Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When was the last time a republican suggested a fix to SS or Medicare that wasn’t a cut ?Repubs are on the wrong side of the entitlement issue.
They should just fix them and move on
Otherwise the democrats paint them as greedy bastards cutting their benefits
Moving the retirement up a year or two isn't a cut, as young people live longer.When was the last time a republican suggested a fix to SS or Medicare that wasn’t a cut ?
Fixes like moving the retirement age to 70 is literally an elimination of SS for millions, especially when it’s only a few years before the average life expectancy for retired working males. From what you normally hear, Die early, is the recommended fix for any repugs plan for any entitlement.
Ridiculous, of course it’s a cut. It’s monies that every American participant in SS signed up for. It’s America breaking it’s word to it’s workers. What, are you going to make it only for those signing up now ? That’s as long as 50 years away before it is realized. That’s BS.Moving the retirement up a year or two isn't a cut, as young people live longer.
You do the right thing, when you pay into SS and Medicare. No one can afford medical treatment in old age without insurance. That’s what Medicare is. SS is retirement insurance. Try to keep that in mind.Libs and Dems like to try and shake up people who did the right, responsible thing and paid in.
That’s because their constituency is neither right, responsible nor payers but rather takers.
Thinkers who put 100k-200k into SS know full well they will get their return. Liberals don’t have a retirement and health pot to piss in so they want to confiscate or denegrate those who do.
Not sure a tutorial was in order. We who paid are more than aware that what we paid for was retirement income and healthcare.You do the right thing, when you pay into SS and Medicare. No one can afford medical treatment in 9ld age without insurance. That’s what Medicare is. SS ie retirement insurance. Try to keep that in mind.
If you collect SS many years longer than your parents, its NOT a cut if you work a year or two longer than your parents, duh.Ridiculous, of course it’s a cut. It’s monies that every American participant in SS signed up for. It’s America breaking it’s word to it’s workers. What, are you going to make it only for those signing up now ? That’s as long as 50 years away before it is realized. That’s BS.
So, you do admit you want to CUT BENEFITS TO SS.
Mike Pence also does while claiming the gop doesn‘t.
Really ? You signup for 65, make your plans for 65 and expect it to be 65 when YOU republicans change the rules.If you collect SS many years longer than your parents, its NOT a cut if you work a year or two longer than your parents, duh.
Moving the retirement up a year or two isn't a cut, as young people live longer.
Mike Pence on CNBC this morning said they should privatize SS, i.e. make it like a 401k.
Well if its any consolation, your math is fine. Its the underlying assumptions that I think are incorrect.View attachment 762539
[CROSS POSTED FROM ANOTHER BOARD]
Let's address the idea that some propose of raising the Full Retirement Age (FRA) to 70 and it NOT being a cut in benefits because the monthly check isn't reduced. Those supporting that premise are factually incorrect either by mistake or on purpose (and I'm not making a claim either way on that point).
I was thinking about this in the shower this morning and over coffee so decided to show mathematically how that is incorrect.
So let's establish some baseline conditions to make the calculations easier:
[DISCLAIMER: Ignore the fact that the numbers get pretty big. Remember these are cumulative number supporting 2 people for 10 years and 1 person for an additional 10 years. The numbers therefore are spread over 20 years.]
- A couple share the exact same birth date.
- A couple starts drawing SS benefits on the same date based on FRA.
- One spouse has the higher income and dies on his birthday at age 77.
- The surviving spouse has either no income or a lower income and dies on her birthday at age 87.
- For purposes of these scenarios cola is ignored because it doesn't change the mathematical principals it just makes thing more complicated as you then have to (a) determine the COLA for each year and then do calculations for each individual year over a 20 year span. Again the principal is unchanged, it just make the math more cumbersome.
- No intent on insulting anyone by sex, feel free to change genders for male/female, male/male, female/female and who is the primary "bring home the bacon" person as you wish. Given the income and age assumptions it doesn't matter. I'm the higher earning in my couple, my boss is the higher earning in her marriage and he's a stay at home Dad. So consider it in the light of whatever floats your boat.
[DISCLAIMER 2: Of course exact numbers vary based on age, when one or both members of the couple begin drawing social security, when one spouse actually passes and when the other spouse passes.]
SCENARIOS A RESPECTIVELY:
In scenario a the husband brings home the bacon and the wife is a more traditional stay at home none-working spouse. Well traditional for the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. Because the wife didn't work in a SS qualifying job, but instead maintained the house, cleaned the house, cooked the meals, did the laundry, took care of the kids, she has no SS benefits based on work history.
Scenario A (FRA = 67) [Column B] establishes the baseline for "A". The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.
Scenario A (FRA = 70) [Column C] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. The husband is the only one drawing SS benefits and when he passed at 77, the wife is eligible to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.
SCENARIOS B RESPECTIVELY:
Here we have a more modern reality where both of the couple work. One being a higher wage earner than the other.
Scenario B (FRA = 67) [Column D] establishes the baseline for "B". In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 20 years.
Scenario B (FRA = 70) [Column E] shows the impact of raising FRA to 70 years and establishing that as the new 100% threshold. In this case both the husband and wife work and qualify for benefits in their own right. The husband draws $3,000 per month until his death and the wife draws $2,000 a month until his death. Upon his death the wife is able to draw at his rate for the remainder of her life for old age support. Total benefit draw here is over a period of 17 years.
.
.
.
.
As can be clearly seen, raising the FRA from 67 to 70 results in a reduction of benefits (Scenario A = $108K and Scenario B = $180K).
The whole purpose of raising FRA from 67 to 70 is to reduce benefit payouts by the system, how is that achieved? By reducing the number of years that individuals are likely to draw benefits from the system since FRA is now higher.
Anyone that can't recognize that as a "cut" in benefits is either (A) mistaken or (B) doesn't understand the math involved. In past discussions the individuals that don't "see" the cut tend to focus solely on the monthly check and ignore the impact over time.
Hope this helps some.
WW
(Now with that said I really hope I got the math right or this could be real embarrassing.)
[/CROSS POSTED FROM ANOTHER BOARD]
NOTE: While increasing retirement age may not be equal to 70, yes Virginia, raising the retirement age to reduce benefit payouts so that (a) more people die with no benefits, or (b) survivors receive benefits for fewer years **IS** a cut.
WW
Well if its any consolation, your math is fine. Its the underlying assumptions that I think are incorrect.
1. We do not want to compare how or if the spouses work. We want to compare longevity between age cohorts.
2. The comparison should be between someone 50, 30, and 20, with full retirement ages of 67, 68, and 69.
3. The tricky part is projecting how long they will live and collect benefits. The underlying assumption is that the younger folks will live longer and therefore collect equal or greater amounts of benefits. i.e. not a "cut" in benefits.
You don't know how long each cohort will collect benefits. Raising the retirement age levels out the years benefits are collected.There is no tricky part to it.
Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut as was shown mathematically.
Just be honest. The intent of raising retirement age is to reduce benefits paid out. That means reducing the benefits received for those that paid into the system.
WW
Cry me a river, welfare queen. Your social security and medicare are threatened because it's a decades long dream of republicans. Not the adults living in despair because of the crimes of your generation. Forcing kids to go to college while killing the middle class, turning those colleges into for-profit businesses, making student loans their own category of loan so that they'll be crippled for decades... fuck you, boomerAfter Congress presided over the theft of our last election, they now need money to pay for things like the bad choices of others to borrow money to go to college indoctrination centers. If you allow this to stand, blame yourself.
You don't know how long each cohort will collect benefits. Raising the retirement age levels out the years benefits are collected.
Correct. SS is solvent until 2035 so your cohort won't be affected, i.e. "grandfathered in".That's irrelevant. The whole purpose of raising the retirement age is the reduce benefit payouts. If the reports were that the SS Trust Fund was solvent for the next 100 years we would be having this discussion. However the projections are that the Trust Fund will be depleted by 2035.
The proposals to raise the age are all based on cutting benefits.er
As the sample math shows the reduction in benefits (for the example) is $108,000 over 20 years. Few benefits equal cuts.
Now what does this mean when looking at populations. Cuts to benefit payouts result from two things:
I was born and for my "cohort" retirement age was 65, in the mid-80's my benefits were cut by making FRA 67. Now the talk, in Congress, revolves around raising the FRA age is 70. That means my "cohort" would have had benefits cut by 5 years (if raising it to 70 is achieved) in the next few years. Grandfathering those of us in our 50's and 60's would mean raising the age would have NO IMPACT toward reducing benefits by 2035.
- People die before drawing any benefits,
- Those that survive draw benefits can do so for a shorter amount of time.
WW
1. What crimes of boomers are you whining about? List them.Cry me a river, welfare queen. Your social security and medicare are threatened because it's a decades long dream of republicans. Not the adults living in despair because of the crimes of your generation. Forcing kids to go to college while killing the middle class, turning those colleges into for-profit businesses, making student loans their own category of loan so that they'll be crippled for decades... fuck you, boomer
Correct. SS is solvent until 2035 so your cohort won't be affected.
The shortfall occurs after 2035, so those people will need to work a year or two longer before collecting benefits.
The key is what defines the benefit. Is it years worked, or the years collecting benefits?
Also, the "cap" should be raised to add solvency years. The wealthy won't miss the couple of bucks if the cap is raised.
Actuaries should be able to keep SS solvent well into the future.
Your party would nuke the country a thousand times before ever allowing free community college. As for boomer crimes; destroying the power of unions and labor which they themselves benefited from, inventing credit scores, supply side economics redistributing wealth to the most powerful entities in the country, the destruction of our inner cities to help overthrow governments in central and south America, I really could go on and on but we both know none of it will matter to you.1. What crimes of boomers are you whining about? List them.
2. Who is forced to go to college? Trump proposed free community college (2-years) where you could learn job skills and make a great living, like the German model of job training.
3. Who is killing the middle-class? Who moved 3,000 US factories to China? (Both parties, being whores for Wall Street)
4. Which party runs colleges? So who turned them into "for-profit" businesses?
5. Remember Obama saying that "Art-History" majors need to be sure that they can get a job and pay back their student loans?
6. Today's young are not starting families due to their massive student loan debt. Unaffordable college and college loans is the problem. Free community college and job training is the answer.
1. Free Community College:Your party would nuke the country a thousand times before ever allowing free community college. As for boomer crimes; destroying the power of unions and labor which they themselves benefited from, inventing credit scores, supply side economics redistributing wealth to the most powerful entities in the country, the destruction of our inner cities to help overthrow governments in central and south America, I really could go on and on but we both know none of it will matter to you.
1. Worst case we get 80% of promised benefits. SS pays out what it takes in. Bad, but not zero.#1 My cohort WILL be impacted as we will be in retirement years when the SS Trust Fund is depleted.
#2 The depletion (According the the SS Trustee Report of 2022) of the Trust Fund will occur in 2034, so yes benefits in 2035 will be cut.
#3 When it comes to defining the benefits, it would be years collecting the benefits. If you reduce the years of collecting benefits, that is a cut. This is done by raising FRA.
#4 Actually I've been pondering a way to increase revenues. It involves making all income as used for Federal Income Tax purposes subject to SS Tax. Currently SS Tax is paid at the rate of 6.2% by the EE and 6.2% by the ER (12.4% when the EE and ER are the same entity - i.e. self employed) on "wages". Capped at 160K. But our economy isn't the same as it was when SS was created in 1935. I'm thinking a new tax on interest, dividends, short stock/commodity trades, and capital gains at the rate equal to 1/4 of the wage rate (3.1%). The same 160K cap would apply to non-wage income. Since the rate would be 25% of the wage rate, then 25% of the non-wage income would be counted toward SS Benefits. Someone making 100K in non-wage income, would end up paying $3,100 on that income and $25K would be added to their SS income credit towards future benefits. If their wage income is $100K, then the SS Income for the year would be $125K.
WW
