Here's a first report on today's House Social Security Subcommittee hearing on the Social Security 2100 Act. Predictably, the GOP members oppose it because it raises taxes, particularly on the wealthy, but have no plan of their own. Let's line up a GOP plan that achieves long term balance solely by cutting benefits against this bill and see which one the American people prefer.
mums the word until after 2020!
ReplyDeleteMillennials should be able to opt out of the social security system. It's ridiculous to raise taxes to 14.8% on payroll
ReplyDelete@11:37
ReplyDeleteAs a millennial, I have no issue with taxes being raised to fund social security.
I am not opposed to a tax increase, its going to happen, it has to because they did not even remotely plan properly, but what I am worried about is how these old people are going to screw us on retirement age and Medicare age. Of course we will be able to reverse the damage they do in a few years as they move out of DC but they think for some reason it is okay for us to work to 70 or 75 when all the data shows that most of them retire at 65 or earlier.
ReplyDeleteThe cap needs to come off the amount of income that can be taxed for social security. With the other tax cuts the rich already got, this tax should be easy to pay.
ReplyDeleteIf Millenials are stupid enough to opt out of Social Security they aren't competent enough to make their own decisions and thus cannot be allowed to opt out.
ReplyDeleteA bit of history. This program was put into place after Wall Street destroyed the US economy in the 1930's. Unemployment was at least 25%, young people were riding the rails and becoming hobos because there families couldn't feed them, and old people lived in dire poverty at the mercy of family members. If you think your individual brilliance can always make you ok than more power to you. Stock market is way too high, middle class is continuing to disappear and wealth continues to concentrate at the very top in this wonderful, great economy. Deregulation of Wall Street is back to 1920's levels. Good luck when Wall Street brings us the Great Disaster of the 21st century. Better yet privatize this and hand it over to the greedy Wall Streeters to feed on and loot! See you out on the road!
ReplyDelete@9:59 you do understand that if they opt out, there will NOT be any money for Boomers coming in to pay the benefits which are scheduled to be cut to 80% in a few years.
ReplyDeleteNext year, for the first time since 1982 there will be more going out than coming in. In those 38 years, I do not see the kind of changes on the prime working years of Boomers that they are willing to impose on the next generation.
Remember, as you age and are replaces you will have less and less power. As a demographic Boomers will be getting smaller as they die off. U.S Census data shows in 2016 there were an estimated 71 million millennials, based on Pew's definition of the generation which ranges from 1981 to 1996, compared to 74.1 million Baby Boomers. Boomers are in danger years for health and will be outnumbered very soon.
Remember 10:10 if they opt out there is no money coming in to pay you.
ReplyDeletePayroll taxes were fixed at 1% through 1949, but after that they were raised every few years (the longest constant period was 5 years) until 1990. They have not been raised since. You could argue that they should have been raised sooner, but with the Trust Fund large and growing, that would be hard to justify. Well, now the Trust Fund is no longer growing (although it's still large), so it makes sense to increase taxes. Social Security is a good deal, and it will still be a good deal with the increased taxes.
ReplyDeleteIn response to 9:18 AM, it is not old people who want to screw you , but Republicans of all ages, and the wealthy for whom they work. They'd like you to blame old people, because that will make it easier for them to screw you.
10:24, nope it is is old people, the ones in Congress, the ones that did not plan for their retirement or want to fund it knowing they were a huge burden to the system. It is old people. but that's okay, we have read Soylent Green too. ;)
ReplyDeleteI think less people would object to a tax hike if they felt the government was spending current tax dollars wisely. The government spends 4 Trillion a year (borrowing almost 1 Trillion of that) yet can't seem to pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately wasteful spending crowds out important programs like SSA. If poor spending choices could be reigned in, then income taxes could be cut to offset an increase in payroll tax.
Soylent Green is not just OLD people
ReplyDelete@11:14
ReplyDeleteI do not presume that members of Congress, who receive a lifelong pension benefit of $139,200 are attempting to fund social security because they were a "huge burden" to the system, and are just trying to make up for it. They were not a burden during the course of their working lives, since they are not on the programs and were paying into the programs, and will not be upon retirement, since congressional pension benefits (and their salaries while active in congress) are taxed.
https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/ac0d1dd5-7316-4390-87e6-353589586a89.pdf
This is explained on page 2.
The 1983 law imposed higher retirement ages, increasing from age 65 to age 67 in increments, and otherwise put in place provisions so Baby Boomers were (and are) paying more to fund social security. Boomers have been paying this for 36 years now; they're not the problem. The 1983 law was supposed to fully fund social security for 30 years -- and it did! Relatively minor adjustments are needed now to keep social security solvent for the next 75 years. Name me any other program which is fully funded past the end of this fiscal year -- you can't. Federal funding always is subject to the will of Congress.
ReplyDelete11:51 it is when they are not the majority!!!
ReplyDeleteGet rid of the earning cap. the Congressional Research Service reported that if no changes were made beyond removing the salary cap, the fiscal integrity of the entire Social Security system would be preserved over the next 75 years. Personally I would have to pay more but worth it to preserve this important program.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP members oppose it because of the tax increase. While the opposition may be due to raising taxes on the wealthy the arguments they give is the tax increase is a burden on small business and self-employed and is a regressive tax. It is a burden on small business but I don't know if the burden is really that great if it is sufficient to drive a small business under you have to wonder about the viability of that business. While the FICA tax is a regressive tax, it may not be the most regressive tax we have and the Congressmen ignore that some of this is ameliorated by the progressive benefit formula.
ReplyDeleteSome Millenials believe that Social Security is not for them because the SS will be bankrupt and they won't receive anything at the end of the road.
ReplyDeleteFirst, this bill would assure that the system is secure for at least 75 years (75 years is used because that is the maximum actuarial projection used not because this fails after 75 years)
For some as well, the very idea that they will ever be old anyway is absurd so why worry about it and fund it now.
Also, as too many forget, SS is not just for the old. Disability Benefits and survivor benefits are for now. So, 20-30 year olds, even if you believe being taxed today to insure your future is a waste, remember that you have insurance against disability now and your family can be protected now for both disability and possible death.
I would eliminate the cap altogether instead of creating that new donut hole, but this is aat least a good start and better than the cuts the Republicans want to make.
@6:59
ReplyDeleteAs a millennial, I do not view my paying into the systems as a waste, or even a particular hardship. Even if the programs fail long before I reach retirement (which I doubt), even if I do not live to retirement (which I also doubt), and even if I never become eligible for disability or survivor benefits (I'm in good health as are my parents), I support the programs because it is providing support for the elderly and disabled which I view as an inherent, immediate good.
Money well spent in my opinion. If losing 6.2% of your income is really limiting your financial stability and growth, that's not due to Social Security.
12.4% don't forget the half your employer is paying. That's part of your compensation.
ReplyDelete