Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
What if you jackasses are in office when "something goes wrong"?
GOP Senator Proposes "Temporary" End to Social Security and Medicare
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
What if you jackasses are in office when "something goes wrong"?
I’ve been hearing that Medicare would be bankrupt in four years for decades.
It could be better, but what he thinks is better is old people starving in the streets.
They used to say that Roe versus Wade would never be overturned
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
they used to say Demmycrats were capable of running the country.....
It is not an entitlement; people paid into both Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives. Why haven't we taken the cap off? Republicans.
cawacko
Well-known member
No disrespect but I believe you are confusing definitions here. The government calls them entitlements because those who qualify are entitled to them. That's the government's definition.
Ultimately it will probably take a combination of increased taxes and benefit cuts to keep SS solvent. The trust fund runs out in 2034 and if we don't do anything benefits will be cut by like 25% at that time (not enough workers to support the number of retirees). But just jacking up taxes will have repercussions throughout the economy. It's not just free money.
If no changes are made both Medicare and Social Security will be short of funds in a few years. SS will be able to pay only 70% of the benefits.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'll throw this out as well. The way you thought the definition of entitlement was/meant actually would be correct if we remove the SS cap and those who pay more in taxes don't receive the corresponding increase in their benefits. And I've read progressives who expressed concern about that because then it would be more an entitlement program in the sense that you were thinking and those types of programs would be easier to cut in the future.
The future shortfall you have been hearing about referred to the period when all the baby boomers retired (2010-2030). The $2.5 trillion surplus will provide enough to cover the shortfall until about 2037. Then, the surplus will be spent and revenue will not be enough to cover benefits.
See the analysis by the Board of Trustees: Summary: Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds (ssa.gov)
Entitlement is a budgetary term meaning payments are not based on congressional appropriations but are paid out to those who qualify. SS and Part A Medicare, and SNAP are entitlements.
Thanks for that clarification.
"Entitlements" as a political term and as used by the RWers usually means benefits received by the indigent or handicapped rather than the payout of earned benefits. I was quibbling with Cawacko (a rightie) over semantics.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Wow! I bet the Republican plans would be better than their replacement of Obamacare. W00t!
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
All because the Republicans not only cut the fat in taxes, but have been whacking away at the meat and bone for over 25 years resulting in a collapse of the system.
When people are starving and have nothing else to lose, they'll start venting their rage on Republicans. Scott may end up hiding with Zimmerman. LOL
cawacko
Well-known member
You're pretty knowledgable on this subject so let me ask you this. As I understand S.S. it's a pay as you go system but we basically get the same amount out that we put in. But if you take away the cap that all changes as those paying the higher taxes won't be receiving a higher amount in retirement. So it goes from everyone paying for themselves to a subsidy program. (You saw Owl's reaction when I called it an entitlement program - which it is - but she thought I was calling it a subsidy program. Well that's what it would turn into.) Am I wrong on that?
And removing the cap would be a massive tax increase. Is it possible to do? Yes. But money isn't unlimited. People also want us to spend on climate change, infrastructure, education and teachers pay, fighting hunger and a whole host of other issues. There's an opportunity cost involved and I don't know that everyone will agree that S.S. should get the largest chunk of that money. So there's a good chance we see benefit cuts, likely in moving back the age one can receive full benefits but in other ways as well. Am I wrong on any of this?
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
You obviously have no knowledge of or experience with Rick Scumbag Scott.
If you do and still believe what oozes out of his mouth, then you are just another naive, willing dupe.
Nothing that evil, Skeletor slime bucket says can be taken at face value.
I understand. The meaning of many words have been distorted but are now used by both sides as commonly accepted definitions--entitlement, socialism.....
It was pay-as-you-go until a decline in the birth rate and many additional benefits added over the years created a future problem. So, in the 1980s, SS taxes were increased to build a surplus to handle the shortfall (one of the few times government has done something in advance of a problem) caused by the retirement of the baby boomers 2010-2030.
The SS law requires any surplus to be put in special treasury securities. So, that money is now in about $2.5 trillion of securities which are currently being used or will be used soon (not sure). The securities must be redeemed to pay the shortfall between revenue and benefits.
The older generations got much more back than they paid in while younger generations will be breaking about even (I have a chart if interested). That means it was much more of a subsidy program than it is becoming. Medicare is even a larger subsidy program in that we usually pay in much less than is spent on our benefits.
It depends on what other factors change if they remove the cap. If they remove the cap but don't increase benefits then it becomes more of a welfare program and loses a lot of the political popularity of the SS program. If they do raise benefits then you haven't really gained anything. I have not seen anything showing removing the cap would cover the shortfall even though some of our posters claim it would.
That money is not competing for other spending since infrastructure, climate change, etc. come from the general fund (or state funds on issues such as teacher's pay). SS spending only comes from the SS trust fund paid by the 6.2% payroll tax from workers matched by employers.
There are many benefits that were not part of the original SS program added over the years that could be cut without hurting needy people. Early retirement at 62 could be eliminated (about 70% of recipients retire early). Workers who reach full retirement age (66) can now collect full benefits with no penalty which means those probably making their highest career salary are collecting full SS.
Another suggestion is reducing benefits on a sliding scale based on the person's income.
SS is not in trouble because "Congress spent the money on...." as we often hear.
Social Security has a rate of return of about 2 percent above inflation, while Treasury bonds have a rate of return of nearly 4 percent above inflation. So won't allowing current workers to invest their payroll taxes in Treasury bonds raise their rate of return?
S.S. has always been a boondoggle.
S.S. has always been a boondoggle.
Last edited: