Will The GOP Plan To Raise The Retirement Age For Social Security Be Very Popular?

[Skylar]

Justifying Attack on Social Security, House Republican Claims People 'Want to Work Longer' | Common Dreams

Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they "actually want to work longer."

www.commondreams.org

"Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they "actually want to work longer." Allen is a member of the Republican Study Committee, a House GOP panel that released a policy agenda last year calling for gradually raising the "full retirement age" from 67 to 70, partially privatizing the New Deal program -- House Republicans have repeatedly signaled in recent months that they will exploit every point of leverage they have—including a fast-approaching showdown over the debt ceiling—to pursue long-sought cuts to Social Security under the guise of "saving" the program from a non-existent financial crisis."


I definitely hope the GOP will start being more serious about drastically cutting if not, totally ending Social Security instead of just talking about it....If you look at the polls, the majority of the US would totally support cutting and or ending Social Security, since the only people who benefit from it are old poor people who were too dumb to invest in the free market for their retirement savings -- and like disabled people and other lazy losers....

Raising the age to 70 is a decent start but why not raise it to at least 75 or 80. The amount of people who would be dead by then would drastically save on costs as there will be less people to mooch off of our tax dollars...But the ultimate goal should always be doing away with it all together and allowing Americans to do their own retirement planning instead of relying on government to do it.....since Social Security has been in existence, it has been a failure...which is why it is the least popular Democrat policy in the last 70 years....Republicans need to be more upfront with the voters about how evil Social Security is and how we need to get rid of it.

There is a much simpler, far more effective plan. The GOP will *never* support it, but it would work like a charm and take a couple of weeks to write and implement.

Remove the taxable maximum (annual limit of contribution/benefit base) on SS taxes . SS is instantly solvent for a century or more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is a much simpler, far more effective plan. The GOP will *never* support it, but it would work like a charm and take a couple of weeks to write and implement.

Remove the taxable maximum (annual limit of contribution/benefit base) on SS taxes . SS is instantly solvent for a century or more.

How do you figure?
If someone pays twice as much tax, their benefit would be almost double.

 

[Skylar]

How do you figure?
If someone pays twice as much tax, their benefit would be almost double.

You cap the benefit, but lift the taxable maximum. Everyone pays the same percentage into social security.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You cap the benefit, but lift the taxable maximum. Everyone pays the same percentage into social security.

Oh, you cap the benefit. LOL!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You cap the benefit, but lift the taxable maximum. Everyone pays the same percentage into social security.

And the only people that benefit are those that paid the least.

 

[Skylar]

And the only people that benefit are those that paid the least.

The only people that would benefit from that would be those earning less than $162,000 a year individually.

Or a bit less than 90% of the US. (Top 10% is $173k and up....so I'm ballparking a little)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only people that would benefit from that would be those earning less than $160,000 a year individually.

Or a bit less than 90% of US families.

But still the survival of the program would rely on the rich funding it. I don't see any equity in that. I'm sure a lot of those rich wouldn't even apply for SS retirement. They have their own money.

 

[Skylar]

But still the survival of the program would rely on the rich funding it. I don't see any equity in that. I'm sure a lot of those rich wouldn't even apply for SS retirement. They have their own money.

Yup. And equity isn't the standard. Financial viability is.

The rich would pay more. And social security would be instantly solvent, benefiting a bit less than 90% of the population.

The GOP services the wealthy. So they'd obvious be against it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yup. And equity isn't the standard. Financial viability is.

The rich would pay more. And social security would be instantly solvent, benefiting a bit less than 90% of the population.

The GOP services the wealthy. So they'd obvious be against it.

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 751489

A 30% sales tax would be hugely regressive, putting a greater burden on the poor. Many in the GOP support the idea.

Equity isn't their standard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A 30% sales tax would be hugely regressive, putting a greater burden on the poor. Many in the GOP support the idea.

Equity isn't their standard.

Equity is that if we want a program, we all fund it equally, not send most of the bill to the wealthy to fund it which is what we'd be doing by greatly increasing the ceiling.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equity is that if we want a program, we all fund it equally, not send most of the bill to the wealthy to fund it which is what we'd be doing by greatly increasing the ceiling.

So If I make $100,000 per year and my FICA is $12,400. (12.4%)

If I'm a CEO making $10,000,000 per year my FICA is $19864.80 because of the earnings cap of $160,200 in 2023. (0.198648%)
.
.
I guess I'm missing the "fund it equally part". Are you saying that it should be funded at the same rate for both (it currently isn't as the amounts re different) or it should be funded at the same percentage for both (it currently isn't as the rates are different as a function of total income)?

WW

 

[Smokin' OP]

Will the Democrat plan to turn the US into a Socialist Shithole ever be popular?

Will the republican plan to turn the US into Russia, ever be popular?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at an event organized by white nationalist Nick Fuentes on Friday night. On Saturday morning she claimed to have no idea who Fuentes is or what he’s about.

Rep. Greene was a last-minute booking at the America First Political Action Conference, an event for that organization which is led by Fuentes. On Saturday morning, she was part of a panel discussion at CPAC 2022 in Orlando.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Most can work. If you can't then you collect disability, just as a 61 year old can collect disability now.

Disability is substantially less tham SS

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Disability is substantially less tham SS

It depends on what kind of disability you get. The two kinds are SSI and SSDI. SSDI pays almost three times that of SSI. If you get SSDI, what they do is calculate what you would get today on SS if you retired at the full retirement age.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It depends on what kind of disability you get. The two kinds are SSI and SSDI. SSDI pays almost three times that of SSI. If you get SSDI, what they do is calculate what you would get today on SS if you retired at the full retirement age.

I am no expert... I do know several people on disability (and not one of them should be)
I just know one of them only gets like $1800/mo.

 

[22lcidw]

Yup. And equity isn't the standard. Financial viability is.

The rich would pay more. And social security would be instantly solvent, benefiting a bit less than 90% of the population.

The GOP services the wealthy. So they'd obvious be against it.

Whatever we see Social Security as...the employee pays approximately 6.5 % and the employer kicks in the same amount. Adding the Medicare tax is approximately 15% total. The employer kick in is the employee's money and is the one who pays the tax. It is a shady way of getting money. The issue is this is a lot of resources. Add this to the federal tax alone once you start paying it and it ramps up quickly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So If I make $100,000 per year and my FICA is $12,400. (12.4%)

If I'm a CEO making $10,000,000 per year my FICA is $19864.80 because of the earnings cap of $160,200 in 2023. (0.198648%)
.
.
I guess I'm missing the "fund it equally part". Are you saying that it should be funded at the same rate for both (it currently isn't as the amounts re different) or it should be funded at the same percentage for both (it currently isn't as the rates are different as a function of total income)?

WW

What was proposed by the member was that they increase SS contributions up to 5 million dollars, but not change the payout. That's where the unfairness is. If we all pay the same percentage (or same amount of contributions) and get the same back then there is nothing wrong with that, but it won't solve our insolvency problems because the more you pay, the more you get back.

Here is the problem now: If you live the average US lifespan, you will get all your SS money back and more. No private institution can survive that way so government can't either. You can't go to your bank and cash a $1,000 check and get back $1,100. The bank would be losing money on every such transaction and have to close down.

When SS started it was like cashing a $1,000 check and getting $650 back. The remainder of the money stayed in the system for the very small minority of people that did live to 70, 75 or older.

Now that the average age is 78, most people are putting in much less than they take out, and that's what needs to be addressed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am no expert... I do know several people on disability (and not one of them should be)
I just know one of them only gets like $1800/mo.

Then he or she is on SSDI. If they were on SSI it would be something in the $600 range although I don't know what the cost of living increase was this year. It all hinges on how long you worked full time and contributed to the system.

Some people do make out and others get screwed. For instance one of my tenants had her mother move here after her son died. She was able to afford an apartment and take care of him on his disability check. He was bed ridden all of his life. When he passed away she was in her early 60's and not much paid towards SS retirement. What do we do with people like this that have no work experience and nothing in their SS account? What does a person that saved government millions of dollars do at that age? That's why she's living with her daughter and son-in-law.

 

[Independentthinker]

I don't know how old you are but I can tell you after a lifetime of working, most of us can't wait to retire regardless of money. I counted the days until I turned 62 just to get out of work. Some will be influenced by additional credits but as an older person myself, I don't think it would have much of an impact as few would take advantage of it.

Right now we have tens of millions of Americans that are younger, healthier and not contributing to the program. I would say if we are to influence anybody, it should be them instead of older people. When you get older you ask yourself how much longer do I have to go? The older you get, the less you are able to do. You might have more money, but less to spend it on.

So the first thing that needs to happen is not cut SS, but cut programs that keep able bodied people from working. Secondly is to greatly increase employee/employer payroll deductions. Third is greatly increase the IRS contribution ceiling. If we did these things, we could extend these programs for many more years.

I also like the idea Manchin is proposing, collecting FICA taxes on ALL earnings instead of capping it at 160K. I never really understood the cap in the first place. I'm also not against means texting SS benefits. Yes, people have paid into it, but, does Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the like really need SS checks?