GOP plans for Social Security

[toomuchtime_]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

"Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."

Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.

Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.

Let's keep this on the up and up here.

At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.

Plus, we have YEARS to do that.

The Democrats have only one way to keep SS solvent, raise taxes, and while SS will not become insolvent until the 2030's, the longer you wait to raise taxes, the higher the tax increase will have be.

Johnson's bill, which you have apparently dismissed on partisan ideological grounds without examining it, would increase benefits for the poorest retirees and use means testing to reduce benefits for wealthier retirees and eliminate the SS tax on benefits collected on SS benefits for those retirees who still have to work while collecting them, which would further benefit poorer recipients. It would essentially begin to move SS from being a social insurance program to being a welfare program, which would make it sustainable for many more years without a tax increase.

Yes - Johnson wants to turn SS into a welfare program for the poorest while imposing enormous cuts on everyone else - making it no longer a retirement program in ANY way. Plus, subsequent to that there would be no reason not to cut it further, as we already have a welfare program - so SS could be pitched by the GOP as irrelevant.

This is a total scorched earth assault on SS, with a thin veneer for YOU to hide behind.

AND, I've already pointed out that your first paragraph is absolute bull. There are lots of ways to add support to SS. Everybody knows that. And, there have been points in the past where many of these have been used when there was honest bi-partisan cooperation on SS.

Beyond that, we have YEARS to figure this out, so nobody can view the Johnson thing as anything more than a shot across the bow - a promise to further put America's work force at serious financial peril as a way of benefiting the super wealthy.

lol You claim he wants to increase benefits for the poor and cut benefits for the wealthy in order to benefit the wealthy.

 

[Mac1958]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I'm not saying that helping the elderly will help you directly. Well, financially, anyway. My point is that it's easier to cut Social Security benefits when we don't think about the people being affected.

"Well, they should have thought about this when they were working" is one I hear often. Okay, sure. But many of them have had bad luck, or bad health, or have simply lacked the capacity to create retirement income above SS, or some lousy combination therein.

We could raise the retirement age, because Social Security was never meant to last 40, 50 years. But we could also eliminate the payroll cap (around $119,000) and, heaven forbid, raise the tax a point or two. I'd like to see what that would look like before we start cutting benefits.

Emotionalism? Yeah, okay, guilty. My quality of life is a bit better knowing that fellow Americans aren't suffering because I refused to pay a few bucks more into the SS system. That's worth something to me.
.

I think you missed My point. It is not about helping Me directly. The truth is, SS has been mismanaged to the point that it has become a false hope to millions of people. The problem is, doing something to fix it is always met with cries that they are trying to starve old people, or that there is a lack of compassion.

So you tell Me. Which is more compassionate. Holding onto a failing system, where millions are going to be catastrophically harmed if we continue on with the status quo, or trying to even out the pain?

We have to be realistic here. The people who have kicked this can down the road so that they could keep their jobs can't be touched now. It is why they kicked it down the road. Hard choices have to be made and politicians are pussies.

As much as I dislike Trump, we now have a chance for some real reform. He doesn't care about the next election, is likely not going to run again anyway. So he won't be afraid of the hate rhetoric that will be spewed his way.

As for you suggestions. I can get behind some, but if its wrong to harm people on SS, you have to be intellectually honest and say it is wrong to harm others with higher taxes for a system that has not been fixed and will likely not help in the long term.

I've even heard some real assholes say they want to tax people wealth (no dollar amount is ever talked about) for SS and then deny them access to it. All under the deplorable banner of, "They won't feel it".

Right now the GOP plan appears to include lowering Social Security payments to those who need the money.

That's the bottom line, and we as a country will have to decide whether we're really willing to do that.
.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I'm not saying that helping the elderly will help you directly. Well, financially, anyway. My point is that it's easier to cut Social Security benefits when we don't think about the people being affected.

"Well, they should have thought about this when they were working" is one I hear often. Okay, sure. But many of them have had bad luck, or bad health, or have simply lacked the capacity to create retirement income above SS, or some lousy combination therein.

We could raise the retirement age, because Social Security was never meant to last 40, 50 years. But we could also eliminate the payroll cap (around $119,000) and, heaven forbid, raise the tax a point or two. I'd like to see what that would look like before we start cutting benefits.

Emotionalism? Yeah, okay, guilty. My quality of life is a bit better knowing that fellow Americans aren't suffering because I refused to pay a few bucks more into the SS system. That's worth something to me.
.

I think you missed My point. It is not about helping Me directly. The truth is, SS has been mismanaged to the point that it has become a false hope to millions of people. The problem is, doing something to fix it is always met with cries that they are trying to starve old people, or that there is a lack of compassion.

So you tell Me. Which is more compassionate. Holding onto a failing system, where millions are going to be catastrophically harmed if we continue on with the status quo, or trying to even out the pain?

We have to be realistic here. The people who have kicked this can down the road so that they could keep their jobs can't be touched now. It is why they kicked it down the road. Hard choices have to be made and politicians are pussies.

As much as I dislike Trump, we now have a chance for some real reform. He doesn't care about the next election, is likely not going to run again anyway. So he won't be afraid of the hate rhetoric that will be spewed his way.

As for you suggestions. I can get behind some, but if its wrong to harm people on SS, you have to be intellectually honest and say it is wrong to harm others with higher taxes for a system that has not been fixed and will likely not help in the long term.

I've even heard some real assholes say they want to tax people wealth (no dollar amount is ever talked about) for SS and then deny them access to it. All under the deplorable banner of, "They won't feel it".

Right now the GOP plan appears to include lowering Social Security payments to those who need the money.

That's the bottom line, and we as a country will have to decide whether we're really willing to do that.
.

If you are referring to the Johnson bill, it increases benefits to the poor and uses means testing to reduce benefits others.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

Social Security isn't about the poor elderly. It pays benefits based on the amount of earnings a worker had over his lifetime. Until working a great job for a long time causes poverty, and poverty alleviation that stems from Social Security is a matter of luck.

Social Security isn't heading to zero in the bank account absent a revolt by younger workers. The one thing that could trigger that outcome is a system which continues to deliver deteriorating economic returns. Today SS is basically like spending a quarter to buy a dime that you only get if you can convince your kids to spend a quarter to buy a nickel. At some point the kids say no. When that happens, younger workers will come to the conclusion that it is cheaper and easier to take care of their own parents. If that happens you will have zero in the bank account.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I write on the issue. This is a peice that I put into NewsMax which reaches the conclusion :

Rep. Johnson's Social Security Bill Would Cut Benefits

"Mechanically, this legislation doesn’t fix anything. It distributes the brokenness of the system to people born 1961 and later. The proposal seems to be little more than an agreement that our politicians make with themselves that our children and grandchildren will accept the benefit cuts that we will not even discuss."

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The (MSN) editorial falls into the category of "fake news" offered by the crooked media and designed to frighten Americans. The Bill in question isn't even finished and has not been submitted. Everything in the editorial is subjective and intentionally critical.

Not really. The article has problems, but they appear to be mostly where the writer is shortening his point for the sake of brevity. The legislation has 13 parts so brevity is going to be taxed. If anything his piece understates the problems with the legislation. Here is my article for FedSmith everything from my article comes from the SSA.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security

"Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."

Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.

Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.

Let's keep this on the up and up here.

At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.

Really, when have progressives been part of anything but obstructionism. Where are the results of these efforts.

Plus, we have YEARS to do that.

The irony of your comment is that time is the most destructive force in SS. Last year the program added about $500 in unfunded liabilities solely because of the passage of time.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Like I said, the GOP will name it "saving social security" but it will only be a payroll tax on the non-rich.

Question is whether Chuck Schumer will allow it or will filibuster it?

Well, seeing as how everyone draws from it everyone should pay the higher payroll tax to keep it funded, if that's the ultimately solution. That is the only fair way to implement it.

How about they kill Social Security Disability? So many people abuse that it's ridiculous and getting rid of that would help keep the program solvent for it's original intended use.

Social Security isn't well understood. It is not equal or universal. About 1/5 of our poorest seniors are not even eligible for benefits. The problem with raising taxes on the broad public is the economic returns of the system. Typical workers now lose money. At 12.4% of wages it is the largest expense that most people have in planning for retirement. That expense loses money. Imagine your 401K typically losing 1% a year. As a consequence more people arrive at retirement dependent upon the system. If we throw more tax dollars at the problem, it will only increase the level of dependence that people have on the system.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.

The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts

What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.

Whats your plan?
And
What is the benefit percentage in 2035?

 

[Mac1958]

I would be very interested to know how people would feel about Social Security if they spent a year or so volunteering for the low-income elderly.

Sit with them, talk with them, cry with them, hold their hand, hear their personal stories. Change their sheets. Rub their feet.

They're remarkable people, walking history books, so interesting.

My guess is that, while some would remain indifferent, many others would walk away with a fresh set of eyes.
.

I'm kind of curious about you in this regard. I don't always agree with you, but you seem to be someone who actually thinks about these issues, but this is nothing but a pure call to emotionalism with a disregard for some facts.

If I am broke, as in: Bank account is zero, pockets are empty, with only cat food in the cupboard.....How will spending time with the elderly improve that situation? I could want to help them until the cows come home, but in the end, I have nothing to help them with.

Social Security isn't about the poor elderly. It pays benefits based on the amount of earnings a worker had over his lifetime. Until working a great job for a long time causes poverty, and poverty alleviation that stems from Social Security is a matter of luck.

Social Security isn't heading to zero in the bank account absent a revolt by younger workers. The one thing that could trigger that outcome is a system which continues to deliver deteriorating economic returns. Today SS is basically like spending a quarter to buy a dime that you only get if you can convince your kids to spend a quarter to buy a nickel. At some point the kids say no. When that happens, younger workers will come to the conclusion that it is cheaper and easier to take care of their own parents. If that happens you will have zero in the bank account.

We are fast approaching that with Social Security. All the compassion in the world is not going to change the fact that SS has been mismanaged and will not survive unless something is done about it.

We are approaching a precipice in which the system collapses and those whose very lives depend upon these monies will be suddenly, and likely without warning, cut off from any means of income. Or, we can start making tweaks now, and work on saving it.

I write on the issue. This is a peice that I put into NewsMax which reaches the conclusion :

Rep. Johnson's Social Security Bill Would Cut Benefits

"Mechanically, this legislation doesn’t fix anything. It distributes the brokenness of the system to people born 1961 and later. The proposal seems to be little more than an agreement that our politicians make with themselves that our children and grandchildren will accept the benefit cuts that we will not even discuss."

Is it safe to assume that the Republicans have done their calculations based on (a) leaving the earnings tax cap where it is, and (b) leaving the 7.65% tax rate where it is?
.