Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[kyzr]

The Pentagon never is in danger of going broke so why would Social Security?

Social Security is funded by our contributions. People are living longer so the money is getting used up.
After 2035 SS has no reserve and people only get what workers put in, or about 75% of what they were promised.
That's why we need to "fix" SS to keep it solvent.

The pentagon is funded by tax dollars.

 

[Blaster]

Social Security is funded by our contributions. People are living longer so the money is getting used up.
After 2035 SS has no reserve and people only get what workers put in, or about 75% of what they were promised.
That's why we need to "fix" SS to keep it solvent.

The pentagon is funded by tax dollars.

What is more important, wasteful military spending or the well being of American citizens?

 

[kyzr]

#1 All federal workers already pay into social security.

#2 There are a few states and localities that don't, however those individuals are not eligible to draw SS based on time worked for those entities. It's not like they don't pay in and still draw SS for the time worked there. WW

1. What about state and municipal?
2. We all should get the same deal, even politicians.

 

[kyzr]

What is more important, wasteful military spending or the well being of American citizens?

Both. Read my post #2, the fixes are pretty simple.

 

[1srelluc]

Hell yes I noticed that taxpayers get put on the hook for paying for exorbitant government pensions & healthcare.
We need a new LAW

Perhaps you should educate yourself.

Congress created the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in 1986, and it became effective on January 1, 1987. Since that time, new Federal civilian employees who have retirement coverage are covered by FERS.

FERS Information

Welcome to opm.gov

www.opm.gov

That was 38 years ago which means that the employees under the old .gov pension system have either long retired or will shortly.....I don't know of any current .gov employees (still working) that are under the old, pre-'86 system.

That's the problem with an "old people" board. They remember shit from 40+ years ago and don't think things have changed in the meantime.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I oppose raising the full retirement age, but I do support raising the early retirement age from 62 to 63.

Nope. 67 is old enough.

Never mind that life expectancy is far greater than it was when SS was enacted, and greater than it was in the 1980s when the last major SS reform was done? This is unrealistic.

This by itself would fix SS. No other actions needed.

No, it would not. Not even close. It would definitely help, but it would NOT fix the entire shortfall. It would get us maybe 30% of the way there.

Or, the cap could be doubled with other "fixes"

No, I'm saying no cap whatsoever. Make all salaried income above poverty level subject to the payroll tax. Ditto for capital gains income above the third tax bracket.

*&^%$%^ that

Well, and there you go. This is fantasy land material. Folks like you don't want to face the fact that we've promised more than we can realistically provide, unless some alien benefactors show up and drop tens of trillions of dollars' worth of energy or high-demand goods into our laps.

Steal what they've earned? &^%^%$ that.

More fantasy land material. Why should people who already have a comfortable or even affluent retirement income be getting the same per capita SS benefit that poor people are getting? That makes no sense. Just about every other federal and state welfare program has a means test for receiving benefits. It is high time that SS have the same sensible test. This would allow us to provide SS benefits to the people who need them the most.

SS is not a 401k.

Sigh. . . . Many state pensions have had this option for many years, and it has worked out just fine, while at the same time it has eased the burden on those pension systems because the benefits are paid from the investment account earnings.

A better solution is to have EVERY worker in the US especially all government workers, pay into SS in lieu of their cushy government pensions.

One, that would solve nothing, because you'd then have to increase those workers' benefits in proportion to the increased amount of payroll taxes. Two, I don't think you understand how those "cushy government pensions" are funded. They are funded in large part by payroll deductions (FERS) taken from each federal employee's paycheck. I happen to work for the federal government. My FERS tax is almost as much as my payroll tax.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Schumer wasted $1.7 trillion on climate change kick-back scams instead of shoring-up Social Security.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. What about state and municipal?
2. We all should get the same deal, even politicians.

We all do get the same deal. If you paid into SS security for the required 40 quarters, you are eligible for SS retirement.

Those States and Localities that DON'T pay into SS because they have their own old age pension system DO NOT draw SS benefits for those years. Even the politicians in Congress and in those "Yes" location pay into SS.

WW

 

[berg80]

Every time Republicans have tried to enact sane, reasonable SS reform, Democrats have screamed bloody murder

Liar.

Social Security: Where do Democrats and Republicans stand

Here’s where the two parties stand when it comes to Social Security reform.

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[Lesh]

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.

MG talks about GOP promises regarding SS. cuts

They made promises about Roe.

How’d that work out?

Raise the fucking payroll cap and KEEP YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF MY RETIREMENT

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

To your last point, have you noticed that Government employees get exempted from the programs that regular taxpayers are forced into - so that the govt employees get to keep the better deal?

They put a stop to that decades ago. There are a few states and local governments that are grandfathered in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Do you have a link to the RSC proposing this change?
All I've seen is left-wingers claiming the RSC wants this change.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They put a stop to that decades ago. There are a few states and local governments that are grandfathered in.

January 1, 1984

WW

 

[kyzr]

Perhaps you should educate yourself.
Congress created the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in 1986, and it became effective on January 1, 1987. Since that time, new Federal civilian employees who have retirement coverage are covered by FERS.
That was 38 years ago which means that the employees under the old .gov pension system have either long retired or will shortly.....I don't know of any current .gov employees (still working) that are under the old, pre-'86 system.
That's the problem with an "old people" board. They remember shit from 40+ years ago and don't think things have changed in the meantime.

True. But DOGE just discovered that the Federal retirement system records are kept in a PA mine.

The federal paperwork mine in DOGE's crosshairs is real and bizarre

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Elon Musk said the government stores and processes retirement paperwork in an old limestone mine. It's real.

www.businessinsider.com

• Elon Musk said on Tuesday that the government stores key retirement paperwork in a converted mine.
• The limestone mine is real, and in the Department of Government Efficiency's crosshairs.
• The US government started storing records in the underground facility in the 1960s.

So if Federal workers are in the SS system, why are records still kept in a mine instead of by SS like the rest of us??????

 

[1srelluc]

True. But DOGE just discovered that the Federal retirement system records are kept in a PA mine.

The federal paperwork mine in DOGE's crosshairs is real and bizarre

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Elon Musk said the government stores and processes retirement paperwork in an old limestone mine. It's real.

www.businessinsider.com

• Elon Musk said on Tuesday that the government stores key retirement paperwork in a converted mine.
• The limestone mine is real, and in the Department of Government Efficiency's crosshairs.
• The US government started storing records in the underground facility in the 1960s.

So if Federal workers are in the SS system, why are records still kept in a mine instead of by SS like the rest of us??????

What the blue fuck does FERS have to do with a retirement paperwork mine?

Fess-up, you did not know anything about FERS and you are just trying to deflect. Never mind FERS has been around for 38 fuckin' years.

 

[1srelluc]

They put a stop to that decades ago. There are a few states and local governments that are grandfathered in.

To old people something that happened 38 years ago (FERS) has not even registered yet.

They are still pissed that they did not get in on the fed gravy train of 40-odd years ago.

Oh, she will jump-up on their high-horse and say it isn't true but I've seen how jelly she is when she talks of her peers that retired from the .gov.

 

[bendog]

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.

run on that, and no Trump did NOT. lol

 

[kyzr]

What the blue fuck does FERS have to do with a retirement paperwork mine?
Fess-up, you did not know anything about FERS and you are just trying to deflect. Never mind FERS has been around for 38 fuckin' years.

So how do the rest of us get some of this FERS stuff?
The article calls it a Federal Pension system.
Isn't "disability" a state responsibility?
No matter, there is no fucking way that ANY Federal paperwork should be on paper in a fucking mine.

 

[1srelluc]

So how do the rest of us get some of this FERS stuff?

Get you a .gov job.

USAJOBS - The Federal Government's official employment site

Search and apply for federal jobs. Learn about unique hiring paths for veterans, students and graduates, individuals with a disability, and more.

www.usajobs.gov

Good luck.

 

[Dragonlady]

To your last point, have you noticed that Government employees get exempted from the programs that regular taxpayers are forced into - so that the govt employees get to keep the better deal?

Same thing happened with Obamacare. Regular people were forced onto an inferior program while the exalted government goof-offs got to stay on their better programs - paid for by the regular people.

Are you really this gullible and stupid, or is this an act you put on when you post???

Have you noticed that government employees make LESS than the private sector workers doing the same job. A lot LESS. A government mechanic averages about $50,000 per year, but the average private sector earnings is $66,500, 1/3 MORE than the government employee earns for the same work.

Over a 40 year career, the government worker will be paid $660,000 LESS than the private sector workers, but so often you hear the government workers say that they took the government jobs to give service to the country that has given them so much.

In return for their SERVICE, and their lower wages, government workers receive medical coverage and a pension.

If you'd paid attention in Civics Class, you'd know this stuff.