Niki Haley proposes some common sense changes to Social Security. (will it hurt or help her?}

[Vrenn]

Take social security away? No.

Reduce benefits for those not grandfathered? Yes.

WW

She leaves out the fact that the congress keeps dipping into that fund and calling it a tax instead of what it really should be. What she is doing is making the under the table deals that the funds keep supporting come out in the open. The problem is, congress will continue to use it as their own slush fund.

I don't trust her at all.

 

[struth]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/nikki-haley-social-security-medicare-reform/index.html

I have always wondered, "WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH ARE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS?" Niki's plan makes sense, even though some of the details are wonky at this early stage. This has go to give her a leg up (pardon the pun) on the rest of the repub field...especially the insurrectionist named trump.

Of course there needs major reform....she's not the first nor will she be the last to discuss it.

If she ends up the nominee though, CNN will be writing a different piece becausethe demafacsit will say she wants to kill grandma nad grandpa for even making the obvious claim it needs reform

 

[JimH52]

For those that haven't figured it out yet, "raising the retirement age" isn't going to fix social security.

Why? It is premised on (A) raising the age to 70, and (B) exempting those over 50 from being impacted.

The SS shortfall is due to happen starting in 2034.
.
.
.
.
Basic math.

• Haley won't become President until 2025.
• If if the legislation is passed the same year, that is 2025. If it take multiple years move the time back by that amount.
• If the law is passed in 2025, someone age those just under 50 (49 years, 364 days) won't start facing mandatory FRA at 70 until 2045.

That's 11 years AFTER the 2034 shortfall occurs before saving are realized in the reduced payment of benetis.

Raising the age to cut benefits to individuals isn't going to help.

I like that she is thinking out of the box. It has to be eating trump up, that Niki has a better idea than he does. Expect him to attack.

I am intrigued with her ideas about controlling the increases of SS to the wealthy. I would like to see her be more aggressive and even allow the wealthy to opt out, donate their SS to charity, or give it back to the government.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She leaves out the fact that the congress keeps dipping into that fund and calling it a tax instead of what it really should be. What she is doing is making the under the table deals that the funds keep supporting come out in the open. The problem is, congress will continue to use it as their own slush fund.

I don't trust her at all.

Not sure what you are saying. Congress doesn't "dip into the fund".

Since it's inception and the law being updated in 1939, all excess revenues, buy law must be invested in special Treasure Bills. That has not changed.

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

Take social security away? No.

Reduce benefits for those not grandfathered? Yes.

WW

I'm in my sixties and I can remember in my twenties how the left keep on saying Republicans want to take seniors' social security away. Any Republican who talks about social security in any way, shape, or form, is attacked by the left of wanting to take seniors' social security away. You can bet that if Haley wins the nomination, Democrats will be attacking her with that theme. It's a surefire bet you can't lose.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I like that she is thinking out of the box. It has to be eating trump up, that Niki has a better idea than he does. Expect him to attack.

I am intrigued with her ideas about controlling the increases of SS to the wealthy. I would like to see her be more aggressive and even allow the wealthy to opt out, donate their SS to charity, or give it back to the government.

The wealthy don't need to "opt out" of receiving social security benefits.

Benefit payments are not automatic, they must be applied for. In other words the wealthy have to "opt in" to receive benefits. If they decide to get a check, they already have the option of contributing it to charity.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm in my sixties and I can remember in my twenties how the left keep on saying Republicans want to take seniors' social security away. Any Republican who talks about social security in any way, shape, or form, is attacked by the left of wanting to take seniors' social security away. You can bet that if Haley wins the nomination, Democrats will be attacking her with that theme. It's a surefire bet you can't lose.

Her description of Social Security going "bankrupt" doesn't help.

SS is not going bankrupt as it is a pay-go system. Once the Trust Fund is exhausted, that doesn't mean SS is bankrupt. It means a reduction in benefits by about 25% starting in 2035.

WW

 

[Vrenn]

Not sure what you are saying. Congress doesn't "dip into the fund".

Since it's inception and the law being updated in 1939, all excess revenues, buy law must be invested in special Treasure Bills. That has not changed.

WW

Since 1983, the fund has taken in more than it pays out. And yes, it should go to the treasury bonds. All but 2.9 billion, that is. That amount is held in special bonds that congress has borrowed against the entire amount. It's not illegal but it's shifty as all hell.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since 1983, the fund has taken in more than it pays out. And yes, it should go to the treasury bonds. All but 2.9 billion, that is. That amount is held in special bonds that congress has borrowed against the entire amount. It's not illegal but it's shifty as all hell.

Correct. The changes in the early 1980’s were because of the baby boomer bulge. It was supposed to fix SS for 50 years.

Since the fund will be depleted in 2034 they pretty much nailed it since 2034-1983 is about 51 years. In retrospect the fix needed to be a little larger for smoother 20 years worth for the bulge to work its way through.

Congress hasn’t “borrowed” against it, the T-bills are the holding instrument.

You seem to be implying that somehow Congress has taken extra money. That isn’t true. They have followed the same excess rules established in 1939.

WW

 

[sartre play]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/nikki-haley-social-security-medicare-reform/index.html

I have always wondered, "WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH ARE MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS?" Niki's plan makes sense, even though some of the details are wonky at this early stage. This has go to give her a leg up (pardon the pun) on the rest of the repub field...especially the insurrectionist named trump.

Raise the cap, makes more sense, You could encourage them to donate the checks,
But if they earned them how can you take them away?

 

[sartre play]

3rd grade math students calculated that there's simply not enough 'rich' people to make any kind of a dent in the problem. It's pure propaganda and deflection away from the fact that government screwed the SS program up. Took trillions in SS contributions and spent it on other crap and now don't have the money to pay us back.

So they deflect to the 'rich', classic.

The bill they owe, is it not written into law that it has to be paid back???????

 

[kyzr]

Clarify

You whining about a small change in the SS or tax code to ensure that we keep the entitlement benefits we were promised is enraging, especially after all the tax breaks and loop-holes the wealthy bribed into law over the years, including the theft of the SS surplus. Now its time to pay the fuck up.

Here is a look at who has the wealth in the USA. The bottom half of incomes are hurting, the top half of incomes are not hurting.

How this chart explains Americans' wealth across income levels - USAFacts

The top 1% of households in America represent 26% of total US wealth.

usafacts.org

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security deductions are only taken from income up to $160,000. However, Social Security payments are based on all income earned. So the very rich pay in a very small percentage of their income, but can end up getting really big Social Security checks.

 

[kyzr]

By all means explain why I should be working overtime to pay for your shit? Why I should have to pay double, triple into social security to get the same benefit as you? You can't. Grow a pair and admit you are a moocher who wants to take money others earned.

1. We should all pay the same percentage of our income into SS.
2. You would get a bigger SS check, but still pay taxes on it.
3. You sound like a pampered "Trust Fund Baby" who was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple.

 

[sartre play]

I like that she is thinking out of the box. It has to be eating trump up, that Niki has a better idea than he does. Expect him to attack.

I am intrigued with her ideas about controlling the increases of SS to the wealthy. I would like to see her be more aggressive and even allow the wealthy to opt out, donate their SS to charity, or give it back to the government.

NO raise the age,
people work long and hard enough now.
MAYBE Take a look at SSI?

 

[kyzr]

Just FYI...
Full Retirement Age is 67 for those born 1960 and later. 70 isn't FRA for anyone.
WW

Thanks, someone argued that 70 was FRA. I hope its 67.
Nikki Haley is putting up fixes to SS. Raising the 62 by 2-years might be enough?
At least she's discussing ways to fix it, possibly including means testing.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Finally, some sensible talk from several angles.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Social Security deductions are only taken from income up to $160,000. However, Social Security payments are based on all income earned. So the very rich pay in a very small percentage of their income, but can end up getting really big Social Security checks.

Not true.

#1 only SS earnings are used to determine SS benefits.

#2 There is a benefit cap.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Not true.
#1 only SS earnings are used to determine SS benefits.
#2 There is a benefit cap.

WW

Yeah, okay, but what if the Law is changed to eliminate the "capital gains" tax break, and all income is taxed as regular income, including SS & Medicare deductions?
What if all state and local and federal defined benefit pension plans are required to pay into 401Ks and SS & Medicare?

 

[JimH52]

Finally, some sensible talk from several angles.

I really think the idea will give Haley a bounce in the polls. Look for sexist barbs from trump.