Every time someone proposes a sane, rational, sensible reform of Social Security (SS) to make the system solvent for decades to come, Democrats demagogue it, lie about it, and scare seniors into believing they will be left to starve. Will Democrats ever stop lying about badly needed SS reforms before the system is insolvent?
According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.
We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:
-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.
-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.
-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.
In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.
Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.
Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.
According to the Social Security Administration, "by 2035 taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits" (Research: The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program). 2035 is only 11 years away, folks. 11 years. Think about that.
We have overpromised, badly, and we have no foreseeable way to pay for the SS benefits we have promised. Sensible reforms would include the following:
-- Reduce scheduled benefits for people aged 54 and younger by 25%.
-- Lift the restriction on the amount of payroll income subject to the SS tax (i.e., the payroll tax). As of 2024, the SS tax only applies to the first $168,200 of payroll income. Lift that cap and make all payroll income subject to the SS tax.
-- Impose a means test for receiving SS benefits. If your personal retirement income is over $80K per year, you get 30% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $100K per year, you get 10% of your currently scheduled benefit. If your personal retirement income is over $150K per year, you get no SS payment.
In 2005, President George W. Bush actually proposed a sane, rational reform of SS that would have made the system solvent well into the 2060s. His proposal did not touch existing SS recipients, nor did it touch anyone over 55. The SS benefits for current recipients and for people 55 and over would have remained unchanged. But Democrats ignored these facts and lied through their teeth about the proposal.
Bush's proposal would have imposed a reduction of about 25% in SS benefits for people aged 54 and younger, which would have given them many years to plan for the reduction. If you would have received $2,000 per month under the previous benefits schedule, you would get $1,500 under the revised schedule.
Bush's proposal would have also given people aged 54 and under the entirely voluntary option of having part of their SS taxes--not all of their SS taxes, but only part of them--placed in a personal retirement account that they would have owned. The accounts would have been set up by the government and would have consisted of a conservative mix of bond and stock funds. Even during the Great Recession of 2008-2009, conservative bond and stock funds suffered minimal losses and made up those losses within 1-3 years.
