From USA Today:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., stood up from her seat in the back of the House chamber to heckle President Joe Biden after he said during his State of the Union address Tuesday that “some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset” while discussing the need to raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid a US default.
“Liar!” she said. Other lawmakers in the chamber booed him. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, seated behind Biden, shook his head in disapproval. ...
As boos continued, Biden turned toward the House gallery to address an audience member not seen on camera.
"It's being proposed by individuals," he said. "I'm politely not naming them, but it's being proposed by some of you." ...
As the camera landed on individual lawmakers, it captured a shot of a stunned Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah [who has openly talked about his desire to 'phase out" Social Security], who looked around the room with his mouth wide open.
“So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now,” Biden said. “They're not to be touched? All right. We've got unanimity!"
Cheers erupted in the chamber.
"Tonight, let's all agree, and apparently we are — let's stand up for seniors," Biden said, raising his fists in the air. Speaker McCarthy took to his feet. ...
27 comments:
And they will be standing on the back of the younger generation who was not mentioned or even given an assurance. We all heard that loud and clear.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the "eliminate Social Security" lunacy that has gripped parts of the GOP since 2010. Now if they could only all agree to give the agency an adequate administrative budget and permanent, Senate-confirmed leadership, we might be getting somewhere.
If you are worried about the younger generation getting SS, then you should support the removal of the earnings cap. No need to start a strawman war.
What nobody heard was how in the world are they going to keep it going.
He is doing NOTHING to shore it up, increase it (like he said he was going to do), or give assurances that there will not be a 20% cut coming soon.
Can we please end the fallacy of the Wage Cap cure all. 4.73% of all wage earners make $180000 or more (payscale.com). There are not enough of them to make up for the shortfall, it just doesnt math out. I know it is a shinny chunk of red meat to throw at the the base but it does absolutely nothing to create a long term solution.
If you think people earning in the top 3% are not going to find a work around to paying more taxes then you living in a deep fantasy land.
Polish up those tin foil hats! You guys are not to be believed.
Biden owned the room when he turned the tables on the Repubs and got them to all stand up and support Social Security.
In previous speeches he has said that he would move the earnings cap to $400,000.
Can we please end the fallacy of the Wage Cap cure all. 4.73% of all wage earners make $180000 or more (payscale.com). There are not enough of them to make up for the shortfall, it just doesnt math out. I know it is a shinny chunk of red meat to throw at the the base but it does absolutely nothing to create a long term solution.
Don't;t believe me but if you look at the projections by The Actuaries at Social Security
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/summary.html
Provisions E2.1 et seq you see that generally removing or increasing the cap eliminates about 60% of the projected shortfall for the next 75 years. Not by itself but other changes combined such as reducing the COLA by .5% per year or, god forbid, a raise in the tax by 1% from 12.4% 14.4% by increasing the tax .1% per year from 2028 to 2047 and you eliminate 47% of the shortfall. Combine the two and you have a surplus that would actually allow for benefit increases.
It can be done and raising the cap is a good start. Not imaginary at all.
More taxes and more government can solve anything.
If you eliminate the earnings cap, then you will have to pay benefits based upon the whole wages, not just that which is taxed/ If my SS Retirement took into account all of my earnings in my lifetime, not just those subject to the tax, I would be happy to pay more,
Biden owned the room? What SOTU were you watching? This political bs is ridiculous. Both sides are guilty of false or misleading statements. If one or two Republicans want cuts to Social Security then it’s fair to say “Republicans want to cut your Social Security?” As the speaker of the house, and most Republicans, have stated, it’s not going to happen. That is like saying since Eric Conn was a fraud, then all reps are. Move on to a real issue folks.
I find it interesting politicians often leave out those who are disabled when talking about social security. In Biden's speech he only mentioned seniors. He didn't say "seniors and the disabled". This makes me believe they might have a plan to phase out many receiving SSDI; I know when Trump first took office, he had a plan to attack those who are disabled, even going as far to say, "when people talk about social security they think of the seniors not the disabled" as an excuse to his proposed SSDI cuts. Disclosure: I am on SSDI since 2004.
People in the Nordic countries seem content with that recipe for happiness. If you basic needs are being met by the government, than you post-tax income is "fun money." Americans don't seem to grasp this concept and instead remain committed to working themselves to death to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. There is a better way.
Do you really think the rich and large business are going to sit quietly and pay an additional 7.65%? Do you think that large corporations will absorb that cost out of the kindness of their hearts? They would pass that right down to the consumer. Somebody is going to pay and it isnt going to be the upper class and the large corps. Be realistic. You want to stick it to the rich because they are rich but you forget that he who has the gold makes the rules.
Shame they didnt raise the tax on a really large cohort that ignored the agency for half a century and now wants to tax me more to pay for the lack of vision they had. Nice deal, for them, I still get screwed.
Boss-level play, there
@7:11
The Republicans do not need to openly call for cutting SSA retirement or Medicare benefits. They are simply waiting out the trust fund depletion, and will use that to justify "necessary cuts" --which will almost certainly impact only younger workers becuase they do not want to hurt themselves or their own voter base.
What I cannot figure out is why Democrats are asleep at the wheel on this issue and SSA more generally.
@3:33
You are simply wrong on the math. There are numerous high quality studies and Congressional budget office papers detailing how this would work. At the very least, ending the cap would extend the trust fund by 50 years.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/increasing-payroll-taxes-would-strengthen-social-security
In any given year, about 6 percent of workers earn more than the current tax cap. Over a lifetime, 20 percent of workers earn more than the tax cap for at least one year. Most of these workers have high lifetime earnings and thus also receive relatively high Social Security benefits. Raising the payroll tax cap to fund Social Security benefits is broadly popular, even among the highest earners — about half of millionaires support raising the cap.[20]
Raising or eliminating the tax cap would make Social Security more progressive. If the cap covered 90 percent of covered earnings in 2016, it would be set at about $270,000, more than double the current-law level.[21] Eliminating the cap would make the Social Security payroll tax proportional so that all workers (and their employers) would contribute 6.2 percent of on every dollar of earnings. In either case, higher earners would pay more.
No mention of Medicaid.
More Americans rely on Medicaid than Medicare and Medicare Part B premiums get paid by Medicaid for a lot of older and disabled Americans.
Wanna bet what gets cut?
I doubt anyone is looking at getting rid of SSDI. The vast majority of people on SSA are retired or elderly widow's/widowers. He didn't mention children that receive auxiliary or survivor benefits but those appear safe as well.
The answer is more revenue, not less benefits. Raise the SSA tax rate 1%.
I find it interesting that everyone seems to have a way to solve the problem that doesnt cost them anything.
Tax the rich more, nobody on this blog is in that category!!!!!
Charge the younger worker more!!! Bet most on this blog are not going to be paying that.
Here is my plan.
Pay less benefits.
Agreed. There are lots of benefits that could be cut that make zero sense to pay out starting with the $255 lump sum death payments.
You know, if people really wanted more pay from SSA they could have always have voted to pay more in taxes 50 years ago to pay for it. They didnt then, so why is it important now?
The point is that high earners will just restructure their income to avoid the tax like they do to avoid most taxes.
They can receive more company benefits in lieu of income, stock options etc.
Tax the rich more, nobody on this blog is in that category!!!!!
Sarcastic maybe but I would pay more taxes if the cap was raised and I'm OK with that.
You can go to pay.gov and give a gift to the federal government if you want to pay more than you need to.
@ 11:27
I have no problem paying more in payroll taxes to preserve my SSA benefit for retirement in 30 years. And most Americans do not have a problem with this either--including the rich!. There is publicly available survey data on this exact question!
And why do you assume no person on this blog would be affected by a payroll tax increase? $160,000 per year is not "rich" in any coastal city. And most salaried persons making $160,000+ do not have the ability to just "restructure their income." Why do you think this is the norm? Do you have any evidence? A corporate employee cannot just demand HR change their benefit package. And why would someone trade corporate benefits for increased income, simply because that income is subject to the same FICA tax for their income below the $160,000 cap? That would be non-workable for anyone making 200k+ a year. No benefit package is worth that amount. And vested stocks options are taxed a higher rate then the FICA contribution rate...so how would that be better? Only billionaires can borrow against their stock options without paying taxes. Banks do not give the same deal to someone making 200k a year.
But suppose your argument is true, would that not just mean the tax code should be reformed to close those loopholes? Those tax reform policies proposals are also highly popular.
It was actually smart political theater. The Koch funded political contribution organizations are shoveling truckloads of money to republicans running against Trump. Cutting or killing Social Security is a big priority for Koch. Biden's stunt put the non-MAGA republicans in a very uncomfortable position. Choose between alienating Koch and all his money by denying they want to cut Social Security, or concede Biden was right about Republicans wanting to cut it.
Post a Comment