Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[mikegriffith1]

I was younger than 55 when Bush proposed that DOPE. So that 10% cut would have hit ME when I retired three years ago

Your SS benefit would have been cut by 10% only if you were in the upper-income category of recipients. Most people's benefit would have only been reduced by about 6%, and those people would have had plenty of time to prepare for that modest reduction. In exchange, we'd have a much healthier SS system instead of a system that is barely 6 years away from not having enough revenue to cover scheduled benefits and that is only 10 years away from not having enough revenue to cover 25% of scheduled benefits.

SS is currently costing us $1.4 trillion per year, and that's only going to go up. 25% of $1.4 trillion is $350 billion. Do you actually, really think we're going to jack up taxes by $350 billion per year?

But, hey, that's okay. Just keep rejecting sensible, sane solutions that recognize that raising taxes alone is not going to solve the problem. There has got to be an adjustment made to benefits, along with some additional revenue.

 

[initforme]

Your SS benefit would have been cut by 10% only if you were in the upper-income category of recipients. Most people's benefit would have only been reduced by about 6%, and those people would have had plenty of time to prepare for that modest reduction. In exchange, we'd have a much healthier SS system instead of a system that is barely 6 years away from not having enough revenue to cover scheduled benefits and that is only 10 years away from not having enough revenue to cover 25% of scheduled benefits.

But, hey, that's okay. Just keep rejecting sensible, sane solutions that recognize that raising taxes alone is not going to solve the problem. There has got to be an adjustment made to benefits.

Making people work longer is not going to help SS one bit.

 

[Moonglow]

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

I noticed the MAGATs did not slash those costs in their slashing ways.

 

[Moonglow]

Your SS benefit would have been cut by 10% only if you were in the upper-income category of recipients. Most people's benefit would have only been reduced by about 6%, and those people would have had plenty of time to prepare for that modest reduction. In exchange, we'd have a much healthier SS system instead of a system that is barely 6 years away from not having enough revenue to cover scheduled benefits and that is only 10 years away from not having enough revenue to cover 25% of scheduled benefits.

SS is currently costing us $1.4 trillion per year, and that's only going to go up. 25% of $1.4 trillion is $350 billion. Do you actually, really think we're going to jack up taxes by $350 billion per year?

But, hey, that's okay. Just keep rejecting sensible, sane solutions that recognize that raising taxes alone is not going to solve the problem. There has got to be an adjustment made to benefits, along with some additional revenue.

Provisions Affecting Retirement Age​

Social Security Administration (.gov)
https://www.ssa.gov › solvency › provisions › retireage




Increase the normal retirement age (NRA) 3 months per year for those age 62 starting in 2025 and ending in 2032 (NRA reaches 69 for those age 62 in 2032).

 

[Marener]

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.

That’s a lie.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Making people work longer is not going to help SS one bit.

There might be some modest savings as it relates to SS retirement, but raising the retirement age will see an increase in Social Security Disability claims. Savings on the "retirement" side will likely be sifted in whole or in part to the "disability" side decreasing the overall impact of the "savings".

WW

 

[Marener]

Your SS benefit would have been cut by 10% only if you were in the upper-income category of recipients. Most people's benefit would have only been reduced by about 6%, and those people would have had plenty of time to prepare for that modest reduction. In exchange, we'd have a much healthier SS system instead of a system that is barely 6 years away from not having enough revenue to cover scheduled benefits and that is only 10 years away from not having enough revenue to cover 25% of scheduled benefits.

SS is currently costing us $1.4 trillion per year, and that's only going to go up. 25% of $1.4 trillion is $350 billion. Do you actually, really think we're going to jack up taxes by $350 billion per year?

But, hey, that's okay. Just keep rejecting sensible, sane solutions that recognize that raising taxes alone is not going to solve the problem. There has got to be an adjustment made to benefits, along with some additional revenue.

Forcing people to work longer is cruel.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Forcing people to work longer is cruel.

Just work until you die or need a nursing home (that you can't afford).

What's cruel about that?

WW

 

[Lisa558]

That’s a lie.

No it’s not. Haven’t you libs lesrned yet that yelling “liar” when people point out the damage of liberal policies doesn’t win you elections?

 

[Lisa558]

Just work until you die or need a nursing home (that you can't afford).

What's cruel about that?

WW

So extended the FRA from 67 to 68 means work til you die?

People aren’t falling for your scare tactics.

 

[Marener]

No it’s not. Haven’t you libs lesrned yet that yelling “liar” when people point out the damage of liberal policies doesn’t win you elections?

Of course it is. The ACA provisions didn’t affect government benefits for two reasons. One, the vast majority of provisions were aimed at the individual market (you don’t need a healthcare exchange for people with employer based insurance). Two, the provisions aimed at employer based coverage raised the minimum standards which government benefits already exceeded.

You weren’t forced into a worse system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Making people work longer is not going to help SS one bit.

Working longer, contributing longer, receiving benefits for a shorter period
are going to be a massive help to SS.

Are you getting care for your cognitive decline?

Don't be like Biden.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So extended the FRA from 67 to 68 means work til you die?

People aren’t falling for your scare tactics.

78% of Americans Oppose Increasing the Social Security Retirement Age

When some try to claim raising the retirement age isn't a benefit cut, the sarcasm comes out. (Not saying you, I don't remember if you have or not, there there are those that do make the claim.)

WW
.
.
.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/almost-8-10-people-oppose-151957306.html

 

[initforme]

So extended the FRA from 67 to 68 means work til you die?

People aren’t falling for your scare tactics.

Do you expect people are just going to gleefully accept cuts to SS? Perhaps those that are 55 or older should not have to be affected at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Working longer, contributing longer, receiving benefits for a shorter period
are going to be a massive help to SS.

Yep, work longer - get a benefit cut.

Then die.

Hell of a solution.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, work longer - get a benefit cut.

Then die.

Hell of a solution.

WW

25% cuts coming soon, no action required.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you expect people are just going to gleefully accept cuts to SS? Perhaps those that are 55 or older should not have to be affected at all.

Grandfathering doesn't mean it's not a cut.

It just make the cut easier to pass since older voters will see it as "I got mine, that's all that matters".

WW

 

[Lisa558]

Do you expect people are just going to gleefully accept cuts to SS? Perhaps those that are 55 or older should not have to be affected at all.

Well of course. The change would apply to younger people.

Don’t you think they would be willing to work an extra year to ensure SS will be there for them when they retire?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Invest the "trust fund" into US Equities!

20% a year for the next 4 years.

80% US Equities 20% government securities, let the People get as rich as a Congressman

 

[WorldWatcher]

25% cuts coming soon, no action required.

Oh, there will be action. The longer we wait the more drastic the action will be. I'm a realist and understand that.

But here is the dirty little secret no one talks about, raising the retirement age, unless done immediately will have little to no impact on shoring up the Trust Fund. The only way to get it passed is to grandfather those X years and older then increase the age incrementally over time. By the time the legislation passes AND you account for the "grandfather" people NOT having an increased age requirement, there are very little saving against what is being spend out of the Trust Fund NOW and in the next few years.
.
.
.

I'm retiring this year and already ran the numbers. A 25% cut when Trust Runs out will result in a decrease of 7% of our Gross Income. We're some of the luck ones that have multiple revenue streams in retirement.

WW