GOP looking to cut SS and Medicare…again

[twofbyc]

Column: GOP promises to gut your Social Security, Medicare if it takes power

Republican leaders are threatening to take the debt limit hostage unless they get Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts.

www.latimes.com

So somebody explain to me: where does “government “ spending come into play with SS? Is it simply the administration? I mean I know there’s a fund for SS which working people and their employers pay into every paycheck (I know less of Medicare funding but I also know I pay into it every check). The questions about the solvency of SS are ridiculous; eliminating the salary cap for withholding (and closing loopholes used to circumvent “salary”) solves the problem; just raising the cap by about 25% will postpone any “solvency questions” for decades. Of course, bringing in foreign nationals to fill the millions of low skill/unskilled jobs available would strengthen the SS fund proportionally.
But I’m growing extremely irritated by politicians who attack my “entitlements”; they ARE my entitlements, I AM entitled to them because I’ve paid for them for over half a century.
The Dumbocrats should be hammering this home to voters; the Republicans are telling us what they are going to do if they take control of Congress.
Since I’m soon to be an expat, this is basically a life or death issue for us.

 

[92tide]

at some point enough people will realize that they are planning to do all of the things they keep saying they are planning to do

 

[Tug Tide]

at some point enough people will realize that they are planning to do all of the things they keep saying they are planning to do

Usually right after they’ve done them though

 

[Its On A Slab]

at some point enough people will realize that they are planning to do all of the things they keep saying they are planning to do

'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

 

[westide]

Dems tell that same lie every year near election time. People on Social Security have seen their bank accounts gutted by inflation. The price of everything started to go up when the dems gutted American energy and cut back on drilling oil. Retirees' have seen their 401 K plummet. It isn't surprising that all of this didn't start until an old, demented man pushing perverted policies stole the election.

 

[92tide]

Social Security recipients to receive 8.7% monthly benefit increase

The Social Security Administration’s annual cost of living adjustment is based on inflation readings, and inflation has been at 40-year highs for months.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[92tide]

Dems tell that same lie every year near election time. People on Social Security have seen their bank accounts gutted by inflation. The price of everything started to go up when the dems gutted American energy and cut back on drilling oil. Retirees' have seen their 401 K plummet. It isn't surprising that all of this didn't start until an old, demented man pushing perverted policies stole the election.

bless your heart

 

[Jon]

Dems tell that same lie every year near election time. People on Social Security have seen their bank accounts gutted by inflation. The price of everything started to go up when the dems gutted American energy and cut back on drilling oil. Retirees' have seen their 401 K plummet. It isn't surprising that all of this didn't start until an old, demented man pushing perverted policies stole the election.

I do love that the argument here is that an "old demented man" was smart enough to steal an election from your guy but that still your guy, who isn't smart enough to defeat someone old and demented is the better choice. Go enjoy newsmax on tv, do you have to use TOR or a VPN to Russia at this point?

 

[Tideflyer]

It would indeed be an interesting scenario if EITHER political party were to " gut " Social Security and Medicare when you consider the number of us Baby Boomers that are now, or very soon will be, retired and drawing both ( and still "with it" enough to vote! ). I don`t know what percentage Social Security payments constitute of retiree`s income, but I feel relatively certain that it`s not an inconsequential amount. Pretty risky, I`d say.

 

[TexasBama]

bless your heart

 

[Its On A Slab]

Dems tell that same lie every year near election time. People on Social Security have seen their bank accounts gutted by inflation. The price of everything started to go up when the dems gutted American energy and cut back on drilling oil. Retirees' have seen their 401 K plummet. It isn't surprising that all of this didn't start until an old, demented man pushing perverted policies stole the election.

I can't tell if this is satire.

I'm going to guess that you believe this.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I can't tell if this is satire.

I'm going to guess that you believe this.

Satire has lost all meaning for me. Half the headlines we see read like they came from The Onion or the Babylon Bee. (In the interest of full disclosure, I can't take credit for this; I stole this observation from Bill Maher.)

 

[Its On A Slab]

Satire has lost all meaning for me. Half the headlines we see read like they came from The Onion or the Babylon Bee. (In the interest of full disclosure, I can't take credit for this; I stole this observation from Bill Maher.)

Trump World made The Onion irrelevant.

Not when you have Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Marshall Herschel Walker making headlines.

 

[UAH]

It would indeed be an interesting scenario if EITHER political party were to " gut " Social Security and Medicare when you consider the number of us Baby Boomers that are now, or very soon will be, retired and drawing both ( and still "with it" enough to vote! ). I don`t know what percentage Social Security payments constitute of retiree`s income, but I feel relatively certain that it`s not an inconsequential amount. Pretty risky, I`d say.

Those politicians who say that are working hard to prevent elections in the future or erect such barriers that allow them dictate the result of future elections.

It is doubly unfortunate that the majority of their supporters fail to realize that the ultimate objective is to create a system that benefits only the wealty.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The current setup on Social Security isn’t sustainable. It’s simple arithmetic, and the numbers just don’t work.

So there are three options: Raise revenue, cut outflow, or both.

My solution would be:
1. Eliminate the income cap subject to SSI Tax. The political hot potato will be whether you also raise the cap on benefits. As in, suppose your wages are above the current cap. When the wage cap is lifted, do you get avgreater SSI benefit when you reach the age of full eligibility? After all, you are paying in more. Shouldn’t you get more benefit?

If no, it’s harder to pass. You also probably drive more compensation into categories that aren’t subject to SSI — benefits, perks, stock options, etc.

Also, keep in mind that SSI would get an immediate and substantial increase in revenue. But the increased outflows would be phased in only as the high earners reach retirement age. Immediate benefit, deferred and phased in outflow.

So as much as we all like sticking it to “the rich,” we need to keep the goal in mind: fixing SSI….as opposed to sticking it to the guy who makes more than you do.

Currently, if you exceed the wage cap for your entire working career, the maximum possible monthly payment is about $4k a month. With absolutely nothing beyond a gut feeling to justify the number, I’d cap the payment at $5,000. That’s a compromise that would tamp down some screaming from high earners, but still provides some extra money to subsidize any shortfall at lower levels of payout.

2. Phase in an increase in the retirement age. Part of the outflow problem is that people are living longer, which is a good thing.

But the assumptions around SS outflows were built around the shorter life expectancy when it was implemented in 1935 with eligibility for benefits at age 65. From an actuarial perspective the problem is that, in 1935, 65 was about your life expectancy. Today, it’s when you expect to have the good life for 10 - 20 more years, sitting on your deck, sipping your favorite beverage and watching the sun go down.

We’ve already phased in an increase in full retirement to age 67, starting in the early 1980s. We probably need to do another one to age 70.

It would work like this: If you’re currently 57 or younger, there’s no change in your eligibility — which is currently 10 years out. If you’re currently 56, your eligibility for full benefits is now 67 and 3 months. If you’re 55, it’s 67 and 6 months. If you’re 54, it’s 67 and 9 months…..and so forth until the point that if you’re currently 45 or younger, your full retirement age is 70.

We can jigger with the exact schedule, but you get the idea.

3. Take a look at the numbers after implementation of #1 and #2 above. If they still don’t work, you have two choices:
- Phase in reduction or elimination of benefits currently paid to children (defined as under 22) of people who die before retirement age, or
- Raise SSI taxes to pay for all this.

I know it’s not the way we’d like for it to be. But numbers is numbers. There is no free ride. #1 is relatively easy. #2 is doable. #3 is hardest.

If you don’t like my solution, I understand. But rather than simply dodge rocks, I’d love to hear better ideas.

 

[PaulD]

The current setup on Social Security isn’t sustainable. It’s simple arithmetic, and the numbers just don’t work.

So there are three options: Raise revenue, cut outflow, or both.

My solution would be:
1. Eliminate the income cap subject to SSI Tax. The political hot potato will be whether you also raise the cap on benefits. As in, suppose your wages are above the current cap. When the wage cap is lifted, do you get avgreater SSI benefit when you reach the age of full eligibility? After all, you are paying in more. Shouldn’t you get more benefit?

If no, it’s harder to pass. You also probably drive more compensation into categories that aren’t subject to SSI — benefits, perks, stock options, etc.

Also, keep in mind that SSI would get an immediate and substantial increase in revenue. But the increased outflows would be phased in only as the high earners reach retirement age. Immediate benefit, deferred and phased in outflow.

So as much as we all like sticking it to “the rich,” we need to keep the goal in mind: fixing SSI….as opposed to sticking it to the guy who makes more than you do.

Currently, if you exceed the wage cap for your entire working career, the maximum possible monthly payment is about $4k a month. With absolutely nothing beyond a gut feeling to justify the number, I’d cap the payment at $5,000. That’s a compromise that would tamp down some screaming from high earners, but still provides some extra money to subsidize any shortfall at lower levels of payout.

2. Phase in an increase in the retirement age. Part of the outflow problem is that people are living longer, which is a good thing.

But the assumptions around SS outflows were built around the shorter life expectancy when it was implemented in 1935 with eligibility for benefits at age 65. From an actuarial perspective the problem is that, in 1935, 65 was about your life expectancy. Today, it’s when you expect to have the good life for 10 - 20 more years, sitting on your deck, sipping your favorite beverage and watching the sun go down.

We’ve already phased in an increase in full retirement to age 67, starting in the early 1980s. We probably need to do another one to age 70.

It would work like this: If you’re currently 57 or younger, there’s no change in your eligibility — which is currently 10 years out. If you’re currently 56, your eligibility for full benefits is now 67 and 3 months. If you’re 55, it’s 67 and 6 months. If you’re 54, it’s 67 and 9 months…..and so forth until the point that if you’re currently 45 or younger, your full retirement age is 70.

We can jigger with the exact schedule, but you get the idea.

3. Take a look at the numbers after implementation of #1 and #2 above. If they still don’t work, you have two choices:
- Phase in reduction or elimination of benefits currently paid to children (defined as under 22) of people who die before retirement age, or
- Raise SSI taxes to pay for all this.

I know it’s not the way we’d like for it to be. But numbers is numbers. There is no free ride. #1 is relatively easy. #2 is doable. #3 is hardest.

If you don’t like my solution, I understand. But rather than simply dodge rocks, I’d love to hear better ideas.

I agree with your #1 and I can accept your #2 as part of an overall plan to fix the issue. On your #3, do we have any data on how much the system pays in benefits to surviving children? I'm not real comfortable with eliminating that. I know a family where the wife died suddenly, leaving her husband and a 9-year-old daughter. That nearly halved the family income immediately. Without the social security benefit for the daughter, they would have lost their house when they lost her.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I agree with your #1 and I can accept your #2 as part of an overall plan to fix the issue. On your #3, do we have any data on how much the system pays in benefits to surviving children? I'm not real comfortable with eliminating that. I know a family where the wife died suddenly, leaving her husband and a 9-year-old daughter. That nearly halved the family income immediately. Without the social security benefit for the daughter, they would have lost their house when they lost her.

I don’t have data. I do know the original assumptions didn’t include that.

So it’s part of the problem….not because it’s wrong, but because it wasn’t properly funded upon implementation - mainly because unsustainable population growth during the Baby Boom masked the actuarial shortfall.

And to be clear — I wouldn’t advocate an abrupt cutoff under any circumstances. If we as a country choose to go this direction, it would have to be phased in.

Or SSI taxes increased to properly fund it.

 

[twofbyc]

View attachment 29510

Years ago…

 

[twofbyc]

I don’t have data. I do know the original assumptions didn’t include that.

So it’s part of the problem….not because it’s wrong, but because it wasn’t properly funded upon implementation - mainly because unsustainable population growth during the Baby Boom masked the actuarial shortfall.

And to be clear — I wouldn’t advocate an abrupt cutoff under any circumstances. If we as a country choose to go this direction, it would have to be phased in.

Or SSI taxes increased to properly fund it.

Or….or….or….raising (or eliminating) the salary cap for withholding SS taxes.
As long as someone making $250,000 a year is not having SS taxes withheld from a portion of their income which is more than my annual income then, no, I’ll NEVER be OK with my SS withholding increasing.
Simple options for solving the “problem” exist; said “problem” being, like many others, a mostly manufactured one. Gotta have something to blame on “the enemy”.

 

[twofbyc]

Social Security recipients to receive 8.7% monthly benefit increase

The Social Security Administration’s annual cost of living adjustment is based on inflation readings, and inflation has been at 40-year highs for months.

www.nbcnews.com

They keep going up on the cost of Medicare, those increases disappear quickly. Not unwelcome at all - 2016 notwithstanding, these cola’s just keep pace with inflation and are necessary.