mikegriffith1
Mike Griffith
In just 10 years, per the Social Security Administration itself, Social Security (SS) revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits (LINK). How did we get here? Here's how: Every time Republicans have tried to enact sane, reasonable SS reform, Democrats have screamed bloody murder, and have scared many SS recipients into believing the lie that their benefits are going to be cut. This is exactly what is happening right now with the latest Republican SS reform proposal.
The Republican Study Committee has proposed the modest, rational, and badly needed reform of gradually raise the SS retirement from 67 to 69. This proposal would not affect anyone who is already on SS. It would not affect anyone who is over 60 but who is not yet drawing SS. For those who are now 59, their SS retirement age would increase three months per year beginning in 2026, and the retirement age would reach 69 for those who turn 62 in 2033.
But you'd never know this to hear how Democrats are spinning it. We have a thread in this forum that claims that the GOP is proposing to "cut SS benefits" (So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits). Democratic talking heads are already popping up on talk shows to spread this same propaganda, yet they offer no solutions of their own to the impending SS shortfall, except to "tax the rich."
Folks, the only viable, rational way to save SS is to (1) raise the SS retirement age for full benefits by a few years, (2) remove the cap on the amount of earnings that are subject to the SS tax (the payroll tax), (3) impose a 20% reduction in SS benefits for people aged 50 and under (giving them at least 12 years to prepare for the reduced level of benefits), (4) impose a means test for receiving SS benefits (so that people with a comfortable or affluent private retirement income receive a reduced benefit on a sliding scale), and (5) do what many state pension funds have done for years: allow people the option to have part of their SS taxes invested in conservative mutual funds and bonds.
Some may recall a previous thread of mine where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically. The tax increase that would be required to cover the SS shortfall would be prohibitive and confiscatory. Adjusting the amount of benefits and the criteria for receiving them has to be part of the solution.
The Republican Study Committee has proposed the modest, rational, and badly needed reform of gradually raise the SS retirement from 67 to 69. This proposal would not affect anyone who is already on SS. It would not affect anyone who is over 60 but who is not yet drawing SS. For those who are now 59, their SS retirement age would increase three months per year beginning in 2026, and the retirement age would reach 69 for those who turn 62 in 2033.
But you'd never know this to hear how Democrats are spinning it. We have a thread in this forum that claims that the GOP is proposing to "cut SS benefits" (So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits). Democratic talking heads are already popping up on talk shows to spread this same propaganda, yet they offer no solutions of their own to the impending SS shortfall, except to "tax the rich."
Folks, the only viable, rational way to save SS is to (1) raise the SS retirement age for full benefits by a few years, (2) remove the cap on the amount of earnings that are subject to the SS tax (the payroll tax), (3) impose a 20% reduction in SS benefits for people aged 50 and under (giving them at least 12 years to prepare for the reduced level of benefits), (4) impose a means test for receiving SS benefits (so that people with a comfortable or affluent private retirement income receive a reduced benefit on a sliding scale), and (5) do what many state pension funds have done for years: allow people the option to have part of their SS taxes invested in conservative mutual funds and bonds.
Some may recall a previous thread of mine where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically. The tax increase that would be required to cover the SS shortfall would be prohibitive and confiscatory. Adjusting the amount of benefits and the criteria for receiving them has to be part of the solution.
Last edited:
