GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

[NOVA]

How much should higher wage workers be forced to save? Otherwise you are turning it into a means tested system which many liberals don't want because they feel S.S would be easier to get rid of in such a senario

It is already 'means tested' by its calculations....

According to the most recent Trustees Report, for instance, the first $767 of “average indexed monthly earnings” (a complex formula that adjusts earnings over time) is credited at a 90 percent rate, assuring the lowest wage workers of a retirement benefit nearly equal to their earned wage.

Wages of more than $767 a month but less than $4,624 a month are credited at a 32 percent rate. This means retirement benefits increase at a much lower rate. The benefit pinching, however, does not end there.

For wages of more than $4,624 a month up to the wage base maximum ($113,700 for 2013), the crediting rate is only 15 percent. Thus, all the wages earned — and employment taxes paid — over that $55,488-a-year “bend point” gain benefits at only one-sixth the rate of the lowest wage earners.

In effect, the Social Security benefits formula functions as a sharply graduated benefits “tax,” reducing the benefits that accrue to higher wages by 85 percent. The higher your means, the lower your benefit.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...-that-social-security-is-already-means-tested

 

[Rune]

The cap was raised to $127,200 for 2017.....
Lower income workers pay the SS tax on every penny they earn, now up to that cap.
Exactly what is the down side to raising the cap as needed ? Not the rates, just the cap.

Privatization ? what does it mean ?....http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...privatized-social-security-mean-americans.asp

Raise the cap to a million.

 

[Rune]

all of that as a last resort. let's end the drug war, first.

Why wait on raising the cap?

 

[evince]

why cut contributions if you say its in financial trouble

 

[Airstrip One]

If we raise the cap, do we also allow for those people to collect on their contributions?

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Good. Cut the welfare

 

[Don Quixote]

A lot of people will be f*cked, if they pass this legislation?!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html

ss needs to e fixed. however, any fix involves the following

a) raise taxes

b) cut benefits

c) raise the national debt

c) a and b

d) a, b and c

any of the above can cause a congress critter to fail reelection...so nothing gets done.

 

[sear]

As presently constituted, Social Security is a pyramid scheme, a Ponzi scam. It won't even bear a bogus semblance of solvency much longer.

BUT !!

For those of us that have paid into it our entire working lives; for those of us that now depend upon it in our retirement, pulling the rug out from under us now would be a spectacular betrayal.

Reform it, CERTAINLY!
Fix it, ABSOLUTELY!

But don't betray, do not render homeless & penniless those that have devoted their lives to a compulsory scam.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

As presently constituted, Social Security is a pyramid scheme, a Ponzi scam. It won't even bear a bogus semblance of solvency much longer.

BUT !!

For those of us that have paid into it our entire working lives; for those of us that now depend upon it in our retirement, pulling the rug out from under us now would be a spectacular betrayal.

Reform it, CERTAINLY!
Fix it, ABSOLUTELY!

But don't betray, do not render homeless & penniless those that have devoted their lives to a compulsory scam.

The US Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that you have no right to that money

Imagine if people would have just invested in SPY their entire lives?

Wouldn't be having this conversation. But hey the politicians care about you because they are all about public service. They would never screw you over

 

[sear]

"The US Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that you have no right to that money" DW

Yes.
I remember.

"Imagine if people would have just invested in SPY their entire lives?"

I don't know what that means. But I've been advocating not inflicting Social Security at gunpoint for decades.
President sear would surely do away with it; for workers entering the workforce today. I wouldn't allow a betrayal of my countrymen; particularly not seniors whose options are limited. I don't want to be a Wal~Mart greeter for $8.50 / hr.

For those of us that have paid into it our entire working lives; it's hardly rational to say:
OK
- you paid into it your entire working life,
- so now we've decided to just not pay you.
What are we supposed to do? Beg for spare change on street corners into our dotage?

 

[anatta]

How much should higher wage workers be forced to save? Otherwise you are turning it into a means tested system which many liberals don't want because they feel S.S would be easier to get rid of in such a senario

means testing seems sensible.
Privitization would be paying a lot more - the stock market rises over time -but I get the fact "what if" it doesn't,and we can't afford to pay it by budget.

You all gotta figure it out. I'll get mine. doing nothing is not an option.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Raise the cap. Liberal means test as a last resort.

Means testing is not needed and, as Wacko correctly pointed out, means testing would probably spell the end of SS. Time and experience have proven that social safety nets/contracts work best when they benefit all.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

ss needs to e fixed. however, any fix involves the following

a) raise taxes

b) cut benefits

c) raise the national debt

c) a and b

d) a, b and c

any of the above can cause a congress critter to fail reelection...so nothing gets done.

Not true. SS does not contribute to the national debt. Fixing SS is easy given the political will. Those who oppose fixing it want to exploit privatizing it for their own personal gain. Their concern is not keeping it solvent for future generations. Nor would privatizing it.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Not true. SS does not contribute to the national debt. Fixing SS is easy given the political will. Those who oppose fixing it want to exploit privatizing it for their own personal gain. Their concern is not keeping it solvent for future generations. Nor would privatizing it.

I have to disagree. The "fixes" I have seen for SS are basically band-aids. Our senior population is going to double in the next 30 years, and lifespans are just going to keep extending. By 2034, we'll have to implement a 21% cut in benefits - can you imagine that announcement?

I don't know that the answer is, but I'm not against privatization. Sure, some greedy hedge fund guy will get richer - but so will millions of seniors, who will see a much greater return on their investment over the course of a lifetime. People always say it's not intended to be an investment program...but what if it works better as an investment program?

 

[sear]

#31

a) excellent

b) a diversified growth portfolio makes a lot of sense for a teenager entering the labor-force, for several decades. Locking in a more secure investment portfolio after that is fine. But Social Security is a hideous exploitative scam!

In the 1950's U.S. citizens were admired, envied for our "rugged individualism", and our "self-reliance".

The more government intrudes into our lives with compulsory scams;
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- Social Security
- Obamacare / ACA
the more dependent we are rendered.

It's PRECISELY the opposite of how parents should nurture their offspring. Parents should train / raise their offspring to be SELF-reliant.

Why shoul d our governments inflict compulsory "entitlement" programs upon us that make us MORE dependent, rather than more independent?

And has already been stated; SCOTUS has already ruled; according to law, we are NOT entitled to even the $money we've paid into Social Security. But we are GUARANTEED the $money we pay into IRA's & 401k's.

How can this POSSIBLY not be recognized as a scam?!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

means testing seems sensible.
Privitization would be paying a lot more - the stock market rises over time -but I get the fact "what if" it doesn't,and we can't afford to pay it by budget.

You all gotta figure it out. I'll get mine. doing nothing is not an option.

And what happens when the Jim Cramers of the world gamble away with your retirement investment ins unsound financial instruments, as occurred in the 2008 credit default swap crisis, and your retirement investment disappears.

That's the lie to the free market fundamentalist on privatizing SS. That doing so would return far greater profits at no risk and that SS is a retirement or pension plan when in fact SS is and has always been intended to be supplemental insurance.

SS, has functioned largely as it was intended to and has been a spectacular success at keeping seniors out of poverty in their retirements years. it's future short falls are easily fix as SS does not contribute to any of our current budget short falls. Those who argue otherwise have a vested financial reason to argue otherwise. One would be foolish and short sighted to listen to them.

 

[NOVA]

Not true. SS does not contribute to the national debt. Fixing SS is easy given the political will. Those who oppose fixing it want to exploit privatizing it for their own personal gain. Their concern is not keeping it solvent for future generations. Nor would privatizing it.

Privatizing SS would deprive the the gov. from the use of that money, that cash, giving us federal bonds, ie, IOU's instead.....

Something to consider for the younger people....

There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.

Under a privatized Social Security system, workers would have full property rights in their retirement accounts. They would own the money in them, the same way people own their IRAs or 401(k) plans. Congress would have no right to touch that money.

Opponents of privatizing Social Security often warn that it would be risky to rely on private markets to provide retirement benefits. But, with the Social Security system more than $10 trillion in debt, being forced to rely on the unsupported promises of politicians is far more risky. By giving individuals ownership of their own retirement money, privatization would guarantee the security of retirement.

Indeed, only privatization would give Americans a true right to their Social Security.

 

[domer76]

I have to disagree. The "fixes" I have seen for SS are basically band-aids. Our senior population is going to double in the next 30 years, and lifespans are just going to keep extending. By 2034, we'll have to implement a 21% cut in benefits - can you imagine that announcement?

I don't know that the answer is, but I'm not against privatization. Sure, some greedy hedge fund guy will get richer - but so will millions of seniors, who will see a much greater return on their investment over the course of a lifetime. People always say it's not intended to be an investment program...but what if it works better as an investment program?

Just raise the wage base to a couple hundred thousand bucks. Fixed.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Just raise the wage base to a couple hundred thousand bucks. Fixed.

For how long?

When our average lifespan is 95, and the senior population is twice what it is now...does that math add up?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have to disagree. The "fixes" I have seen for SS are basically band-aids. Our senior population is going to double in the next 30 years, and lifespans are just going to keep extending. By 2034, we'll have to implement a 21% cut in benefits - can you imagine that announcement?

I don't know that the answer is, but I'm not against privatization. Sure, some greedy hedge fund guy will get richer - but so will millions of seniors, who will see a much greater return on their investment over the course of a lifetime. People always say it's not intended to be an investment program...but what if it works better as an investment program?

I'm sorry but I've seen the numbers crunched. Either, by themselves or in combination, of raising the payroll tax or increasing or eliminating the ceiling would fix the problem and it would do so without eliminating the cost of living adjustment, raising the retirement age or means testing it. The SS administration could require government to pay back the surplus money that it loaned to the general fund. That would add 26 years more solvency to SS without changing a god damned thing.