Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

I agree, we also need to reduce fraudulent disability claims.

But back to my original point:

initforme is a fucking moron.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, I mean anyone under 55.

Not young people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The earnings cap is already $176,100.

Raising it to $200,000 isn't going to do much.

Raising the earning cap to $400,000 would have an impact extending the Trust Fund to the early 2050's. Which has the additional advantage of moving the issue out past the "Boomer Bump" as we will be mostly gone by then.

WW
.
.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

 

[Zincwarrior]

The earnings cap is already $176,100.

Raising it to $200,000 isn't going to do much.

Raising the earning cap to $400,000 would have an impact extending the Trust Fund to the early 2050's. Which has the additional advantage of moving the issue out past the "Boomer Bump" as we will be mostly gone by then.

WW
.
.

The Social Security Reformer - Interactive Tool

What will it take to save Social Security for future generations? Try the Social Security Reformer, an interactive tool from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Make the choices and share with your friends. See how your choices stack up!

www.crfb.org

That would impact wealthy people. Not going to happen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That would impact wealthy people. Not going to happen.

Actually I support the idea of redefining SS revenues and leaving the cap in place - maybe raise it to $200,000.

But I'd redefine "income" for SS purposes.

WW

 

[g5000]

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.

I've been saying for years and years and years we need to raise the eligibility age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Common sense.

But don't pretend the Republicans have been trying to do this before now. They ran Speaker John Boehner out of town on a rail for suggesting it.

And I guarantee you there are Republicans who STILL oppose it.

Also, don't pretend no Democrats have suggested raising the age. Steny Hoyer has been suggesting it since 2010.

 

[g5000]

“Horrible idea. Totally opposed to this,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said of raising the retirement age, even for people who don’t plan to retire soon.

“What a terrible idea. If Republicans want to be in the minority party forever, then go ahead and endorse that,” he said. “Republicans are so stupid. If they want to go to working people and say, ‘Congratulations, you have paid into this your whole life — your payroll taxes — and now we’re going to take part of it away from you. We’re going to make you work even longer than we said beforehand,’ I just think that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard.”

GOP faces internal battle over raising age for Social Security

Republicans are battling among themselves over whether to push reforms to reduce Social Security spending, with some conservatives rallying around the idea of raising the retirement age. Republican…

thehill.com

 

[Lesh]

That would impact wealthy people. Not going to happen.

It would amount to the change found in the sofa for them

 

[Lesh]

I've been saying for years and years and years we need to raise the eligibility age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Common sense.

But don't pretend the Republicans have been trying to do this before now. They ran Speaker John Boehner out of town on a rail for suggesting it.

And I guarantee you there are Republicans who STILL oppose it.

Also, don't pretend no Democrats have suggested raising the age. Steny Hoyer has been suggesting it since 2010.

Sounds great unless you do manual jobs. Kinda tough climbing a ladder at 69

 

[g5000]

Sounds great unless you do manual jobs. Kinda tough climbing a ladder at 69

When Social Security was enacted, it was intended for those who beat the actuarial odds. It was not intended for everyone to collect.

It was even more discriminatory toward blue collar workers than it is now.

Blue collar work is nowhere near as difficult now as it was then.

Only 5.4 percent of the population was over the age of 65 back then.

Today, it is 16 percent.

A larger and larger percentage of Americans are being supported by a smaller and smaller percentage.

This is plainly unsustainable.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to raise the retirement age.

What if average life expectancy rises to 100? Are we going to let people live on Social Security for one third of their lives?

 

[Lesh]

When Social Security was enacted, it was intended for those who beat the actuarial odds. It was not intended for everyone to collect.

It was even more discriminatory toward blue collar workers than it is now.

Blue collar work is nowhere near as difficult now as it was then.

Only 5.4 percent of the population was over the age of 65 back then.

Today, it is 16 percent.

A larger and larger percentage of Americans are being supported by a smaller and smaller percentage.

This is plainly unsustainable.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to raise the retirement age.

What if average life expectancy rises to 100? Are we going to let people live on Social Security for one third of their lives?

Have you ever done a manual job? I mean forty hours a week for years on end

I have. Asking people people to do that with bodies beat down by working 45 years like that or live in poverty is insane and inhuman .

You might have a point for desk workers. But how do you differentiate?

 

[g5000]

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4% of the population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of the population was over 65. This is where I got my 9 percent index from.

Today, 16% are over 65.

We can keep slamming our eyes shut to the obvious, but that will only make the ultimate pain even worse the longer we put it off.

 

[Lesh]

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4% of the population was over 65.

When Medicare was added in 1965, 9% of the population was over 65. This is where I got my 9 percent index from.

Today, 16% are over 65.

We can keep slamming our eyes shut to the obvious, but that will only make the ultimate pain even worse the longer we put it off.

Those numbers change as the Baby Boomers die off

 

[TNHarley]

Just give me my fucking money back, stop taking from my check and let me handle my retirement. I dont plan on not having access to my money until im fucking 80. This is such stupid BS.
We can fund our huge war machine and pay for other countries to kill themselves, but i cant retire at a decent age?
FUCK YOU

 

[Zincwarrior]

It would amount to the change found in the sofa for them

Yes, but when are the wealthy going to get cut a break?

 

[g5000]

Have you ever done a manual job? I mean forty hours a week for years on end

I have. Asking people people to do that with bodies beat down by working 45 years like that or live in poverty is insane and inhuman .

You might have a point for desk workers. But how do you differentiate?

You can currently start collecting SS at 62, at a lower rate than full SS. I know several people who have.

You can collect normal SS at 67. Or you can work until 70 and get the max.

 

[g5000]

Yes, but when are the wealthy going to get cut a break?

The wealthy have been getting a break for decades. Just look at the concentration of wealth they have achieved.

The entire system has been legislatively rigged to benefit the wealthy for a very long time.

It's time to start re-leveling the playing field.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The wealthy have been getting a break for decades. Just look at the concentration of wealth they have achieved.

The entire system has been legislatively rigged to benefit the wealthy for a very long time.

It's time to start re-leveling the playing field.

I think you missed the sarcasm...

 

[g5000]

Those numbers change as the Baby Boomers die off

Which is exactly why I said to index the retirement age to 9 percent of the population.

 

[bendog]

imo the problem is lack of revenue and not too generous benefits. But the dems had a supermaj in 2020 and they passed tax credits for people who don't want to work in the first place.

So much for those who choose to work.