Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[Marener]

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?

Hell of a choice you give young people. Conveniently it doesn’t affect old people whatsoever even though they’re the ones that screwed it up.

 

[initforme]

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?

They won't have a choice if it's law, but they won't look upon it quietly.

 

[Lisa558]

Hell of a choice you give young people. Conveniently it doesn’t affect old people whatsoever even though they’re the ones that screwed it up.

They moved the retirement age up from 65 to 67 before I got there, and I didn’t bitch and scream. I understood it was needed to maintain the program.

And moving it up another year, given modern medicine and how many of today’s young people will live well into their 90s, isn’t such a calamity.

 

[Lisa558]

They won't have a choice if it's law, but they won't look upon it quietly.

Well, many young people do feel entitled, but many others are mature and will take it the way I and my friends did - we knew we had a year’s delay to FRA, but once we got there, the change made the overall program stronger.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Hell of a choice you give young people.

I bet most young people would gladly take a modest cut in benefits and/or work a year or two longer in exchange for ensuring the long-term viability of the SS system so that it's there when they retire.

Conveniently it doesn’t affect old people whatsoever even though they’re the ones that screwed it up.

The old people who deserve blame are the politicians who blocked previous reasonable SS reform proposals and those who voted for them. We wouldn't be in this mess if every attempt at rational, sane SS reform had not been met with lies and demagoguery and fear mongering.

 

[Zincwarrior]

They moved the retirement age up from 65 to 67 before I got there, and I didn’t bitch and scream. I understood it was needed to maintain the program.

And moving it up another year, given modern medicine and how many of today’s young people will live well into their 90s, isn’t such a calamity.

By young you mean anyone not retired yet.

 

[Lisa558]

By young you mean anyone not retired yet.

No, I mean anyone under 55.

 

[Marener]

They moved the retirement age up from 65 to 67 before I got there, and I didn’t bitch and scream. I understood it was needed to maintain the program.

And moving it up another year, given modern medicine and how many of today’s young people will live well into their 90s, isn’t such a calamity.

The OP talked about moving it up to 69. Life expectancy isn’t getting any longer. The problem isn’t that some people can live well into their 90s, it’s that hard working Americans simply can’t work until 69. Their bodies can’t take it.

 

[Marener]

The old people who deserve blame are the politicians who blocked previous reasonable SS reform proposals and those who voted for them. We wouldn't be in this mess if every attempt at rational, sane SS reform had not been met with lies and demagoguery and fear mongering.

Politicians are elected by the people. Boomers are the most important voting block so the failure to achieve reform is on them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I mean anyone under 55.

Please explain how grandfathering those 55 and older will help save the Trust Fund from being exhausted.

If the legislation passes this year (2025) the earliest it would to into effect is January next year (2026). The earliest that it will have any impact on the Trust fund will be when those that are now 54 hit the new higher retirement age at 68, that's 12-13 years in the future 2038-2039. (Assuming a phase in of the new Full Retirement Age where FRA increases X months for each Y years.)

Since the fund will be exhausted in 2034 (maybe 2035), the fund will already have been depleted.

WW

 

[Godboy]

What solution are you proposing OP?

Democrats in Congress want to do nothing about it and let it become insolvent in a few years. It will make their next election easier if they demonize conservatives for wanting to raise the retirement age. Sure we will all get a 25% reduction in our benefits starting in a few years, but in the short term these democrats in Congress might shave a percentage point or two off their opponent in the next election, so in their minds that far outweighs the 25% loss we will all take. THAT is what is happening in DC right now. Not that you would give a fuck. You are only interested in owning conservatives, SS be damned.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 want 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 requirementd, there are very little saving agains 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

It's true, doing something during Bush's presidency would have helped already.

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.

From my very first full-time job, I assumed I'd get zero from Social Security.
Sounds like you're one of the few who have planned intelligently.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's true, doing something during Bush's presidency would have helped already.

I was paying attention during the Bush presidency, (assuming you are talking about Bush II and his privitazation plan.

There was a big whole in the plan that was not accounted for. The plan was to allow workers to take X % of FICA and invest it in private account.

Problem was there was no mechanism to replace the funding for SS that was being taken out of the system. With less revenue (because money was put in private accounts) while still paying SS benefits the Trust Fund would have been exhausted even faster.

That's the problem with the conversion. People say "Well this plan would be better" and I don't disagree, the problem is funding the conversion which will take 20-40 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.

From my very first full-time job, I assumed I'd get zero from Social Security.
Sounds like you're one of the few who have planned intelligently.

Thank you. I place the accolades where they are due, I married a woman smarter than I am.***

WW

*** But I'm nut sure about that, I mean she did marry me.

 

[MarcATL]

Democrats in Congress want to do nothing about it and let it become insolvent in a few years. It will make their next election easier if they demonize conservatives for wanting to raise the retirement age. Sure we will all get a 25% reduction in our benefits starting in a few years, but in the short term these democrats in Congress might shave a percentage point or two off their opponent in the next election, so in their minds that far outweighs the 25% loss we will all take. THAT is what is happening in DC right now. Not that you would give a fuck. You are only interested in owning conservatives, SS be damned.

Are you proposing raising the age limit, is that it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was paying attention during the Bush presidency, (assuming you are talking about Bush II and his privitazation plan.

There was a big whole in the plan that was not accounted for. The plan was to allow workers to take X % of FICA and invest it in private account.

Problem was there was no mechanism to replace the funding for SS that was being taken out of the system. With less revenue (because money was put in private accounts) while still paying SS benefits the Trust Fund would have been exhausted even faster.

That's the problem with the conversion. People say "Well this plan would be better" and I don't disagree, the problem is funding the conversion which will take 20-40 years.



Thank you. I place the accolades where they are due, I married a woman smarter than I am.***

WW

*** But I'm nut sure about that, I mean she did marry me.

Problem was there was no mechanism to replace the funding for SS that was being taken out of the system. With less revenue (because money was put in private accounts) while still paying SS benefits the Trust Fund would have been exhausted even faster.

Reducing funding by 25% (or whatever number) would have drained the Trust Fund faster but then in the future, the benefits paid out would have been 30% (or whatever number) lower.

That's the problem with the conversion. People say "Well this plan would be better" and I don't disagree, the problem is funding the conversion which will take 20-40 years.

20-40 years is better than never.

I married a woman smarter than I am.

Me too, but I do all the math and investing.

 

[Godboy]

Are you proposing raising the age limit, is that it?

No, we will also likely have to lower the benefits too, not 25% lower, but still lower, unless we all agree to stop paying welfare to able bodied unemployed people. If we do that, then we will get a raise in benefits. We are DEFINTELY losing something, either in SS or welfare. We will not be able to maintain both. The longer we wait to make these cuts, the worse the cuts will be when these things become insolvent.

 

[Lisa558]

Please explain how grandfathering those 55 and older will help save the Trust Fund from being exhausted.

If the legislation passes this year (2025) the earliest it would to into effect is January next year (2026). The earliest that it will have any impact on the Trust fund will be when those that are now 54 hit the new higher retirement age at 68, that's 12-13 years in the future 2038-2039. (Assuming a phase in of the new Full Retirement Age where FRA increases X months for each Y years.)

Since the fund will be exhausted in 2034 (maybe 2035), the fund will already have been depleted.

WW

That’s only one piece of the puzzle. The other is to raise the earnings cap to $200,000. With a modest sacrifice from both sides, SS becomes solvent.

 

[Lisa558]

No, we will also likely have to lower the benefits too, not 25% lower, but still lower, unless we all agree to stop paying welfare to able bodied unemployed people. If we do that, then we will get a raise in benefits. We are DEFINTELY losing something, either in SS or welfare. We will not be able to maintain both. The longer we wait to make these cuts, the worse the cuts will be when these things become insolvent.

We REALLY need to crack down on welfare and force the baby daddies to pitch in for support of their children, and reduce the welfare payments. As it stands now, young women with four and five children with three or four kids nd just as many baby daddies “prefer” to have the government (other people) pay to support their illegitimate children because it’s “too much of a hassle” to deal with the fathers.

 

[Lesh]

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.

As noted earlier… a minor help offset by increased disability claims

 

[Lesh]

We REALLY need to crack down on welfare and force the baby daddies to pitch in for support of their children, and reduce the welfare payments. As it stands now, young women with four and five children with three or four kids nd just as many baby daddies “prefer” to have the government (other people) pay to support their illegitimate children because it’s “too much of a hassle” to deal with the fathers.

None of thy has anything to do with Social Security