Democrats Propose A Different Kind Of Social Security Overhaul

[WorldWatcher]

The bill would lift the Social Security tax cap "to ensure that no matter the source of their income, high-income taxpayers would pay the same tax rate on their income exceeding that threshold," said the lawmakers in a press statement.

I'm not buying this statement. If modeled after the current FICA, it would only apply to wages/salaries and not other income so the "no matter the source" sounds off.

WW

 

[otto105]

The bicameral bill, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, was reintroduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), with the aim of requiring people with yearly incomes of more than $400,000 to contribute a fairer share of their wealth to the two programs. Currently the maximum amount of earnings for which American workers must pay Social Security taxes is just over $176,000.

The bill would lift the Social Security tax cap "to ensure that no matter the source of their income, high-income taxpayers would pay the same tax rate on their income exceeding that threshold," said the lawmakers in a press statement.

It would also increase the Medicare tax rate for income above $400,000 by 1.2% and include a provision ensuring owners of hedge funds and private equity firms can no longer avoid Medicare taxes.

'Rigged for the rich': Dems propose a different kind of Social Security overhaul

Social Security and Medicare protect tens of millions of American senior citizens from poverty and medical bankruptcy each year, but economic justice advocates have long said the programs would be strengthened and remain fully solvent for as long as possible if the richest Americans contributed...

www.alternet.org

A much better overhaul. Of course if Republicans refuse to sign off on it. Democrats will make it part of the budget they submit after taking back the House. I'm sure shutting down the government over it will be a big winner for them during the 2028 campaign.

All for it.

 

[BackAgain]

The bicameral bill, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, was reintroduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), with the aim of requiring people with yearly incomes of more than $400,000 to contribute a fairer share of their wealth to the two programs. Currently the maximum amount of earnings for which American workers must pay Social Security taxes is just over $176,000.

The bill would lift the Social Security tax cap "to ensure that no matter the source of their income, high-income taxpayers would pay the same tax rate on their income exceeding that threshold," said the lawmakers in a press statement.

It would also increase the Medicare tax rate for income above $400,000 by 1.2% and include a provision ensuring owners of hedge funds and private equity firms can no longer avoid Medicare taxes.

'Rigged for the rich': Dems propose a different kind of Social Security overhaul

Social Security and Medicare protect tens of millions of American senior citizens from poverty and medical bankruptcy each year, but economic justice advocates have long said the programs would be strengthened and remain fully solvent for as long as possible if the richest Americans contributed...

www.alternet.org

A much better overhaul. Of course if Republicans refuse to sign off on it. Democrats will make it part of the budget they submit after taking back the House. I'm sure shutting down the government over it will be a big winner for them during the 2028 campaign.

The Dumbocrap “plan” is idiotic.

But that’s redundant.

 

[initforme]

It's original concept at least made some fiscal sense. You had a very wide working base and a small retirement population that didn't live very long. But fast forward 80 years. The working base is shrinking, the retirement population growing AND living much longer. I don't see how this is sustainable.

In thr greatest nation on earth, awash in wealth. If we cant save those programs then that says something.

 

[San Souci]

You clowns constantly fantasize about futures that never come to pass. Must be why you're all such miserable twats.

All Democrats are miserable Twats. All they do is Bellyache. Have you heard one dam thing POSITIVE come from the Filthy Dems? Or just a bunch of Commie crap. Look now. That old Bolshevik and his little whore Apprentice AOC are going around the Country preaching Communism. While that Bush Baby Jazzy Crocked talks Ghetto Trash and that terrorist Brother ****** Ilhan Omar tells Reporters to F off. Democrats are the REAL Threat to "Democracy".

 

[Hollie]

Democrats seek to preserve Social Security and Medicare as necessary, proper programs beneficial to the American people.

Republicans seek only to destroy Social Security and Medicare because it conflicts with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma, harming the American people.

Tell us how, with your usual inability to compose a coherent sentence how Republicans seek only to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

Your silly, flaming tirades are just childish tantrums drenched in stupidity.

 

[80zephyr]

And if the stock market goes under we have millions upon millions who would have nothing. American votporate plutocrats have a dirt cheap labor force in america. It costs zilch.

I've got news for you. Even under the current set up, if the stock market goes under we will be screwed anyhow. Laid off people don't pay into the system.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats have been trying to get rid of social security and medicare for decades. If they destroy social security and medicare it will be easier to force universal basic income and government funded healthcare on everyone.

Everything else is a lie.

 

[Lisa558]

What’s so different about the Democrats’ approach? It’s the same answer they have to everything: make rich people pay for it.

The lower income ALREADY receive more from SS proportionate to what they’ve paid in than do higher earners. So given that the lower earners already receive more of the benefit compared to what they’ve paid, why can’t there be a compromise?

1) Raise the cap to $200,000 or $225,000.

2) Delay the start of SS by one year, phased in.

 

[80zephyr]

What’s so different about the Democrats’ approach? It’s the same answer they have to everything: make rich people pay for it.

The lower income ALREADY receive more from SS proportionate to what they’ve paid in than do higher earners. So given that the lower earners already receive more of the benefit compared to what they’ve paid, why can’t there be a compromise?

1) Raise the cap to $200,000 or $225,000.

2) Delay the start of SS by one year, phased in.

What do you mean "delay the start"?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What do you mean "delay the start"?

Nice way of saying cut benefits by raising retirement age.

WW

 

[Lisa558]

What do you mean "delay the start"?

I mean instead of 62 for early retirement, push it six months or a year, with full retirement pushed back the same.

 

[Lisa558]

Nice way of saying cut benefits by raising retirement age.

WW

Yes, because SS will go bankrupt, and it was started when people died earlier rather than collect for 30 years.

Delaying the start while also raising the cap is a good balance. Unless you’re a lib and think ONLY the rich should pay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, because SS will go bankrupt,

No it won't. Benefits will be reduced by 20-25% when the Trust Fund runs out, but SS will not go "bankrupt".

As a pay/go system it can't go bankrupt as there is always revenue coming in.

and it was started when people died earlier rather than collect for 30 years.

Life expectancy for males is about 75 and females is 80.

So, on average someone retiring at 67 (full retirement age) is drawing SS for 8 years and 13 years respectively.

Delaying the start while also raising the cap is a good balance.

I've already had SS reduced 3 times. "Delaying the start" is a more polite way of "cut benefits".

Unless you’re a lib and think ONLY the rich should pay.

My preference is to have mandatory accounts similar to Sweden. EE & ER portion go into a lockbox account for retirement. There are over - last I checked - 100 investment portfolios the individual can chose from ranging from very aggressive to very conservative. The individual can change investments at any time with no charge. If the individual does not make an election as to investments, then the government will invest it in one of the moderately conservative options.

Currently 30.2% of my total compensation package goes into Defined Benefits retirement - and that doesn't include my tax deferred personal Defined Contribution savings.

While it's a plan to strive for, the problem is how to allow younger folks to participate in the lockbox system, while still funding commitments to the existing system.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

I mean instead of 62 for early retirement, push it six months or a year, with full retirement pushed back the same.

People who do physical labor for a living sometimes can't wait that long. Some countries stagger the retirement age to take that into consideration. Look how early cops and firefighters can retire. They realize they can't do the job anymore.

 

[Concerned American]

People who do physical labor for a living sometimes can't wait that long. Some countries stagger the retirement age to take that into consideration. Look how early cops and firefighters can retire. They realize they can't do the job anymore.

FYI, police and firefighters aren't retiring early on SS. Most are not covered as they are exempted due to public pension funds. Same holds true for many state and local employees including teachers. Just sayin'

 

[Lisa558]

People who do physical labor for a living sometimes can't wait that long. Some countries stagger the retirement age to take that into consideration. Look how early cops and firefighters can retire. They realize they can't do the job anymore.

But cops and firefighters get pensions.

As far as other labor-intensive jobs, it would make sense that they keep the current SS schedule. But pencil pushers can do it another year longer.

 

[Lisa558]

FYI, police and firefighters aren't retiring early on SS. Most are not covered as they are exempted due to public pension funds. Same holds true for many state and local employees including teachers. Just sayin'

Oops….just saw you beat me to it. Great minds and all that….

 

[WorldWatcher]

FYI, police and firefighters aren't retiring early on SS.

True

Most are not covered as they are exempted due to public pension funds.

False. Most state and local employees fall under SS even if there is a state pension system.

Same holds true for many state and local employees including teachers. Just sayin'

Yes there are some. But not most.

WW

NASRA

www.nasra.org

 

[AZrailwhale]

Democrats seek to preserve Social Security and Medicare as necessary, proper programs beneficial to the American people.

Republicans seek only to destroy Social Security and Medicare because it conflicts with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma, harming the American people.

Only when they are out of power. Where was this idea during the four years Biden was president, or the eight years Obama was president? I’ll tell you, it was non-existent because the democrats were afraid to offend their rich donors who would have to ante up.