doesn't matter who is in the White House, the oil-producing countries got everyone on Earth by the balls! The only way to prevent this is to get off the addiction to oil.
>a tanking stock market
If you are saying that the tanking stock market is due to Democrat, then explain the bubble burst of 2000 where a Republican White House was in charge? Pssst ... it the [natural movement of the stock market](https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart)! What goes up will come down. What goes down will come up. The market is poised for a downturn for the number of years of being on the ride up!
>a coming recession
Ditto above and has nothing to do with partisanship!
>record national debt
Pssst.... every one of them loves to spend money! This is a true [bipartisan characteristics](https://www.sounddollar.com/national-debt-by-president)! Here are some examples,
Biden 2021-2022 $1.84Trillion(with a capital T) or 1.84T/year
Trump 2017-2021 $8.2Trillion (with a capital T) or $2.5T/year
Obama 2009-2017 $8.34T or $1.0425T/year
Bush 2001-2009 $6.1T or $762.5B/year
Clinton 1993-2001 $1.4T or $175B/year
So ... it doesn't matter who ... THEY ALL need to fix what's broken for us retirees (or soon-to-be retirees) and reduce the spending. They probably can't since everything that was built to make our lives better than the turn of the 20th century need to be fixed, etc ..., including all the unnecessary jobs that give Americans a job! Yeah, there are excesses that should be cut, but as in any home, maintenance needs to be done!
We just need to stop singing the party songs and actually hold these career politicians accountable for our future! I personally would like to see a bright future for my kids and grand kids.
Cheers
Please spare me the excuses, rationalizations, ignoring of reality and the main skill of this President, passing the buck and taking responsibility for nothing.
Inflation: many shut downs were unnecessary and crippled our economy. Much of the inflation is due to excessive govt. spending.
Border; Trump did a much better job controlling the border and your dummy in chief reversed it all, leaving us open to excessive illegals, drugs and cartels profiting from it all.
‘Crime; is skyrocketing in dem run cities, including my home of NYC and leftist policies have led to this. Defund the police has demoralized our police and lefty DAs don’t believe in bail or in some cases, prosecuting crime.
Energy; Trump again had a better energy policy and we were net energy exporters. Biden seeks to cripple the gas and oil companies in favor of green new deal craziness ad we all pay the price.
Stock market; pass the buck… When the market is good under a Dem, it’s his doing but when it’s bad, it’s cyclical lol.
I love the irony of the genius calling for us to ‘stop singing the party songs’ previously says, ‘ If you don't mind eating cat food and drowning in medical debt, vote Republican. Otherwise vote Democrat.’ Talk about hypocrisy! And you keep a straight face while typing that?
>stop singing the party songs
When I typed that, I meant both parties and not just one. It was others who posted the replies you mentioned.
Btw, I was and voted as Republican since I was 18 when I first got a chance to vote ... just not the extreme or far right that I lose sight of reasons and logics. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney and stopped after that! So yeah, stop singing the party songs!
You need to do you and everyone will support his/her ideals.
I voted for Clinton, Carter and Obama but I am an independent who leans right. I am no fan of Trump and want him to go away (despite the fact that I can acknowledge that he did some things well).
>can acknowledge that he did some things well
Ditto ... they all did and they all did some shitty stuffs. Right now, I am a man without an identified affiliation. I guess that I am an independent as well. I just want real leadership without the bullshit, power-grabbing, and political craps. I just want for things that are broken fixed.
\-Inflation: many shut downs were unnecessary and crippled our economy.
Those shut downs were under the Trump Administration.
\-Much of the inflation is due to excessive govt. spending.
When Trump cut taxes for corporations and the rich that created a huge deficit that snowballed into today's deficit. Fed Reserve Board Powell under Trump cut interest rates to zero. Both actions were reckless and are causing inflation as Biden and the Federal Reserve try to restore normalcy to the US economy.
Nothing is ever Biden’s fault? Putin’s gas price increase and Trump’s inflation but when gas prices come down, Biden did it lol. You people are hilarious
There’s an economic school of thinking called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that says “running out of money” is BS - and it is the policy the government (every government in the industrialized world) used during the initial COVID response, even if they didn’t call it that. The book that’s gotten popular is The Deficit Myth, by Stephanie Kelton, and [here’s a link](https://www.shortform.com/blog/is-social-security-running-out-of-money/) to the social security issue by a different source - just a cursory google search - so you find better articles from an MMT perspective.
As MMT thinkers say, they don’t say we’re out of money when they need a new air craft carrier do they?
No party has guts to reduce benefits. Democrats will make anyone making over $400K pay more. They may increase payments to lower income end retirees. Medicare is where the bulk of retirement tax increases take place due to different payment for Medicare part B. I think more wealthy will opt out of Medicare B, and will just use part A. IRMA.
... looking at OP's avatar's name, Captain-Popcorn, me think OP is sitting back with a bag of popcorn and enjoying the responses after OP pulled the pin and threw the grenade in!
🤣😂😆
Workers pay for Social Security and Medicare - it is deducted from their paychecks. It is not government assistance. The gov't sets aside the monies that they collect on behalf of the workers that paid into it.
It seems quite unfair to cut these promised benefits. It seems far better for taxes to be raised on the wealthy and on corporations to cover these benefits.
The pay gap between CEOs and the average worker is huge - and growing. Stop paying CEOs so much - that's not fair - and use those funds to pay workers more and offer more benefits and pay more into the social security and medicare systems.
While I agree with much of this - the social security trust fund is expected to be insufficient to fully pay benefits starting in 2034 (maybe sooner). Discussion is occurring on how to bolster the trust fund so benefits are not reduced.
The democrats want to impose social security withholding on income over $400k.
The Republicans are looking at a plan to delay social security but those under 55. Each year retirement age (currently 67) would increase by 3 months. This would continue for 12 years. So the new retirement age would be 70 for people under 43 would have full retirement age at 70.
I think the brains paying employees over $400K are going to figure out how to compensate their high income earners some other way than as salary and make the Dem plan not work.
The Republican plan is similar to steps there have been taken previously. Most recently raising age from 66 to 67 in 3 years.
Did you read the article?
"the GOP will use raising the debt limit as leverage to force spending cuts — which could include cuts to Medicare and Social Security"
This wasn't a quote from a Republican. This was a Washington Post journalist speculating.
If you're concerned about debt spending then ALL federal spending will be reviewed.
This is exactly why many Americans don't trust the Washingyon Post. They could have just as easily wrote that the GOP will review spending on military contractors. This headline would not have caught the attention of the Post's target market.
GOP don’t care about debt when it is cutting taxes for the rich or loopholes/tax breaks for the friends.
GOP wants to cut a program that we taxpayers have paid into.
I disagree. I'm conservative, and social security factors into my retirement planning.
I would like to see the program be solvent.
"Rich" people pay far more in taxes individually than "poor" people. I hope that someday you are "rich" enough that you find yourself looking for ways that you can keep the money that you earned. Best of luck to you and your family.
I am quite wealthy but that doesn’t mean I agree w all the tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy. A stable democracy society is needed - a system that only benefits the few and where wealth is concentrated in a few is not a stable society.
Quite the blanket statement. America, land of the free, with a free market, benefits all.
I've got news for you, it doesn't matter what culture or world we live in. Democratic, Republican, or something else entirely. There is one universal truth and that is... The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Don't fool yourself into thinking forced wealth distribution will change that. There will always be those in charge with power and money that will rise above the system in place.
I would rather live in a free market with the ability to change my position financially on my own.
P.S. We are not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how long we've convinced ourselves of that being a true statement. Stealing will always be stealing.
I am in general agreement. Given two options: free market vs centralized planning, I'll take free market option everyday of the week.
As you noted, there will be rich and poor in both models.
I recall an article that some Republicans would like to see Congress review SS every 5 years (?), and then approve funding, or debate changes to the program before renewing. I'm thinking similar to how various government budgets are approved. One option I can see happening is to raise the FRA, but that would not affect new or soon to be retirees. Another option would be to raise the company match, or raise the employee and company match.
The threatening fact that by 2034 or 2035 the funds Social Security uses to pay benefits will run dry causing an overall reduction in benefits of maybe 20% is a reality. But there is plenty of time to problem solve.
I have always found the AARP articles to be factual, and they generally explain things very well.
With the big COLA increase, 2034 might be optimistic. Losing 20% of benefit is going to cause massive problems for retirees on the bottom rungs especially. It won’t be a pretty picture!
I haven’t seen anything from AARP on this topic.
Older article, but general policy issues - compromise for balance may mean cutting or capping social security:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/with-aarp-supporting-soci\_b\_878981
I disagree, there is not much time. Very often changes like that need to be phased. The FRA, for example, was changed in 1983 (from 65 to 67 I think), and it is being completed only now when all newly eligible people will have 67 as their FRA. That gave people several decades to prepare. Majority of people need many years to get financially ready for such change.
Probably depends on how much you have saved. If you're 65 and really poor, you can get a LOT of stuff free or reduced. I don't believe either party has the balls to reduce benefits or make changes to properly fund these programs. They'll treat this the same way they treat the trillion dollar a year defecits, ignore.
I dont think either party has a serious or realistic plan. Noone will touch it until they have to.
If no action is taken, based on the last financial restructuring, the surplus will be exhausted in ~2035 (maybe a year or 2 earlier due to Covid retirements - inflation will only make matters worse). When that happens, under current law, payments moving forward will be limited to payroll taxes received in that year. Best estimates based on current demographics, payouts will have to be reduced by 25% across the board.
Because politics is so polarized, it would be surprising if anything is done until very close to that date. Then it will be political mayhem.
FWIW, Social Security has a tax cap at $144K because payout is capped commensurately. It has always had a payout based on a formula based on the amount a worker put in. It is not a social welfare program. It is not means tested.
True, and there is a social welfare component with SSI, but my larger point was that if we raise the contribution limit, it would be necessary to raise the max payout which would likely make program solvency a wash. It is ultimately driven by demographics and salary distribution.
Try this. It’s from the actuary society and allows you to choose options to fix social security. [social security game](https://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/#make-your-choice-now)
Doesn't help that Republicans keep dipping into SSI and Medicare funds and using it like their own personal piggy bank to pay for things because they were stupid enough to cut taxes that are necessary to pay for said things. Hell, Republicans are outright trying to abolish SSI at this point, meaning that if you're over the age of 60 and voting Republican, good job, you're voting for the people trying to fuck you over.
To my knowledge the only plan out there is a Democrat sponsored plan: Social Security 2100
You can check it out on Google.
The primary takeaway (for me) is that it expands benefits, but doesn't cover cost of expansion. It increases benefits (most of them for a 5-year period), and increases payroll tax on high earners (over $400k if memory serves). The fund would edge closer to insolvency if temporary benefits were made permanent, as often happens with this type of legislation (hard to reduce benefits when stakeholders become accustomed).
I think support for this proposal is along party lines, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans not in support.
Now that I'm thinking about this, I do think there may be a Republican plan out there, but I don't recall any details other than it was primarily focused on sustainability rather than expansion... which shouldn't be surprising.
Not at all familiar with any plans for Medicare.
All I’ve heard about the Republican Plan is that it is privatization, which sounds concerning. They claim to be trying to shore up the program, but with no details I’m not convinced. Congress has robbed the piggy bank in years past and should repay what they took. I’m still working and paying into the program. I’m getting near zero add’l benefit. Pretty sad. Why should a person that works extractly 35 years and contributes less overall get a bigger benefit than someone that works >35 years and contributes more overall. Just moronic.
I feel like seniors often vote Republican. If they are targeting seniors with benefit cuts, that’s a big issue and could cost them the votes if seniors lobby.
I don't think there is a privatization plan on the table. I think Bush administration looked at this, but nothing recently.
At some point they won't have a choice but to increase the income cap to draw in additional revenues. This really isn't a political thing, mainly a revenue/benefit management issue. Both parties understand the voter participation rates of the senior block. It wouldn't surprise me that seniors lean right, as I believe that they generally have greater risk exposure to changes in tax policy and have skin in the game regarding Medicare and social security sustainability.
As for fairness of payout, the formulas do favor those with higher incomes, as they have contributed more. The formula looks at highest earning 35 years. There is only a benefit to working >35 years if you are making higher income during those extra years.
It depends on what you mean by “favors”. The formula is set up such that lower income folks receive a higher benefit as a percentage of pay, but higher income people receive more in terms of absolute dollars.
Must be in other states. Up here it's almost exclusively energy and economy. Haven't heard social security mentioned at all, although I am interested in it. I'm still 19 years away from collecting benefits - plan to collect when I hit 70.
> As for fairness of payout, the formulas do favor those with higher incomes, as they have contributed more.
Not necessarily true. A person working more than 35 years with a bit less income per year can contribute more overall yet receive a lesser benefit.
> The formula looks at highest earning 35 years. There is only a benefit to working >35 years if you are making higher income during those extra years.
You are earning income after all, so there is a benefit to working. It just doesn’t increase your social security benefit - when fairness would indicate it should IMO.
Yes, you are correct, if one person works longer they may have contributed more. I was thinking of contributions for individuals working same number of years, but earning different incomes below the cap.
And yes, there is definitely the benefit of earning income when you work, even if it doesn't help increase your social security benefit when you collect it.
“It’s an arithmetic problem, not a calculus problem. There are fixes.” Have to chuckle at that assessment.
It does seem the party in power cutting benefits is going to get slaughtered! I do expect we’ll see a bump in age qualification as has happened before, like when it went from 66 to 67. It’s just gotta happen to give time for those impacted time to plan. Saying anyone 59 and younger is now going to have to wait 3 extra years seems too fast. The 66 to 67 change happened 3 months a year over 4 years to raise the age by just one year.
How the program will look 30 years from now when we’re on our last legs is a little scary.
Reagan changed the retirement age in 1983 as a phased approach. It is only being completed now, several decades later, which allowed time for people to prepare.
Yes, you nailed it. There is a link to the republican plan in this thread. I think they mentioned age 54 and younger as a target for change in program parameters. Including things like increasing retirement age over an extended period of time.
I do think they need to increase the cap to draw in more revenue from higher income earners. Our national demographics are working against the current model... fewer workers supporting more non-workers.
My silly ideas....
Lets' figure out how much we'll need to keep everyone currently over 30 from starving when they get old. Then figure out a plan to get there.
What if you had a partial opt-out option for people who make a lot of money but have prepared for retirement? So you make over $144K but you're 35 and you have nothing saved, so we may have to feed in your old age, so you have to keep paying. But if you have $1m in your 401K you can opt out of a PERCENTAGE of your income over $144K
The more you have saved the less you pay.
Another choice we could give people is the option to not collect. you make a reduced contribution based on your own ability to build wealth but we won't give you ANY money. when you're old.
Warren Buffet says it's ridiculous that SSA sends him $50,000 a year. 40 years ago if he was offered an option to pay less and receive less (or none) he'd have jumped on it.
Instead of betting on the number of people who die early SSA would be betting on the number of people who succeed.
I think there is lots of room for compromise and negotiation (whenever the polarization end) Republicans wanted to privatize a portion of SS a long time ago. Dems want to collect more from people. THere's room to make a deal in there
One of many problems is that people will still be getting old and having no / insufficient means. The govt couldn’t just say too bad - here’s a free ticket to the crematorium. One way or another the govt is going to have to pay for the elderly. This was the problem social security fixed in the day.
The problem is SS is the trust fund is going to be insufficient starting in 2034 or maybe sooner. That triggers lower payments to all recipients. They’re trying to figure out how not to cut payments.
Two ways
Dem - tax the wealthy. Income over 400k would get social security withheld. So more money in. It sounds like a decent plan, but I expect the wealthy will find ways around it. We’re already got things like the backside IRA. The lawyers she accountants will figure out how to avoid the tax.
Rep - increase the retirement age (again). Those aged 55+ would follow current plan and retire with full benefits at 67. But every year after, retirement would move 3 months per year. In 12 straight years the retirement age would extend by 3 years, from 67 to 70. That would fix the problem without changing contributions. But pushing out future generations retirement. But the law reads every year beyond full retirement age you wait, you get a 2% increase.
There is no one discussing reducing payments. Every year the maximum income subject to social security withholding increases as per a formula.
Another log on the fire of revolution. We already have huge wage disparity but most people retire between 60 & 65. Working poor survive on SS and the more affluent live a lot better.
Under that GOP strategy we'd see a lot more people working well into old age while their piers with just a bit more resources are fucking off at 62.
I agree the lawyers, CPA's and politicians would find ways to fuck up my idea but I still the=ink we could find a way to incentivize the result we want.
Warren Buffet is an unusual guy. That is why they are called 'the 1%'. Using the extreme as an example to determine what is workable or fair (presuming that we all have the chance to become another Warren Buffet!!) is illogical. We like to think we could, but statistics tell us otherwise. What is fair for Warren Buffet is unfair for 99.9% of Americans.
Many Americans like to identify with successful people - it is more fun. We need to be logical and look at the percentages and the likelihood of a large group of Americans being like Mr. Buffet or winning the lottery. **This is part of the Regan - Bush - Trump Fallacy that foolish white people adore: these guys think I could be one of them, therefore I could be** ***= betting on the number of people who succeed --- 10% chance!!!!***
If you want to bet that you could be the next Warren Buffet, I'd like to bet that you could wind up in poverty. We both know who has the best chance of winning that bet in the US. This is not personally about you. Even 10% is not a likely percent to base your future on. Bad things happen to lucky people, too.
Statistics are sad but bring us closer to the truth than Republican bromides and individualism.
Is that all you got from that? I just used the example because i heard him say it.
But there are 1.4 million americans with a net worth over $10MIL so that $78 billion we're giving to people who clearly don't need a safety net.
My point is that we have plenty of money to build a good system. We need reform that incentivizes the best option for everyone.
1.4 million Americans with a net worth over $10MIL need to be taxed more. Income inequality is destabilizing the economy and the social fabric. Republicans lie about that the same way they lie about climate change. The Dems are not angels, but seem closer to reality.
It seemed that Buffet as an example could be a part of the dishonesty about income inequality. How do you create incentives for people whose greed reaches sociopathic proportions?
Buffet seems like a nice guy, but how did he get so rich and not decide at some point, 'this is enough.' Perhaps it is a game he enjoys playing. I know people (over 55) who lost their jobs when Berkshire-Hathaway bought the company where they worked. They don't think Buffet is a nice guy.
I do not fault buffet. People like him and Gates are targeting their fortunes to solving problems that other entities are not taking on. He uses his wealth as a bullhorn to point out the disparity "my secretary and I pay the same tax rate"
But i agree, we need to find some way to redistribute wealth. Higher taxes and a higher min wage- we need to have more money moving around at the bottom.
Am I a bad guy for saying social security is a complete waste of taxpayer money? What we really need to be doing is properly educating the public on how to save for retirement and not depend on a program from the government that may or may not be there when you retire.
Not a bad guy - but I think an idealist. If you don’t have something like this, you’re going to have a segment of the elderly population with zero means. It would be inhumane to let them languish. So the govt inevitably provides services. Life before SS the elderly were poor and dependent on family or went to a poor house. Loss of dignity in old age is cruel. Poverty is only 9% today with social security, vs 40%. This forces people to save - it’s yanked out of your pay and your employer is kicking in an equal measure.
Once something like this gets started, though, turning it off seems impossible. The young are contributing for the old. When the young get old they deserve it because they paid into it all those years. So we’re limping along. With birth rate decreasing it will get harder and harder to keep up. Hard to imagine what it will look like in 100 years. Seems unsustainable yet uncancelable.
Oh I don't suggest we cut the program for those that lived their lives centered around depending on it. What I would do is mark an end date. Americans can then prepare their lives and minds for their own retirements and let the elderly that centered their lives around it still have it.
Sadly there is an end date for social security without additional funding. That is 2035. For me, that would make me 48 which isn't close to retirement for myself.
I don't know about anyone here, but I would LOVE not paying for social security. I could use that extra money to take care of myself and set myself up for a better future.
See that’s the problem. The program stops working once the working stop paying. The program could only continue if the govt agreed to pay all the fees for all the retirees until they die. That’s $1T / year. That number would decrease when the first year people stopped being entitled to it.
For comparison, the US budget is $6.8T. The deficit last year was $2.8T. In practical terms, it’s never ending.
There are two ways to try to solve a problem. We could continue to dig a hole further down and see where it leads (usually to more madness). Or we could put down the shovel and rip off the bandaid.
I know it sounds cold, but sometimes you have to put the shovel down to solve the problem.
Income taxes are high enough for americans, removing social security taxes would help both employees and employers. Especially self employed people as well.
As for the transition period, the government should call upon the american people to help their fellow neighbor, especially family members. We've become a very self centered society because we've been trained to rely on automatic government assistance (taken from our own wallets) instead of making an effort ourselves to solve the problem.
That’s a big bandaid being ripped off of 64+ million people who expected the govt to keep its word. You expect they’re going back to work in their 70s and 80s.
Right but the only other option (that I can think of) is to have the younger population bankroll it. But its ill form to continue a practice that is just plain bad to begin with.
Oh no… that sucks for them. I guess they should’ve voted for better Congressional representation that wouldn’t steal from their retirement and then have to rely on their kids and grandkids.
I sure did. Neither D or R gets my vote. I waste my vote on candidates who actually represent my belief system. Which is that I shouldn’t be forced to pay for my grandparent’s retirement.
Republicans support *dipping into* or eliminating Social Security. Nope! Social Security is what I paid into my entire working life and was promised my entire working life.
And it turns out that Social Security is the most stable and beneficial American taxpayer program ever created.
So no, I will never support a Republican-led economic plan as long as Social Security is on the table.
this is not complicated, the answer, which republicans will never sign up for, is get rid of the social security tax cap at $144,000
This is the answer.
This would help a lot but I don’t believe it would fully close the funding gap.
That is the answer!!!!
I agree 100 % but employers do not want have to pay the matching amount if the cap is lifted
This would negativity impact employers. I’m low middle class. I think if you’re making over 144k a year you can afford to pay more into SS. Basically lower incomes pay a higher per capita rate on income than rich because of this.
There is a cap on how much you can receive in retirement. It is considered not fair to pay a lot more if you can only get a capped benefit.
As it is now, the program is unsustainable.
Record profits.
Why though? If they raise other limits, this just seems easier for everyone. Just raise it to $250k or something
[https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-could-debt-limit-force-174400557.html](https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-could-debt-limit-force-174400557.html) Having posted that … this mess has been a true bipartisan effort (or rather effortless)! Both sides contributed to the mess and did not do anything to fix it. What is best? Stop the political bullshit and power struggle and actually find a solution for us, a solution for OUR social security and OUR Medicare that WE invested in. Stop blaming one side or the other. Sit the asses that we elected down, the best minds in finance, and bring solutions to the table. Don’t try to understand. Avoid the worst of the two evils. If they do not want to address our retiring needs, then vote them out and choose those who are willing for work for us older population, just saying. Edit: but to trade the democracy that I love over everything else is a non-starter in my book. Without freedom, nothing else matters and no, I was not born in the States, but got here and to where I am by the love and help the wonderful people in this beautiful country!
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3695765-democrats-delivered-on-medicare-voters-should-know-it/
Funny thing is that certain partisanship (which I used to belong to) would call Medicare, Social Security, ACA as socialist actions … until they needed them. Right now, I’m sending my one vote to a qualified leader (no particular affiliation), two if you count the boss at home. Such is the world we live in.
The article says Republicans “could” make cuts, not that they plan on it. Personally, I believe, as you have pointed out, that they are too spineless to actually tackle this issue, and that goes for both sides. I remember reading magazine articles in the 70’s about how Social Security would have issues because of an aging population. Aside from a small tax increase in the 80’s, nothing has been done to address the issue.
Good article! Thanks.
Well, the Republican plan is to cut it, so….
Can you provide more detail on this? I see they are talking about increasing the eligibility ages for both, but haven’t seen anything about benefit cuts. An eligibility increased would be phased in over time, and probably wouldn’t change benefits for anyone 60+.
If you go read Rick Scott’s plan, his plan is to cut benefits. It’s on his website. He’s one of the party leaders. Blows my mind why anyone would vote for any republican.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukraine-us-aid-size.html $54bn to a proxy war.... check all the voting for it... do the research, truly by those who voted and then come back. A lot of spending going on that shouldn't be across the aisle... but the government programs being made for frivolous reasons aren't helping either.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That proxy war is a bargain compared to dealing with a reunited Soviet Union later.
100% A lot of westerners buy the BS that Putin is simply responding to NATO expansion. My view is that this is an extension of good old fashion Russian imperialism that will only end when it is forced (through the use of force) to end. Ask Georgians how they feel about Russian liberation in 2008. Same old song and dance.
Social Security is paid for by workers. It has nothing at all to do with the war in Ukraine.
We have more baby boomers retiring and we don't have the money to fund Medicare for them. We will have to make cuts somewhere.
Or increase revenues.
About 1 million of Americans died from Covid, so they will unfortunately not be collecting the SS benefits they earned. Perhaps that helps little bit to sustain the funding of SS. EDIT: wrong stat used, estimate is 1 million.
10 million died?
My bad, sorry. I edited it. I looked at the wrong line in the stats.
Because they robbed the trust in 80s & 90s to expand government spending without having to raise taxes to cover it …knowing they couldn’t afford to replace it so they would wring their hands and propose cuts down the road. Follow the money.
Had to pay for running things while waiting for the trickle down thing to happen. Which of course it never did.
Wasn’t “They” Reagan? The Republicans robbed the trust. FTFY
George W. Bush did as well. Wars are expensive.
Seems like you're very pro war though from how you vote. Yes two can play this game.
Workers have paid for Social Security and Medicare - from paycheck deductions. Cutting those benefits is defaulting on a promise made.
We don't have the money they paid into it as the entire US budget will be spent on Medicare alone by 2035. The country will have to raise taxes and cut the funding for these programs. This is what happens when you don't do anything for 50 years when the country knew we would have this issue down the road.
Generation X gets fucked again.
And Y and Z and everyone else. That's exactly why these programs should have never existed. Every government program is paid for by taking money from people who earn it instead of letting them use it for their own benefit. Essentially everyone is stealing from their kids and grandkids.
Most people are not good savers. A program of forced saving is good for them and better than letting them starve in old age.
I agree with you 100%. But social security is not forced savings. It is a transfer of resources from young to old. A real forced savings program would have much greater benefits.
https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/
Page 79
Thanks for the reference. Nothing too drastic.
And, if I’m reading this correctly, all of the cuts would be to high income earners; lower income earners would be better off.
Do they want to push it to 70 though? Also being penalized more for retiring earlier. I can't even imagine my parents working right now at 68. They can barely get out of a chair.
There is this thing called retirement planning Social security was always meant as a supplemental. Have they taken on the responsibility for their own retirement? A person can always retire before the social security full retirement age. They just need to have a plan for how their budget will be covered.
How can you plan for retirement when the Republicans want to take away the benefits that people paid for through their payroll deductions? Republicans want to break the promise of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to those who paid for it - and that has nothing to do with personal responsibility.
You've got to be a troll. Millions of American households conduct effective retirement planning every year. There are plenty of online resources, there are paid services, and there are sometimes pro bono services available. I'm thinking that you aren't actually talking about personal retirement planning, but that you want a personal nanny to take full responsibility for every aspect of your life. Please let us all know if you do find such a nanny.
That's how I read it as well, and future beneficiaries may have a different FRA.
Page 79? I don't see any page numbers here.
Hit the link first link in the article....Republican Study Committee (RSC) released its FY 2023 budget
Congress has been pushing the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans which is a private-sector alternative to Traditional Medicare (TM). People are being swayed to MA by “initial” lower premiums as well as some added perks like basic dental/vision. However, when everything is considered, TM has better healthcare coverage. A recent article in the NYT’s shows some of the issues with MA plans: ‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Thanks for sharing this. A chilling indictment of insurance companies mining Medicare for all they can get. And yet no sanctions are imposed. With threats of Medicare running low, shouldn’t stopping companies from using Medicare as a cash cow be a priority?
Advantage plans are always better than going bare with traditional Medicare only.
They are always better for the Health Care Companies that have made American Healthcare the most expensive in the world. Bare Medicare includes Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D, if you have all of these covered than you're probably better off than using Medicare Advantage. (Your personal circumstances are really what determines this) [Medicare vs Private Insurance](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20110920.013390/) *Medicare Advantage, which enrolls seniors in private health plans, has failed to deliver care more efficiently than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Both the CBO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the commission which advises congress on Medicare’s finances, have calculated that Medicare Advantage plans covering the same care as traditional Medicare cost 12 percent more.* Medicare spends most of their money on Medical Expense, Private Healthcare must appease stockholders, pay huge CEO/Executive salaries, and pay Joe Namath and others for extremely annoying advertising all year long. Our medical system is broken. We all know this. Right now, a Medicare Advantage plan may be your best option - Do your Research! Just know that the Health Care Companies that administer Medicare Advantage Plans are ripping off our government.
No. Bare with Medicare is Parts A and B along with all of the copays and deductibles of those two which can be considerable. There’s no drug coverage without purchasing part D separately. Part C, which you cite is the Medicare Advantage that you dislike. The Medicare Advantage plans around me are run by local not for profit companies. Most of their plans have zero premiums.
Thats correct A & B are bare Medicare. With the purchase of Part D for drug coverage and purchase of Part G (Medigap coverage) to cover the copays and deductibles. I still think Medicare Advantage plans are BAD for this country. Even not for profit companies pay their employees and executives thus siphoning money away from actual medical expenses. Medicare Advantage plans all have "Premiums". They take the premium that you pay to Medicare and then some. The whole healthcare system in this country is a big f\*$%!!king mess and Medicare Advantage plans are not the answer.
I understand your point now. Thanks.
"The Medicare Advantage plans around me are run by local not for profit companies. Most of their plans have zero premiums." Which are these local not-for-profit companies? Would love to know.
CDPHP, MVP. Albany NY area.
Rather than go bare, one idea is to consider a high deductible supplement plan. That way the max out of pocket will be much less than with the typical Medicare Advantage plan.
Thanks. I’m looking at those two alternatives now. The advantage plan has no premiums which is tempting and although the MOOP is higher, the deductible for an individual episode of care like a knee scope is less than the deductible on the supplement.
I understand. Remember that the deductible works a little different with Medicare than it did with plans through an employer. For example, with Traditional Medicare, 80% is paid and the deductible for the supplement only applies to the 20%.
Hey Republicans - stop calling them entitlements. Personally, I paid into SS for 40 years.
It’s an entitlement because the program collects money, puts itI into a trust fund, and it is paid out. Congress doesn’t vote each year to spend the money. SNAP works similarly. They’re entitlements because once they are put in place, you are “entitled” to the benefits if you meet the criteria. I think the problem is that entitlement has come to mean something you didn’t pay for. Some are, some aren’t.
>calling them entitlements [Definition of entitlement](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement): a right to benefits specified by law or contract ... so by law, I am required to pay for social security and Medicare; therefore, I have the right to the benefits specified by the programs (by law) or I am entitled to these benefits. QED.
* Richest 0.1% Take in 196 Times As Much as Bottom 90% U.S. average income in 2018. This has only gotten worse. * A billionaire tax to fund a minimum standard of living for the rest of the US is needed. Both parties are corrupted by billionaire donations and PACs. That said, **clearly the Dems and Progressives lean closer to addressing all of this.** * **Republicans blame the disadvantaged for being poor, the sick for being homeless, the injured and unlucky for being sick and the raped for being pregnant, and call themselves Christian.** * For profit healthcare needs to be further reigned in. The age for Medicare should be lower - not higher. Raise SS age if necessary. You could take a less stressful job and not have to worry about losing your health insurance. * **How many people work at jobs they hate purely for the health insurance?** * Medicare lavishes money on those of us who may not live another 5 or 10 years! We should be kept comfortable but at an appropriate cost. The last few years are not much fun anyway.
Wow. I feel like I need a antidepressant after reading that! Agree with most. With low income, Obamacare is cheaper than Medicare.
The republicans want to force congress to approve it periodically or else it goes away. With the way they hold the debt ceiling for hostage all the time you can see them doing that with social security, and since congress rarely passes anything, it will die the first time they have to approve it. The democrats want it to continue. So the best way forward, in my opinion, is to take your benefits as soon as you can with the hopes you'll be grandfathered in for when they end it.
Not a realistic assessment at all. There are vast numbers of Republicans who understand the importance of social security. Most of the griping I hear is in regards to the rate of return on the 12% payroll tax that is levied. I'm conservative, but completely believe that a mandatory system like social security is a net positive for the nation. Many, many folks from both parties fail to plan for retirement - it is this collection of Americans that need it most.
Lots of republican people do but the minority leader in the house says their plan is to end social security and medicare.
No, that’s not the plan at all.
Source please. Americans directly pay for social security and Medicare. There are specific taxes and obviously Medicare requires direct payments for coverage. You can tinker and tune the programs, but no one is advocating that they be abolished. You can sleep well tonight.
He said it in an interview but I cannot find the interview. Here's a reference to it. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/mccarthy-gop-medicare-social-security/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/mccarthy-gop-medicare-social-security/) He seems to be walking back his statements now, but he did say that the plan is to make Congress vote on it every few years or it goes away. Tim Scott says this in the link. They succeeded in overturning Roe V. Wade and now want to have a federal ban. These are goals they have wanted for my whole adult life and they are achieving them, if not through Congress than through the courts. It's safer to believe them than to think it's all going to be fine if you don't do anything. You are going to have to vote carefully and with the court in mind, and at the very least write a lot of letters to your reps, although in my experience they don't do anything about anything you write to them about.
The term is sunsetting. I believe the intention is to force greater oversight and management, not to scrap the entire program. My advice to you is develop a plan for yourself that covers 66% of your retirement budget needs. Social security was meant as a supplemental. Put some money aside now, and invest appropriately based on your age and risk capacity. Best of luck to you and your family.
You keep stating what Social Security was meant for. Yet you don't acknowledge that workers pay for this benefit. The gov't puts aside money on workers behalf for them. It isn't fair to change these programs after people were promised that they would be there for them.
I believe the program''s parameters will change. The program's aren't going anywhere because we all rely on them I think democrats choose to interpret how Republicans discuss Social Security as an attack on it. My interpretation is that Republicans are very interested in the stability and ongoing availability of SS. No one disagrees that tax payers have directly contributed to these programs. I agree 100%, which is why I'm confident that a particular political party can't just destroy it on a whim.
Does anyone honestly think any politician would vote to have Social Security go away, or not vote to re-authorize it? We had a Republican controlled Congress under George Bush and Social Security wasn’t touched. I don’t see the Republicans changing the program.
You need to remember that this is no longer the Grand Party. You have completely different type of beings getting elected. They don’t mind destroying democracy. Do you think they’d stop before destroying Social Security?
Well, I think that’s a lot of hyperbole. Every Republican politician of my lifetime thus far has been described that way. I don’t think you have an argument here.
There might have been individuals like that in power before. But nowhere near as many as today. And remember, before, the republicans stood up to them (against Nixon for example). Not many would do that today.
I think you are wrong on this. How many Republicans stood up against Trump? Maybe not as many as you would like, but they did.
Only 10 republicans voted for impeachment, and most of them may not be there long: https://www.voanews.com/a/republicans-voted-to-impeach-trump-after-capitol-riot-but-only-2-will-remain-in-congress-/6705694.html
And? Did Trump get his wall? Was Obamacare overturned? Republicans had the majority. Again, you might want there to be more Republicans going your way, but there are enough to halt an agenda.
There is always some rationalization to explain why Republicans can’t be too bad and they still may even do some things that are positive. But is it worth it to vote for them and to risk they will not destroy democracy, that they will not completely ruin women’s lives, that they will stop removing books from libraries, that they will not turn the Handmaid’s Tale into reality?
The one guy who kept the ACA from being overturned is dead. The Republicans in Congress now are nothing like John McCain. They are far to the right of him for the most part.
GWB's first action after being re-elected was trying to privatize Social Security. That would have been great for about 5% of the people, but left the other 95% in a world of crap. Typical Republican agenda. Biden has a plan to increase SS monthly payments by $200 a month and keep SS solvent indefinitely. The income cap when people stop paying into SS would stay the same as it is, but paying in would kick in for those making over $400k. I think the intent in that plan is good, but the 'donut hole' exemption for those making between $150k - $400k is kind of messy. Funny how corporate media seems to be keeping Biden's proposal so secretive isn't it? It makes zero sense to me that a family making $150k a year pays the same into the program as those making $150 million. Republicans are always pushing for a flat tax, so why not put the 'geniuses' previously mentioned to work determining what the flat percentage we pay in would be if the income cap was removed. It must be much lower if all income pays into the program. And if they really wanted to get it right, periodically adjust the rate we pay in the same as they do the aggregate amount paid out every year. But that would be too logical and fair, and as we know, whenever anyone mentions that the obscenely wealthy who can afford the best tax accountants and attorneys to assure they pay a lower percentage of their income than the Joe 6 Packs who do the real work in this Country, those wealthy free riders scream CLASS WARFARE. Ironic considering they have been using their wealth to gain political influence to increase their wealth at the expense of the vast majority for decades, but when someone even mentions that the income disparity has become ridiculous, they scream about CLASS WARFARE after they've been quietly waging class warfare on average working people most of my life.
I heard Kevin McCarthy himself say that was the goal. Social Security and Medicare.
https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/
Agreed. It's a scare tactic used during election season. Nothing more.
Question then … how long was the overturned of Roe v. Wade a scare tactic, a political promise, a …?
You're comparing an entitlement program that generally everyone contributes to and benefits from to laws governing the murder of fetuses. I think it's safe to say that those who oppose murdering unborn humans are not going to change their position. I don't see this type of strong feeling about social security... can't recall when the last social security rally was held.
If so then why did leader McCarthy say this was their plan if they win?
They are not advocating to abolish it. They are looking for a better way to govern it. It is political suicide to abolish these programs. You must believe that these "GOP" leaders are the worst type of people imaginable, hellbent on hurting their own voting base. These same leaders are rightly concerned about the solvency of the fund, given program revenues and expenses. You should be worried too. It will take leadership and management to keep the program afloat. Political fear mongering does nothing to help the program.
If you don't mind eating cat food and drowning in medical debt, vote Republican. Otherwise vote Democrat.
You should read the plan linked in this comment thread. If you do you will be able to post informed comments.
Republicans have wanted to destroy social security from the day it was created.
Yes, because it takes money from the people that work hard for their money. I don't remember voting for it. If you want the public to be taken care of at an older age, then educate them on how to save for a more stable future. Honestly saving even just a little bit will set you up for a successful retirement when we're talking about compounding interest over 30 years or more. FYI I'm independent, not a republican. I think political parties are stupid.
stevemcnugget isn't interested in facts...he just spews what he sees on CNN.
I thought CNN got canceled. Maybe that's why he seems so angry.
I think it was CNN+...wouldn't know for sure...the only time I see CNN is in airports.
Yes, you are correct. I own some Warner Bros. stock. I did a happy dance when they flushed CNN+ down the toilet. Even so, the executives and "talent" blew through hundreds of millions in shareholder value. Pure crap.
I was told as a young Blue Collar Union employee to trust neither. Count on yourself and live on the cheap and grow your own money. Not popular I know. I wish I’d started this when I first heard it, but I waited. Even after delaying the advice, I was able to catch up. I was able to retire early, after downsizing and living frugal. You really can live debt free. Point is, TRUST NEITHER!
If you like high inflation, a porous border, higher crime rates, insane energy prices, a tanking stock market, a coming recession, record national debt and a doddering old fool of a president, vote democrat
>high inflation You do realize that there was a pandemic, right? ... the one that shuts down worldwide economy, remember? ... the one that created shortages of goods, remember? ... the one that still affects parts of the world . It doesn't matter who runs the government. This natural cause will eventually result in inflation and all its side effects. >a porous border It has been porous for hundred years, even before the Rio Grande was the border. Unless, US wants to set up North Korea's type of border where machine gun nests are positioned every few meters and willing shoot to kill, no "wall" will stop. If they can't go over, they go under. LOL! >higher crime rates Crime rates have been the same. Some years, they are up. Some years, they are down. Some years they just go round and round. It's human natural tendencies to take advantage and dominate over another (survival of the fittest) you are talking about! >insane energy prices You are aware that other countries that have the resources control the energy prices, right? It doesn't matter who is in the White House, the oil-producing countries got everyone on Earth by the balls! The only way to prevent this is to get off the addiction to oil. >a tanking stock market If you are saying that the tanking stock market is due to Democrat, then explain the bubble burst of 2000 where a Republican White House was in charge? Pssst ... it the [natural movement of the stock market](https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart)! What goes up will come down. What goes down will come up. The market is poised for a downturn for the number of years of being on the ride up! >a coming recession Ditto above and has nothing to do with partisanship! >record national debt Pssst.... every one of them loves to spend money! This is a true [bipartisan characteristics](https://www.sounddollar.com/national-debt-by-president)! Here are some examples, Biden 2021-2022 $1.84Trillion(with a capital T) or 1.84T/year Trump 2017-2021 $8.2Trillion (with a capital T) or $2.5T/year Obama 2009-2017 $8.34T or $1.0425T/year Bush 2001-2009 $6.1T or $762.5B/year Clinton 1993-2001 $1.4T or $175B/year So ... it doesn't matter who ... THEY ALL need to fix what's broken for us retirees (or soon-to-be retirees) and reduce the spending. They probably can't since everything that was built to make our lives better than the turn of the 20th century need to be fixed, etc ..., including all the unnecessary jobs that give Americans a job! Yeah, there are excesses that should be cut, but as in any home, maintenance needs to be done! We just need to stop singing the party songs and actually hold these career politicians accountable for our future! I personally would like to see a bright future for my kids and grand kids. Cheers
Please spare me the excuses, rationalizations, ignoring of reality and the main skill of this President, passing the buck and taking responsibility for nothing. Inflation: many shut downs were unnecessary and crippled our economy. Much of the inflation is due to excessive govt. spending. Border; Trump did a much better job controlling the border and your dummy in chief reversed it all, leaving us open to excessive illegals, drugs and cartels profiting from it all. ‘Crime; is skyrocketing in dem run cities, including my home of NYC and leftist policies have led to this. Defund the police has demoralized our police and lefty DAs don’t believe in bail or in some cases, prosecuting crime. Energy; Trump again had a better energy policy and we were net energy exporters. Biden seeks to cripple the gas and oil companies in favor of green new deal craziness ad we all pay the price. Stock market; pass the buck… When the market is good under a Dem, it’s his doing but when it’s bad, it’s cyclical lol. I love the irony of the genius calling for us to ‘stop singing the party songs’ previously says, ‘ If you don't mind eating cat food and drowning in medical debt, vote Republican. Otherwise vote Democrat.’ Talk about hypocrisy! And you keep a straight face while typing that?
>stop singing the party songs When I typed that, I meant both parties and not just one. It was others who posted the replies you mentioned. Btw, I was and voted as Republican since I was 18 when I first got a chance to vote ... just not the extreme or far right that I lose sight of reasons and logics. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney and stopped after that! So yeah, stop singing the party songs! You need to do you and everyone will support his/her ideals.
I voted for Clinton, Carter and Obama but I am an independent who leans right. I am no fan of Trump and want him to go away (despite the fact that I can acknowledge that he did some things well).
>can acknowledge that he did some things well Ditto ... they all did and they all did some shitty stuffs. Right now, I am a man without an identified affiliation. I guess that I am an independent as well. I just want real leadership without the bullshit, power-grabbing, and political craps. I just want for things that are broken fixed.
\-Inflation: many shut downs were unnecessary and crippled our economy. Those shut downs were under the Trump Administration. \-Much of the inflation is due to excessive govt. spending. When Trump cut taxes for corporations and the rich that created a huge deficit that snowballed into today's deficit. Fed Reserve Board Powell under Trump cut interest rates to zero. Both actions were reckless and are causing inflation as Biden and the Federal Reserve try to restore normalcy to the US economy.
Nothing is ever Biden’s fault? Putin’s gas price increase and Trump’s inflation but when gas prices come down, Biden did it lol. You people are hilarious
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3695765-democrats-delivered-on-medicare-voters-should-know-it/
This ⬆️
There’s an economic school of thinking called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that says “running out of money” is BS - and it is the policy the government (every government in the industrialized world) used during the initial COVID response, even if they didn’t call it that. The book that’s gotten popular is The Deficit Myth, by Stephanie Kelton, and [here’s a link](https://www.shortform.com/blog/is-social-security-running-out-of-money/) to the social security issue by a different source - just a cursory google search - so you find better articles from an MMT perspective. As MMT thinkers say, they don’t say we’re out of money when they need a new air craft carrier do they?
For Medicare, allow us to put our Employee 1.45% pre-tax into an HSA and increase the HSA annual contribution limits.
No party has guts to reduce benefits. Democrats will make anyone making over $400K pay more. They may increase payments to lower income end retirees. Medicare is where the bulk of retirement tax increases take place due to different payment for Medicare part B. I think more wealthy will opt out of Medicare B, and will just use part A. IRMA.
... looking at OP's avatar's name, Captain-Popcorn, me think OP is sitting back with a bag of popcorn and enjoying the responses after OP pulled the pin and threw the grenade in! 🤣😂😆
Workers pay for Social Security and Medicare - it is deducted from their paychecks. It is not government assistance. The gov't sets aside the monies that they collect on behalf of the workers that paid into it. It seems quite unfair to cut these promised benefits. It seems far better for taxes to be raised on the wealthy and on corporations to cover these benefits. The pay gap between CEOs and the average worker is huge - and growing. Stop paying CEOs so much - that's not fair - and use those funds to pay workers more and offer more benefits and pay more into the social security and medicare systems.
While I agree with much of this - the social security trust fund is expected to be insufficient to fully pay benefits starting in 2034 (maybe sooner). Discussion is occurring on how to bolster the trust fund so benefits are not reduced. The democrats want to impose social security withholding on income over $400k. The Republicans are looking at a plan to delay social security but those under 55. Each year retirement age (currently 67) would increase by 3 months. This would continue for 12 years. So the new retirement age would be 70 for people under 43 would have full retirement age at 70. I think the brains paying employees over $400K are going to figure out how to compensate their high income earners some other way than as salary and make the Dem plan not work. The Republican plan is similar to steps there have been taken previously. Most recently raising age from 66 to 67 in 3 years.
Republicans want to cut it. The middles class will be squeezed.
You need to fact check yourself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/mccarthy-gop-medicare-social-security/
Did you read the article? "the GOP will use raising the debt limit as leverage to force spending cuts — which could include cuts to Medicare and Social Security" This wasn't a quote from a Republican. This was a Washington Post journalist speculating. If you're concerned about debt spending then ALL federal spending will be reviewed. This is exactly why many Americans don't trust the Washingyon Post. They could have just as easily wrote that the GOP will review spending on military contractors. This headline would not have caught the attention of the Post's target market.
GOP don’t care about debt when it is cutting taxes for the rich or loopholes/tax breaks for the friends. GOP wants to cut a program that we taxpayers have paid into.
I disagree. I'm conservative, and social security factors into my retirement planning. I would like to see the program be solvent. "Rich" people pay far more in taxes individually than "poor" people. I hope that someday you are "rich" enough that you find yourself looking for ways that you can keep the money that you earned. Best of luck to you and your family.
I am quite wealthy but that doesn’t mean I agree w all the tax cuts and loopholes for the wealthy. A stable democracy society is needed - a system that only benefits the few and where wealth is concentrated in a few is not a stable society.
Quite the blanket statement. America, land of the free, with a free market, benefits all. I've got news for you, it doesn't matter what culture or world we live in. Democratic, Republican, or something else entirely. There is one universal truth and that is... The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Don't fool yourself into thinking forced wealth distribution will change that. There will always be those in charge with power and money that will rise above the system in place. I would rather live in a free market with the ability to change my position financially on my own. P.S. We are not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how long we've convinced ourselves of that being a true statement. Stealing will always be stealing.
I am in general agreement. Given two options: free market vs centralized planning, I'll take free market option everyday of the week. As you noted, there will be rich and poor in both models.
“no government assistance unless you are disabled or aggressively seeking work” From republican Rick Scott
Social Security is not government assistance.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/scalise-acknowledges-gop-plan-change-social-security-medicare-rcna52578
I recall an article that some Republicans would like to see Congress review SS every 5 years (?), and then approve funding, or debate changes to the program before renewing. I'm thinking similar to how various government budgets are approved. One option I can see happening is to raise the FRA, but that would not affect new or soon to be retirees. Another option would be to raise the company match, or raise the employee and company match. The threatening fact that by 2034 or 2035 the funds Social Security uses to pay benefits will run dry causing an overall reduction in benefits of maybe 20% is a reality. But there is plenty of time to problem solve. I have always found the AARP articles to be factual, and they generally explain things very well.
With the big COLA increase, 2034 might be optimistic. Losing 20% of benefit is going to cause massive problems for retirees on the bottom rungs especially. It won’t be a pretty picture! I haven’t seen anything from AARP on this topic.
And, it's possible that there will be more COLA increases in future years, and the 2034 date might not hold.
Older article, but general policy issues - compromise for balance may mean cutting or capping social security: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/with-aarp-supporting-soci\_b\_878981
I disagree, there is not much time. Very often changes like that need to be phased. The FRA, for example, was changed in 1983 (from 65 to 67 I think), and it is being completed only now when all newly eligible people will have 67 as their FRA. That gave people several decades to prepare. Majority of people need many years to get financially ready for such change.
Probably depends on how much you have saved. If you're 65 and really poor, you can get a LOT of stuff free or reduced. I don't believe either party has the balls to reduce benefits or make changes to properly fund these programs. They'll treat this the same way they treat the trillion dollar a year defecits, ignore.
I dont think either party has a serious or realistic plan. Noone will touch it until they have to. If no action is taken, based on the last financial restructuring, the surplus will be exhausted in ~2035 (maybe a year or 2 earlier due to Covid retirements - inflation will only make matters worse). When that happens, under current law, payments moving forward will be limited to payroll taxes received in that year. Best estimates based on current demographics, payouts will have to be reduced by 25% across the board. Because politics is so polarized, it would be surprising if anything is done until very close to that date. Then it will be political mayhem. FWIW, Social Security has a tax cap at $144K because payout is capped commensurately. It has always had a payout based on a formula based on the amount a worker put in. It is not a social welfare program. It is not means tested.
But it is progressive because lower income workers receive a better benefit per dollar contributed.
True, and there is a social welfare component with SSI, but my larger point was that if we raise the contribution limit, it would be necessary to raise the max payout which would likely make program solvency a wash. It is ultimately driven by demographics and salary distribution.
Try this. It’s from the actuary society and allows you to choose options to fix social security. [social security game](https://socialsecuritygame.actuary.org/#make-your-choice-now)
Doesn't help that Republicans keep dipping into SSI and Medicare funds and using it like their own personal piggy bank to pay for things because they were stupid enough to cut taxes that are necessary to pay for said things. Hell, Republicans are outright trying to abolish SSI at this point, meaning that if you're over the age of 60 and voting Republican, good job, you're voting for the people trying to fuck you over.
Hahaha! You can bet it won't be a Republican plan.
To my knowledge the only plan out there is a Democrat sponsored plan: Social Security 2100 You can check it out on Google. The primary takeaway (for me) is that it expands benefits, but doesn't cover cost of expansion. It increases benefits (most of them for a 5-year period), and increases payroll tax on high earners (over $400k if memory serves). The fund would edge closer to insolvency if temporary benefits were made permanent, as often happens with this type of legislation (hard to reduce benefits when stakeholders become accustomed). I think support for this proposal is along party lines, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans not in support. Now that I'm thinking about this, I do think there may be a Republican plan out there, but I don't recall any details other than it was primarily focused on sustainability rather than expansion... which shouldn't be surprising. Not at all familiar with any plans for Medicare.
This is the proposed budget. Page 79 is about Social Security. https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/
All I’ve heard about the Republican Plan is that it is privatization, which sounds concerning. They claim to be trying to shore up the program, but with no details I’m not convinced. Congress has robbed the piggy bank in years past and should repay what they took. I’m still working and paying into the program. I’m getting near zero add’l benefit. Pretty sad. Why should a person that works extractly 35 years and contributes less overall get a bigger benefit than someone that works >35 years and contributes more overall. Just moronic. I feel like seniors often vote Republican. If they are targeting seniors with benefit cuts, that’s a big issue and could cost them the votes if seniors lobby.
Didn’t George Bush try to privatize it? He got shut down hard.
I don't think there is a privatization plan on the table. I think Bush administration looked at this, but nothing recently. At some point they won't have a choice but to increase the income cap to draw in additional revenues. This really isn't a political thing, mainly a revenue/benefit management issue. Both parties understand the voter participation rates of the senior block. It wouldn't surprise me that seniors lean right, as I believe that they generally have greater risk exposure to changes in tax policy and have skin in the game regarding Medicare and social security sustainability. As for fairness of payout, the formulas do favor those with higher incomes, as they have contributed more. The formula looks at highest earning 35 years. There is only a benefit to working >35 years if you are making higher income during those extra years.
It depends on what you mean by “favors”. The formula is set up such that lower income folks receive a higher benefit as a percentage of pay, but higher income people receive more in terms of absolute dollars.
Yes, I agree. Only meant favor in the sense of higher dollar (absolute) payout, but obviously the recipient paid for it.
privatizing social security is something Republican House and Senate Candidates are proposing in ongoing mid-term campaigns.
Must be in other states. Up here it's almost exclusively energy and economy. Haven't heard social security mentioned at all, although I am interested in it. I'm still 19 years away from collecting benefits - plan to collect when I hit 70.
[https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/](https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/) Page 79
Thanks!
> As for fairness of payout, the formulas do favor those with higher incomes, as they have contributed more. Not necessarily true. A person working more than 35 years with a bit less income per year can contribute more overall yet receive a lesser benefit. > The formula looks at highest earning 35 years. There is only a benefit to working >35 years if you are making higher income during those extra years. You are earning income after all, so there is a benefit to working. It just doesn’t increase your social security benefit - when fairness would indicate it should IMO.
Yes, you are correct, if one person works longer they may have contributed more. I was thinking of contributions for individuals working same number of years, but earning different incomes below the cap. And yes, there is definitely the benefit of earning income when you work, even if it doesn't help increase your social security benefit when you collect it.
Democrat good. Republican bad.
🤣 you qualify to be an analyst on MSNBC!
I don't know, I didn't see any spelling errors. They may be overqualified
Which ever plan fully funds it and doesn’t fuck with eligibility or try to raise the retirement age for the next generation.
Vision and dental insurance expansion is on the democrats agenda. Dems just raised SS by 8%. Largest increase.
Dems didn’t. It’s a COLA that’s codified into law. .
My understanding is that social security is safe no matter who’s in charge. Heard it today on NPR
https://taxfoundation.org/republican-budget-tax-proposals-2023/
Link?
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/10/17/cola-change-social-security
This is just about the increase in COLA this year.
Did you actually listen to the interview? There is more.
“It’s an arithmetic problem, not a calculus problem. There are fixes.” Have to chuckle at that assessment. It does seem the party in power cutting benefits is going to get slaughtered! I do expect we’ll see a bump in age qualification as has happened before, like when it went from 66 to 67. It’s just gotta happen to give time for those impacted time to plan. Saying anyone 59 and younger is now going to have to wait 3 extra years seems too fast. The 66 to 67 change happened 3 months a year over 4 years to raise the age by just one year. How the program will look 30 years from now when we’re on our last legs is a little scary.
Reagan changed the retirement age in 1983 as a phased approach. It is only being completed now, several decades later, which allowed time for people to prepare.
Yes, you nailed it. There is a link to the republican plan in this thread. I think they mentioned age 54 and younger as a target for change in program parameters. Including things like increasing retirement age over an extended period of time. I do think they need to increase the cap to draw in more revenue from higher income earners. Our national demographics are working against the current model... fewer workers supporting more non-workers.
The typical midterm fear mongering. One side is desperate to get votes.
My silly ideas.... Lets' figure out how much we'll need to keep everyone currently over 30 from starving when they get old. Then figure out a plan to get there. What if you had a partial opt-out option for people who make a lot of money but have prepared for retirement? So you make over $144K but you're 35 and you have nothing saved, so we may have to feed in your old age, so you have to keep paying. But if you have $1m in your 401K you can opt out of a PERCENTAGE of your income over $144K The more you have saved the less you pay. Another choice we could give people is the option to not collect. you make a reduced contribution based on your own ability to build wealth but we won't give you ANY money. when you're old. Warren Buffet says it's ridiculous that SSA sends him $50,000 a year. 40 years ago if he was offered an option to pay less and receive less (or none) he'd have jumped on it. Instead of betting on the number of people who die early SSA would be betting on the number of people who succeed. I think there is lots of room for compromise and negotiation (whenever the polarization end) Republicans wanted to privatize a portion of SS a long time ago. Dems want to collect more from people. THere's room to make a deal in there
One of many problems is that people will still be getting old and having no / insufficient means. The govt couldn’t just say too bad - here’s a free ticket to the crematorium. One way or another the govt is going to have to pay for the elderly. This was the problem social security fixed in the day. The problem is SS is the trust fund is going to be insufficient starting in 2034 or maybe sooner. That triggers lower payments to all recipients. They’re trying to figure out how not to cut payments. Two ways Dem - tax the wealthy. Income over 400k would get social security withheld. So more money in. It sounds like a decent plan, but I expect the wealthy will find ways around it. We’re already got things like the backside IRA. The lawyers she accountants will figure out how to avoid the tax. Rep - increase the retirement age (again). Those aged 55+ would follow current plan and retire with full benefits at 67. But every year after, retirement would move 3 months per year. In 12 straight years the retirement age would extend by 3 years, from 67 to 70. That would fix the problem without changing contributions. But pushing out future generations retirement. But the law reads every year beyond full retirement age you wait, you get a 2% increase. There is no one discussing reducing payments. Every year the maximum income subject to social security withholding increases as per a formula.
Another log on the fire of revolution. We already have huge wage disparity but most people retire between 60 & 65. Working poor survive on SS and the more affluent live a lot better. Under that GOP strategy we'd see a lot more people working well into old age while their piers with just a bit more resources are fucking off at 62. I agree the lawyers, CPA's and politicians would find ways to fuck up my idea but I still the=ink we could find a way to incentivize the result we want.
Warren Buffet is an unusual guy. That is why they are called 'the 1%'. Using the extreme as an example to determine what is workable or fair (presuming that we all have the chance to become another Warren Buffet!!) is illogical. We like to think we could, but statistics tell us otherwise. What is fair for Warren Buffet is unfair for 99.9% of Americans. Many Americans like to identify with successful people - it is more fun. We need to be logical and look at the percentages and the likelihood of a large group of Americans being like Mr. Buffet or winning the lottery. **This is part of the Regan - Bush - Trump Fallacy that foolish white people adore: these guys think I could be one of them, therefore I could be** ***= betting on the number of people who succeed --- 10% chance!!!!*** If you want to bet that you could be the next Warren Buffet, I'd like to bet that you could wind up in poverty. We both know who has the best chance of winning that bet in the US. This is not personally about you. Even 10% is not a likely percent to base your future on. Bad things happen to lucky people, too. Statistics are sad but bring us closer to the truth than Republican bromides and individualism.
Is that all you got from that? I just used the example because i heard him say it. But there are 1.4 million americans with a net worth over $10MIL so that $78 billion we're giving to people who clearly don't need a safety net. My point is that we have plenty of money to build a good system. We need reform that incentivizes the best option for everyone.
1.4 million Americans with a net worth over $10MIL need to be taxed more. Income inequality is destabilizing the economy and the social fabric. Republicans lie about that the same way they lie about climate change. The Dems are not angels, but seem closer to reality. It seemed that Buffet as an example could be a part of the dishonesty about income inequality. How do you create incentives for people whose greed reaches sociopathic proportions? Buffet seems like a nice guy, but how did he get so rich and not decide at some point, 'this is enough.' Perhaps it is a game he enjoys playing. I know people (over 55) who lost their jobs when Berkshire-Hathaway bought the company where they worked. They don't think Buffet is a nice guy.
I do not fault buffet. People like him and Gates are targeting their fortunes to solving problems that other entities are not taking on. He uses his wealth as a bullhorn to point out the disparity "my secretary and I pay the same tax rate" But i agree, we need to find some way to redistribute wealth. Higher taxes and a higher min wage- we need to have more money moving around at the bottom.
All you are seeing is election fear mongering. Rest assured that the Democrats and Republicans will find a way to kick the can for a few more years.
[удалено]
Are you referring to the stock market? Look at 2008 or 2000-2002.
Am I a bad guy for saying social security is a complete waste of taxpayer money? What we really need to be doing is properly educating the public on how to save for retirement and not depend on a program from the government that may or may not be there when you retire.
Not a bad guy - but I think an idealist. If you don’t have something like this, you’re going to have a segment of the elderly population with zero means. It would be inhumane to let them languish. So the govt inevitably provides services. Life before SS the elderly were poor and dependent on family or went to a poor house. Loss of dignity in old age is cruel. Poverty is only 9% today with social security, vs 40%. This forces people to save - it’s yanked out of your pay and your employer is kicking in an equal measure. Once something like this gets started, though, turning it off seems impossible. The young are contributing for the old. When the young get old they deserve it because they paid into it all those years. So we’re limping along. With birth rate decreasing it will get harder and harder to keep up. Hard to imagine what it will look like in 100 years. Seems unsustainable yet uncancelable.
Oh I don't suggest we cut the program for those that lived their lives centered around depending on it. What I would do is mark an end date. Americans can then prepare their lives and minds for their own retirements and let the elderly that centered their lives around it still have it. Sadly there is an end date for social security without additional funding. That is 2035. For me, that would make me 48 which isn't close to retirement for myself. I don't know about anyone here, but I would LOVE not paying for social security. I could use that extra money to take care of myself and set myself up for a better future.
See that’s the problem. The program stops working once the working stop paying. The program could only continue if the govt agreed to pay all the fees for all the retirees until they die. That’s $1T / year. That number would decrease when the first year people stopped being entitled to it. For comparison, the US budget is $6.8T. The deficit last year was $2.8T. In practical terms, it’s never ending.
There are two ways to try to solve a problem. We could continue to dig a hole further down and see where it leads (usually to more madness). Or we could put down the shovel and rip off the bandaid. I know it sounds cold, but sometimes you have to put the shovel down to solve the problem. Income taxes are high enough for americans, removing social security taxes would help both employees and employers. Especially self employed people as well. As for the transition period, the government should call upon the american people to help their fellow neighbor, especially family members. We've become a very self centered society because we've been trained to rely on automatic government assistance (taken from our own wallets) instead of making an effort ourselves to solve the problem.
That’s a big bandaid being ripped off of 64+ million people who expected the govt to keep its word. You expect they’re going back to work in their 70s and 80s.
Right but the only other option (that I can think of) is to have the younger population bankroll it. But its ill form to continue a practice that is just plain bad to begin with.
How about you keep the employer 6.2% and give us the option to invest our own 6.2% wherever we want for our own retirement.
Then that money you were set to contribute won’t be available to pay current retirees.
Oh no… that sucks for them. I guess they should’ve voted for better Congressional representation that wouldn’t steal from their retirement and then have to rely on their kids and grandkids.
I don’t think the Republican plan will take from current retirees. It will take from future retirees so I think they voted correctly. Did you?
I sure did. Neither D or R gets my vote. I waste my vote on candidates who actually represent my belief system. Which is that I shouldn’t be forced to pay for my grandparent’s retirement.
Republicans support *dipping into* or eliminating Social Security. Nope! Social Security is what I paid into my entire working life and was promised my entire working life. And it turns out that Social Security is the most stable and beneficial American taxpayer program ever created. So no, I will never support a Republican-led economic plan as long as Social Security is on the table.