House repubs to target Social Security and Medicare cuts

[easyt65]

If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.

 

[kyzr]

We had a very nice discussion, but it didn't include an justification as to why lowering the amount of benefits received for an apples to apples comparison evades the description as a "cut". Lowering the amount of benefits received from FRA to a given year of death is most certainly a decrease in the benefits payout, i.e. a "cut".

The parameter of the example is both live to 77 for an apples to apples comparison. Saying Person A lives to 77 and Person B lives longer is changing the time frame of references.

Whether benefits are reduced over a specific period requires that the time period be common for the comparison.

Let's take a more extreme example to highlight the difference.

Let's say I'm in the military and "retire" age 38, and can draw 50% of base pay for the rest of my life (which say is 77). Say that is $20,000 * 39 years = $780,000.

Congress changes the rules. You can "retire" after 20 years at 50%, but you can't draw the pay until reaching the age of 65. The same calculation results in a payout of benefits over 12 years totaling $240,000. Which number is bigger for the same age of death $780K or $240K? Reducing the number of years of edibility for benefits is a cut.

WW

No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:

Yesterday you computed the time value of money and the life expectancy of a baby boomer just retiring now after paying into SS for 45 years living to 79, and his kids who would have to work two more years before collecting, BUT would live longer and collect longer.

The kids are NOT being cheated, they work a little longer, but collect longer. Its fair.

 

[easyt65]

Again, McCarthy has already declared cuts to SS & Medicare are off the table.

In response, Biden & Democrats (and parroting snowflakes) have doubled-down on lies and fear-mongering.

As such, this thread, again, should be tossed into the basement of 'Conspiracy Theories' untol snowflakes can come up with actual evidence proving Republicans plan to make cuts to SS & Medicare.

Until then all they continue to present is emotional, partisan, hate / disinformation-driven OPINION, unsupported conspiracy theory, and parroted Democrat false accusation and fear-mongering.

 

[healthmyths]

Republicans signal cuts to Social Security, Medicare with new House majority

The House GOP is itching for a fight over spending cuts — including to major entitlement programs.

news.yahoo.com

Well, here we go again. I guess there needs to be room for more tax cuts for the super wealthy.

Most dumb people don't know about the Social Security COLA.
Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022.

Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May | ThinkAdvisor

CPI rises to 8.6% over past 12 months, the largest since December 1981. Gasoline up 4.1% from April to May.

www.thinkadvisor.com

So SS Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) takes in account the inflation rate for 2022 and means everyone on SS gets an 8.6% increase.

Just to repeat.. Biden's "guarantee to rid fossil fuels" costs the federal government MORE than $114,987,504,000 for 2023 in Social Security payments due to adding to inflation rates. Again up 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022 due to inflation due to in part Biden's guarantee.

So Joe's commitment to destroy fossil fuel industry meant oil companies raised their prices. Plain and simple.

Biden wants to get rid of fossil fuels, ...ok Joe you just cost Americans another $114 Billion a year in SS payments.

Oh and by the way these other 6,000 more items will cost more because of Biden's "guarantee to rid fossil fuels"!

2 billion tires made every year from 300 million barrels of oil.
94% of roads in America use Asphalt which use 1.4 Billion barrels of oil.
ttps://www.ranken-energy.com/.../products-made-from.../
Oh and by the way this is what the Social Security Trustees predict for Social Security...

Trustees Report Summary

A SUMMARY OF THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORTS

www.ssa.gov

Payments to be cut 23% after 2034!
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

 

[healthmyths]

No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:

Yesterday you computed the time value of money and the life expectancy of a baby boomer just retiring now after paying into SS for 45 years living to 79, and his kids who would have to work two more years before collecting, BUT would live longer and collect longer.

The kids are NOT being cheated, they work a little longer, but collect longer. Its fair.

Most dumb people don't know about the Social Security COLA.
Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022.

Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May | ThinkAdvisor

CPI rises to 8.6% over past 12 months, the largest since December 1981. Gasoline up 4.1% from April to May.

www.thinkadvisor.com

So SS Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) takes in account the inflation rate for 2022 and means everyone on SS gets an 8.6% increase.

Just to repeat.. Biden's "guarantee to rid fossil fuels" costs the federal government MORE than $114,987,504,000 for 2023 in Social Security payments due to adding to inflation rates. Again up 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022 due to inflation due to in part Biden's guarantee.

Oh and by the way this is what the Social Security Trustees predict for Social Security...

Trustees Report Summary

A SUMMARY OF THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORTS

www.ssa.gov

Payments to be cut 23% after 2034!
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If your boss said he was going to "cut" your salary, what does that mean to you?
Most rational people would say it means your paycheck will be smaller. NO ONE is saying your SS check will be smaller. You will just have to work a little longer to get it. As long as it's there, I'm OK with that.
If you want to see those SS payments you are counting on, SOMETHING has to be done.
What would YOU suggest?

Lowering benefit payout is literally a cut.

And yes benefits received being smaller by raising the retirement age is a cut. Not saying the age can't be raised, you are missing the point. Just be honest. "Yes Virginia, it's really a cut." (to paraphrase Francis Pharcellus Church).

Raising the retirement age is going to have to be "grandfathered" to get it through. Raise the retirement age on those younger than 50 means the EARLIEST beneficial impact doesn't get here until about 2044. A decade after the proposed crisis in 2034.

I'm open to a honest discussion about raising the retirement age.

• Just be honest about it. It's a cut to reduce overall benefit payouts to an individual.
• Recognize that it's one thing to talk about raising retirement age from 67 to 70 for white collar workers it's another to talk about blue collar workers working manual labor jobs. So there will be an offset from proposed savings as more people with health problems can't make it to 70 and go on disability. (And disability [SSDI] - on average - pays more than regular SS.

I'm not a fan of:

• Trying to work more people to death.
• Raising the retirement age as a means of cutting benefits payout to individuals.
• Raising SS rates which are current - IIRC - 6.2% for the EE and 6.2% for the ER with self-employed paying the full 12.4%. 12.4% of a workers compensation package is fine. So no, don't raise the rate.

The current Social Security model is base (pretty much) on the same concepts as the 1930's. Wage earners, mostly from male dominated single income families. It needs to be updated to more modern times.

There are a couple of changes that can have an immediate impact no revenues:

• Immediately double the current wage cap of $160K in 2023 to $320K, personally I'd adjust the wage cap to $500K.
• Secondly recognize there there are lots of different sources of "income" now in a modern economy that don't count as "wages" toward SS. None wage incomes should have a social security tax applied, with the corresponding application to 40 quarterly credits applied to social security eligibility of course. The rate could be substantially less - say 3 to 5% - but as I said that income then gets counted toward your quarterly credits. (For those that don't know you need 40 credits for eligibility at 1 credit per quarter that is 10 years of employment). These would include such things as investment incomes, interest, stock dividends, stock trading, cryptocurrency trading, etc.
• Review COLA calculations. If they are to generous, then adjust them down. If not generous enough, adjust them up. However the goal of a COLA review should NOT be simply to cut benefit payouts by reducing payments. It should be to ensure that the purchasing power of beneficiaries remains constant with increased cost of living expenses over time.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Most dumb people don't know about the Social Security COLA.
Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022.

Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May | ThinkAdvisor

CPI rises to 8.6% over past 12 months, the largest since December 1981. Gasoline up 4.1% from April to May.

www.thinkadvisor.com

So SS Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) takes in account the inflation rate for 2022 and means everyone on SS gets an 8.6% increase.

Just to repeat.. Biden's "guarantee to rid fossil fuels" costs the federal government MORE than $114,987,504,000 for 2023 in Social Security payments due to adding to inflation rates. Again up 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022 due to inflation due to in part Biden's guarantee.

Oh and by the way this is what the Social Security Trustees predict for Social Security...

Trustees Report Summary

A SUMMARY OF THE 2023 ANNUAL REPORTS

www.ssa.gov

Payments to be cut 23% after 2034!
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

I don't want to look back thru the posts to find how we solved SS yesterday but it went something like this:
1. Raise the ages for early (62) and full (67) retirement 1-year now, with the SS Trustees able to raise one more year if/when necessary for solvency.

2. Raise the cap from the current $160,000 to $320,000.

3. Do NOT raise the tax on employers or employees.

That should make SS solvent way into the future.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:

Yesterday you computed the time value of money and the life expectancy of a baby boomer just retiring now after paying into SS for 45 years living to 79, and his kids who would have to work two more years before collecting, BUT would live longer and collect longer.

The kids are NOT being cheated, they work a little longer, but collect longer. Its fair.

Again, you change the time frames which means it's not a fair comarision.

The reason to raise retirement age is to DECREASE payouts to individuals by making them work longer. Yes you are correct, the individual checks may not change, but the total benefits paid out are less if you can have someone dyeing at 8 years instead of 10. That's the point of raising the age requirement.

A fair comparison is to establish an expected age of death, then compare payout. Hence the 77 age of death and comparing a 67 year old retiring to a 70 year old retiring. Total benefits received is less.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't want to look back thru the posts to find how we solved SS yesterday but it went something like this:
1. Raise the ages for early (62) and full (67) retirement 1-year now, with the SS Trustees able to raise one more year if/when necessary for solvency.

2. Raise the cap from the current $160,000 to $320,000.

3. Do NOT raise the tax on employers or employees.

That should make SS solvent way into the future.

Sorry, that is not how we solved it yesterday. I didn't agree with #1. Please expand on #1 again. Would that be an immediate change such as:

• No impact if you are currently drawing SS?
• If you are currently 67 does SS stop until you reach the new 68 FRA?
• If you are 66 planning on retiring later this year when you turn 67, does that get canceled and now you have to work an extra year?
• Is it grandfathered? So it only applies to workers under X age?

#2 and #3 I did agree with. Although with #2 I still think it's a little low.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Again, you change the time frames which means it's not a fair comarision.

The reason to raise retirement age is to DECREASE payouts to individuals by making them work longer. Yes you are correct, the individual checks may not change, but the total benefits paid out are less if you can have someone dyeing at 8 years instead of 10. That's the point of raising the age requirement.

A fair comparison is to establish an expected age of death, then compare payout. Hence the 77 age of death and comparing a 67 year old retiring to a 70 year old retiring. Total benefits received is less.

WW

1. Raising the ages brings in more cash now and pays out later with inflated dollars.

2. You are talking like an insurance actuary. I'm just trying to extend the SS solvency past 2034 to 2044+ when they can make more adjustments after the boomers die off.

 

[easyt65]

Sorry, that is not how we solved it yesterday. I didn't agree with #1. Please expand on #1 again. Would that be an immediate change such as:

• No impact if you are currently drawing SS?
• If you are currently 67 does SS stop until you reach the new 68 FRA?
• If you are 66 planning on retiring later this year when you turn 67, does that get canceled and now you have to work an extra year?
• Is it grandfathered? So it only applies to workers under X age?

#2 and #3 I did agree with. Although with #2 I still think it's a little low.

WW

Did you guys send your solutions to Congress for implementation?

 

[hadit]

If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.

Another steaming load. There's no way they would ever do that. Take steps to keep them solvent for longer, yes. Eliminate, never. Who's feeding you this nonsense, anyway?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Raising the ages brings in more cash now and pays out later with inflated dollars.

2. You are talking like an insurance actuary. I'm just trying to extend the SS solvency past 2034 to 2044+ when they can make more adjustments after the boomers die off.

#1 Raising the age isn't going to fix cash flow now. That's the thing. The age was already raised, and the position is to raise it again. The last time it was raised it was grandfathered in and phased in over decades.

#2 You are not going to extend solvency to 2034 and beyond by raising the age requirement. If you don't grandfather it then it will not pass. If it is grandfathered, the cut in benefits payouts will not be impactful for decades.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did you guys send your solutions to Congress for implementation?

I know I have written my Representative and both Senators with my thoughts.

Can't speak for kyzr.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Sorry, that is not how we solved it yesterday. I didn't agree with #1. Please expand on #1 again. Would that be an immediate change such as:

• No impact if you are currently drawing SS?
• If you are currently 67 does SS stop until you reach the new 68 FRA?
• If you are 66 planning on retiring later this year when you turn 67, does that get canceled and now you have to work an extra year?
• Is it grandfathered? So it only applies to workers under X age?

#2 and #3 I did agree with. Although with #2 I still think it's a little low.

WW

1. No impact on current SS recipients, unless you want to reduce a COLA as a contribution.

2. Those 55 and older have no added year to work, they get the early 62 and full 67. No change from their promised benefits as printed in their SS reports.

3. The raising of the cap happens immediately, from $160,000 to $320,000

4. For those 54 and younger, the ages change from 62-early and 67-full, to 63-early and 68-full. Based on the probability that they will live longer and collect more.

5. To avoid a future solvency dilemma, the SS Trustees can add another year to the ages for those 34 and younger, if needed for solvency.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

SSI needs to be transformed into a full blown retirement program that pays out based on the cost of living of the area and should also include housing money to make sure our retired never have to worry about homelessness. A thank you for working and being a tax payer per to say. It should be funded well no matter how much it cost...Fact

 

[kyzr]

#1 Raising the age isn't going to fix cash flow now. That's the thing. The age was already raised, and the position is to raise it again. The last time it was raised it was grandfathered in and phased in over decades.

#2 You are not going to extend solvency to 2034 and beyond by raising the age requirement. If you don't grandfather it then it will not pass. If it is grandfathered, the cut in benefits payouts will not be impactful for decades.

WW

Raising the age for those 54 and younger AND raising the cap should add years to solvency beyond 2034.

Democrats want to remove the cap altogether, which solves the problem by itself, but Repubs would never agree to that.

 

[kyzr]

I know I have written my Representative and both Senators with my thoughts.

Can't speak for kyzr.

WW

Yes years ago, I think I'll send it again. Done.

 

[Viktor]

Here are recommendations to cut spending and raise revenue to start paying down the $32T Debt

• Hire another "Grace Commission" to audit and fix the Federal budget deficit (eliminate duplication)
• 
  
• B. Cut Spending: [CUT $625b a year]
  1. Cut defense to 2017 levels of $600b until the Debt is reduced, saving $150b. NO WHINING
  2. Cut foreign aid $55b (until Debt is paid we can't borrow to give money away)
  3. Cut Welfare $200b & Medicaid $200b (about half)
  4. Cut education $20b (state responsibility)
  
  US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing
  Current US Defense Spending:
  Year Military Veterans Foreign Aid Total Defense
  2017 $598.70 billion $178.00 billion $46.30 billion $823.00 billion
  2018 $631.20 billion $180.40 billion $49.00 billion $860.50 billion
  2019 $684.60 billion $202.10 billion $54.30 billion $941.00 billion
  2020 $737.90 billion $219.20 billion $53.10 billion $1.00 trillion
• 
  
• To cover the $900b budget deficit the following taxes need to be raised:
  1. Raise the top tax rate about 7% above 2016 levels +$400b
  2. Implement a new 3% Fed sales tax +$400b
  3. Implement a new transaction tax on all stocks & bonds Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions | Congressional Budget Office +$100b
  4. Implement a new remittances tax/fee on all money sent out of the US Taxing Remittances Can Build the Wall 2% of $140b is +$3b a year
• 
  
• Reform entitlements, Medicare & Social Security, currently projected to be insolvent: Medicare 2024, SS 2035

So my answer is to cut spending AND raise taxes. No other way will work.

Ya wanna pay more taxes? Go right ahead. I won't.

 

[kyzr]

Ya wanna pay more taxes? Go right ahead. I won't.

Then the system collapses, all we'd pay is interest on the Debt. You will pay what the law says, one way or another.