McCarthy Pledges Commission To Look At Social Security, Medicare Cuts

[Independent thinker]

No it doesn't. means testing means that the how much you receive varies based on how much income you have.

People with low incomes get a bigger effective benefit that those with slightly higher incomes and more than those with high incomes.

That is means testing.

Now if you want to say "incomes above such-n-such shouldn't receive any benefits". That is fine, that is also means testing. However to say that currently Social Security isn't means tested, is false.

WW

Means testing means that people like Bill Gates wouldn't get a SS check. Yes, most means testing has levels where it phases out but it phases out entirely at some point. Which means that Bill Gates wouldn't get a SS check.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Means testing means that people like Bill Gates wouldn't get a SS check. Yes, most means testing has levels where it phases out but it phases out entirely at some point. Which means that Bill Gates wouldn't get a SS check.

That's not what means testing means. I understand that's what you want it to mean.

Your statement that I originally responded to was: " Frankly, I believe it should be means tested.".

Social Security is means tested. The amount of effective benefit changes based on income levels. That is a fact.

WW

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We need to look at making these programs solvent but it shouldn't be just looking at cuts only. We will need to do a combination of things. Frankly, I believe it should be means tested. Why the very rich get social security checks is beyond me and I defend the rich from the left's nonsense all the time.

Why should someone who never contributes to Social Security get a SS check?

 

[Independent thinker]

Why should someone who never contributes to Social Security get a SS check?

I never said they should.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why should someone who never contributes to Social Security get a SS check?

and why should someone that paid into it their whole life not get a a dime from it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why should someone who never contributes to Social Security get a SS check?

To be eligible for Social Security retirement you have to have worked and paid into it.

WW

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I never said they should.

My question was rhetorical, but since the rich pay into SS, why shouldnt they be able to receive what they put in?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

and why should someone that paid into it their whole life not get a a dime from it?

I never said they shouldnt.....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

To be eligible for Social Security retirement you have to have worked and paid into it.

WW

What if your spouse who never held a job thus only you put money into SS, then get divorced, the spouse who never contributed to SS will continue to get it at full payout. So yes, there are some people who get SS who never paid into it.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

What if your spouse who never held a job thus only you put money into SS, then get divorced, the spouse who never contributed to SS will continue to get it at full payout. So yes, there are some people who get SS who never paid into it.....

Fair enough although it’s still based on earnings.

(The concept at the time being that women [in general] didn't work and earn their own money, so the provisions providing for spousal support later are a reflection of that.)

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

My question was rhetorical, but since the rich pay into SS, why shouldnt they be able to receive what they put in?

Because they are rich and don't need it. Meanwhile, the system is going broke.

 

[BackAgain]

It's never going to happen. Any party that tried would get wiped out.

I get my benefits. And I’m pretty sure that any “cuts” would be phased in over time to impact future retirees. There isn’t much chance that either Parry would fiddle with the money we are already getting.

The biggest items on the scope of any “commission,” I predict, would be a slow increase in the retirement age and a slowing of any future “cola” type increases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I get my benefits. And I’m pretty sure that any “cuts” would be phased in over time to impact future retirees. There isn’t much chance that either Parry would fiddle with the money we are already getting.

And the age of grandfathering normally tossed out is 50 years old or order wouldn't be impacted. So if retirement age is raised to 70, but only for those under 50, that's a difference of 20 years. So say the law becomes active 01/01/2025 (since it will take time to get it passed through Congress), that means the EARLIEST any impact would be felt is 2045. That's 10 years after the projected SS Trust Fund shortfall starting in 2034.

The biggest items on the scope of any “commission,” I predict, would be a slow increase in the retirement age and a slowing of any future “cola” type increases.

Agreed but the question for seniors is "Has social security COLA's kept pace with inflation?" and the answer appears to be "no". Meaning that over time the purchasing power of retirees erodes.

WW

.
.
..

https://seniorsleague.org/assets/2018-Loss-of-Buying-Power-Report.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

And the age of grandfathering normally tossed out is 50 years old or order wouldn't be impacted. So if retirement age is raised to 70, but only for those under 50, that's a difference of 20 years. So say the law becomes active 01/01/2025 (since it will take time to get it passed through Congress), that means the EARLIEST any impact would be felt is 2045. That's 10 years after the projected SS Trust Fund shortfall starting in 2034.



Agreed but the question for seniors is "Has social security COLA's kept pace with inflation?" and the answer appears to be "no". Meaning that over time the purchasing power of retirees erodes.

WW

.
.
..

https://seniorsleague.org/assets/2018-Loss-of-Buying-Power-Report.pdf

I mostly agree.

And the question seems to be whether it makes sense to consider (as a possible last ditch effort) lowering payments a bit — for all recipients — in order for the program to survive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced Wednesday he was launching a commission tasked with looking at budget cuts – and he suggested Social Security and Medicare could come under his scalpel.

His pledge came just months after vowing such cuts to mandatory spending programs were off the table.

McCarthy suggests new commission could look at Social Security and Medicare cuts

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced Wednesday he was launching a commission tasked with looking at budget cuts – and he suggested Social Security and Medicare could come under his scalpel.His pledge came just months after vowing such cuts to mandatory spending programs were off the...

www.rawstory.com

You don’t think his billionaire handlers gave him his marching orders do you?

That and McCarthy is a rightwing ideologue blindly adhering to failed, wrongheaded conservative fiscal dogma.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Here we go. Fuck the poor and middle class. As long as the hyper wealthy keep their tax breaks its ok!

 

[WorldWatcher]

I mostly agree.

And the question seems to be whether it makes sense to consider (as a possible last ditch effort) lowering payments a bit — for all recipients — in order for the program to survive.

Currently the formula is: BENEFITS = REVENUE + TRUST FUND

By 2034 the formula will be BENEFITS = REVENUE + 0 TRUST FUND
.
.
.
Lowing benefits equal to current revenue rates is not the only option.

Raising revenue to meet benefits promised is also an option and there are a number of ways to do that on the table.

WW

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Because they are rich and don't need it. Meanwhile, the system is going broke.

I have put into SS for most of my life, and am waiting till i reach 67 because then i receive the top end payout. Of course if i only live to be 72 then i will have definitely paid in more than i got out, but one thing i did while i was over in Saudi Arabia, making 70k a year tax free, was not relying on SS in case it went bankrupt. Today i make over $400,000 a year, at a lower tax rate because it is dividend income, but really want to piss me off. Tell me i can get what i contributed. That is called THEIVERY......

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Here we go. Fuck the poor and middle class. As long as the hyper wealthy keep their tax breaks its ok!

Of course if you cut the non essential personnel off the federal payroll, soon there would be plenty of money for other programs.


And it is you fuckers who all the time bitch and moan while the hyper wealthy pay the most in, in taxes, while the poor, sit back like you and complain how fucked their lives are, instead of going out and making something of yourself. Fuck the poor, they vote for the very people who keep themselves poor.

 

[BackAgain]

Currently the formula is: BENEFITS = REVENUE + TRUST FUND

By 2034 the formula will be BENEFITS = REVENUE + 0 TRUST FUND
.
.
.
Lowing benefits equal to current revenue rates is not the only option.

Raising revenue to meet benefits promised is also an option and there are a number of ways to do that on the table.

WW

We pay more than enough in taxes. Tax increases is so liberal Democrat and thoughtless.