Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[WorldWatcher]

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

The 69 year old will be more than likely be on SS disability by that time negating any savings.

WW

 

[bendog]

The 69 year old will be more than likely be on SS disability by that time negating any savings.

WW

Unless we force the wealthy to kick in more to the kitty, Soc Sec will simply become ... welfare, with the wealthy contributing even less of a % of income as we do, and healthier workers with easier jobs putting the only cash into the welfare state

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

That's why I said "and those who voted for them."

Unless we force the wealthy to kick in more to the kitty, Soc Sec will simply become

Sigh. . . . Come on. . . . Just raising taxes on the wealthy will not solve the problem. Starting in 2035, we're talking about a $350 billion shortfall annually, and rising. Does anyone in their right mind think we can jack up SS taxes by $350 billion per year?

... welfare, with the wealthy contributing even less of a % of income as we do,

Actually, in many cases, the wealthy pay a much larger percentage of SS taxes than others do because they also pay the employer share of SS taxes for each of their employees. A lot of liberals don't seem to know this.

But, yes, let's do abolish the cap on income that can be taxed for SS. I'm all for that. That would help, but that would not fix the entire problem. I'm also for applying a means test for SS benefits, just as we do with virtually every other benefit program. Any sane, mathematically plausible solution must include a reduction in benefits in some form.

 

[Marener]

That's why I said "and those who voted for them."

They voted for Trump, who ran on not cutting SS.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They voted for Trump, who ran on not cutting SS.

And he's NOT cutting SS. He was talking about not cutting benefits for current recipients.

If we ran the food stamp program the way we run SS, the program would have gone bust years ago. Thankfully and rationally, we impose a means test for receiving food stamps, even though everyone's taxes pay for the program and even though the poor pay no federal income taxes and few if any state income taxes. It is high time we apply this same sensible principle to SS.

SS should be geared toward low-income and middle-income people. People who already have a private retirement income of $60,000 to $79,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $1,000 per month. People with a private retirement income of $80,000 to $99,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $600 per month. People with a private retirement income of $100,000 or more should get no SS benefit. Obviously, if someone's private retirement income went down substantially, their SS benefit could be recalculated and increased accordingly.

I would even apply this common-sense means test to current SS recipients who have private retirement incomes of $100,000 or more. These recipients get an SS benefit of well over $3,000 per month. We might as well let them start collecting food stamps and utility bill assistance. Someone with a private retirement income of $100,000 or more should not be getting SS.

 

[Marener]

And he's NOT cutting SS. He was talking about not cutting benefits for current recipients.

If we ran the food stamp program the way we run SS, the program would have gone bust years ago. Thankfully and rationally, we impose a means test for receiving food stamps, even though everyone's taxes pay for the program. It is high time we apply this same sensible principle to SS.

SS should be geared toward low-income and middle-income people. People who already have a private retirement income of $60,000 to $79,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $1,000 per month. People with a private retirement income of $80,000 to $99,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $600 per month. People with a private retirement income of $100,000 or more should get no SS benefit. Obviously, if someone's private retirement income went down substantially, their SS benefit could be recalculated and increased accordingly.

If you’re cutting benefits for future recipients, you’re still cutting benefits.

If you want to cut benefits for people with higher income, there’s already a system to do that. It’s called taxing social security benefits.

Guess who ran on repealing the social security tax?

For the record, I’m totally on board with means testing social security and we should start now. Not 20 years from now.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If you’re cutting benefits for future recipients, you’re still cutting benefits.

And just never mind that he was clearly only referring to current recipients, right?

If you want to cut benefits for people with higher income, there’s already a system to do that. It’s called taxing social security benefits.

Well, yes, that would be another way to do it. That would be identical to applying a means test when they apply. But it's rather obscene that SS benefits are taxed at all. They were not taxed until 1984. Taxing them was part of the Reagan-O'Neill SS reform bill.

Guess who ran on repealing the social security tax?

No, wrong. He ran on repealing the tax on SS benefits, not on repealing the SS payroll tax. And I agree that SS benefits should not be taxed. Again, they were not taxed until 1984.

For the record, I’m totally on board with means testing social security and we should start now. Not 20 years from now.

Uh, okay. One would have never guessed this from your previous comments. But, hey, good to know!

 

[WorldWatcher]

And he's NOT cutting SS. He was talking about not cutting benefits for current recipients.

If we ran the food stamp program the way we run SS, the program would have gone bust years ago. Thankfully and rationally, we impose a means test for receiving food stamps, even though everyone's taxes pay for the program and even though the poor pay no federal income taxes and few if any state income taxes. It is high time we apply this same sensible principle to SS.

SS should be geared toward low-income and middle-income people. People who already have a private retirement income of $60,000 to $79,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $1,000 per month. People with a private retirement income of $80,000 to $99,000 should get a reduced SS benefit of no more than $600 per month. People with a private retirement income of $100,000 or more should get no SS benefit. Obviously, if someone's private retirement income went down substantially, their SS benefit could be recalculated and increased accordingly.

I would even apply this common-sense means test to current SS recipients who have private retirement incomes of $100,000 or more. These recipients get an SS benefit of well over $3,000 per month. We might as well let them start collecting food stamps and utility bill assistance. Someone with a private retirement income of $100,000 or more should not be getting SS.

Disagree.

There is no common sense at all to the idea that you paid into a system for 45-50 years, and told when you get to the finish line that you don't deserve to get a benefit from that system.

Your "common sense" plan is to penalize those that planned for retirement, earned a pension, saved money into a 401K and factored into their retirement plan Social Security as part of the plan - "well you are screwed". On the other hand those that DIDN'T plan for retirement - "well, we are going to reward your miss management".

Secondly, "SS recipients who have private retirement incomes of $100,000 or more. These recipients get an SS benefit of well over $3,000 per month.", which isn't how SS benefits are determined. They are not based on other retirement income, they are based in prior earnings during working years. Retirement income has no factor in determining SS benefits.

Thirdly, under the current model my wife and I worked toward retirement. Making significant deposits into our 401K's to defer taxability to retirement. So under your model what we would have done is NOT taken the tax deferment, paid the taxes at the time, invested the money and paid taxes on dividends over the working years. Why? Because then withdrawals from investment with taxes already paid would be counted as "income".

WW

 

[CrazyTrader55]

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

Social Security won't go broke. But benefits WILL eventually be cut by about 25% unless these idiots who run the country can come up with a compromise solution.

 

[Marener]

And just never mind that he was clearly only referring to current recipients, right?

He made no such distinction. It's not clear at all.

Well, yes, that would be another way to do it. That would be identical to applying a means test when they apply. But it's rather obscene that SS benefits are taxed at all. They were not taxed until 1984. Taxing them was part of the Reagan-O'Neill SS reform bill.

There's no difference between means testing and taxing social security benefits. If one is obscene, both are obscene.

No, wrong. He ran on repealing the tax on SS benefits, not on repealing the SS payroll tax. And I agree that SS benefits should not be taxed. Again, they were not taxed until 1984.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/what-to-know-about-the-bill-to-repeal-social-security-taxes

Uh, okay. One would have never guessed this from your previous comments. But, hey, good to know!

My only objection is that any cuts be applied to everyone, not protecting those that are currently receiving benefits. One generation voting to screw over another generation to protect their asses is obscene.

 

[mikegriffith1]

One obvious SS reform that is long overdue is reducing or ending the SS benefit for senior military officers who have a retirement pension of at least $9,000 per month. There are a whole bunch of retired O-5s (lieutenant colonels) and above who get a monthly retirement pension of $9,000 to $12,000--again, per month--plus free Tricare for Life supplemental health insurance, plus lifetime access to tax-free shopping on military bases. Such folks should at least have their SS benefit reduced by 75%. For current recipients, this could be done in a gradual way, perhaps over a period of three years.

 

[mikegriffith1]

He made no such distinction. It's not clear at all.

Yes, he did. How can anyone believe that even Trump would propose ending the payroll tax (i.e., the SS tax)? I've never heard Trump say this, but I I have heard him say that SS income should not be taxed.

There's no difference between means testing and taxing social security benefits. If one is obscene, both are obscene.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that we should raise taxes on SS benefits of wealthier people. My point is that SS income should not be taxed in the first place.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/what-to-know-about-the-bill-to-repeal-social-security-taxes

Read the article. The subtitle specified that he was talking about repealing the tax on SS income, not repealing the SS tax (the payroll tax) itself. The article itself makes this clear. Perhaps you didn't read the article but just the headline.

My only objection is that any cuts be applied to everyone, not protecting those that are currently receiving benefits. One generation voting to screw over another generation to protect their asses is obscene.

I would agree with you here if we're only talking about cutting benefits for wealthier SS recipients, not for all current recipients.

As I mentioned in a recent post, one obvious SS reform that is long overdue is reducing or ending the SS benefit for senior military officers who have a retirement pension of at least $9,000 per month. There are a whole bunch of retired O-5s (lieutenant colonels) and above who get a monthly retirement pension of $9,000 to $12,000--again, per month--plus free Tricare for Life supplemental health insurance, plus lifetime access to tax-free shopping on military bases. Such folks should at least have their SS benefit reduced by 75%. For current recipients, this could be done in a gradual way, perhaps over a period of three years.

 

[Marener]

Yes, he did. How can anyone believe that even Trump would propose ending the payroll tax (i.e., the SS tax)? I've never heard Trump say this, but I I have heard him say that SS income should not be taxed.

You’re confused. Trump said he wouldn’t cut social security. He never stipulated that only referred to current recipients.

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that we should raise taxes on SS benefits of wealthier people. My point is that SS income should not be taxed in the first place.

Your opinion that they shouldn’t be taxed in the first place doesn’t make any sense if you also agree with means testing. Taxing benefits is an excellent way to means test social security. They’re the same thing.

Read the article. The subtitle specified that he was talking about repealing the tax on SS income, not repealing the SS tax (the payroll tax) itself. The article itself makes this clear. Did you read it or just go by the headline?

I never said anything about repealing payroll tax.

I would agree with you here if we're only talking about cutting benefits for wealthier SS recipients, not for all current recipients.

As I mentioned in a recent post, one obvious SS reform that is long overdue is reducing or ending the SS benefit for senior military officers who have a retirement pension of at least $9,000 per month. There are a whole bunch of retired O-5s (lieutenant colonels) and above who get a monthly retirement pension of $9,000 to $12,000--again, per month--plus free Tricare for Life supplemental health insurance, plus lifetime access to tax-free shopping on military bases. Such folks should at least have their SS benefit reduced by 75%. For current recipients, this could be done in a gradual way, perhaps over a period of three years.

Sure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

One obvious SS reform that is long overdue is reducing or ending the SS benefit for senior military officers who have a retirement pension of at least $9,000 per month. There are a whole bunch of retired O-5s (lieutenant colonels) and above who get a monthly retirement pension of $9,000 to $12,000--again, per month--plus free Tricare for Life supplemental health insurance, plus lifetime access to tax-free shopping on military bases. Such folks should at least have their SS benefit reduced by 75%. For current recipients, this could be done in a gradual way, perhaps over a period of three years.

For some reason I need to correct this misinformation - OK, I know the reason, it's wrong.

#1 RETIREMENT PAY
A LTC (Lieutenant Colonel)/CDR (Navy Commander), Grade O-5, does not draw $9000-$12,000 a month in military retirement. An O-5 retiring in 2025 wouldl be on either the military High-36 or REDUX plans. An officer that selects the REDUX plan probably shouldn't have been an officer because for a lump sum @15 years they take a permenant 1% decrease in retirement. Normally not a good deal, but especially not for officers since they make more to begin with.

So under High-36 retirement pay is 50% of average high 3 years of BASE PAY @20 years and 75% @30 years. So it reduces retirement pay be some amount (normally not that much), but some depending on if their was a promotion (and time in grade is met) and what pay raises were in years 3 and 2 preceeding.

An O-5 range of pay between 20 years (minimum required) and 40 years (max on the chart below) is $11,592.30-$11,940.00. We'll round that up and call that $12,000.

That means under High-36 the range of retirement would be, slightly less than, $6000 a month @20 years, and $9,000 a month at @30 years.

#2 FREE TRICARE FOR LIFE (TFL) SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE
While technically true, that TRICARE for Life is an included earned benefit, TFL is a secondary insurance to Medicare and Medicare is required to maintain eligibility for for TCL. For my wife and I, Medicare Premiums run about $4,500 a year. Because Medicare is an individual system, for both of us to be eleigible for TCL - premiums have to be paid for both.

#3 TAX FREE SHOPPING IN BASE EXCHANGES
Again partially true. While shopping in Base Exchanges is tax free, there is a 5% surcharge for Commissary shopping. So while there is some savings, for Commissary shopping it's not as much as people expect and depends on your location as you may not be near a Commissary to shop.

*** Miltiary Pay is caped for

WW
.
.
.

2025 Basic Pay: Officers

Military Retirement Pay: Everything You Need to Know

Ready for retirement? Here's what you need to know about military retirement pay. Read more

www.military.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 whole US govt needs reforming. The problem is, it doesn't need it in the way Trump will be doing it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----/

 

[CrazyTrader55]

The whole US govt needs reforming. The problem is, it doesn't need it in the way Trump will be doing it.

Considering that no "reform" happened for 50 years despite a lot of talk, I would say that the Trump/Musk way is the only way.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Unless we force the wealthy to kick in more to the kitty, . . .

Sigh. . . . We're not going to fix SS just by jacking up taxes on the wealthy. We're talking about an annual shortfall of $350 billion starting in 2035--not just once, but annually, and getting worse after that. Taxes alone are not going to fix this.

There has got to be some sane, reasonable adjustment on benefits to reflect current lifespan and population reality.

 

[Lisa558]

Sigh. . . . We're not going to fix SS just by jacking up taxes on the wealthy. We're talking about an annual shortfall of $350 billion starting in 2035--not just once, but annually, and getting worse after that. Taxes alone are not going to fix this.

There has got to be some sane, reasonable adjustment on benefits to reflect current lifespan and population reality.

Libs have one solution to all problems: make the rich pay more. Or, put another way, let other people pay to solve the problem.

 

[Blaster]

Wealthy people receive social security checks even if they don't need them. There is also massive fraud.