Readers react to the recent New York Times editorial calling raising the Social Security retirement age.
By the way, my response is: That’s so not happening!
Readers react to the recent New York Times editorial calling raising the Social Security retirement age.
By the way, my response is: That’s so not happening!
12 comments:
Interesting, the fiscal conservative GOP is back in full force the last few weeks. They want to turn SSDI into a means tested program, while at the same time raising the retirement age. These respectable "intellectual" suits also run away from possible revenue solutions.At least have the courage to explain why revenue solutions are a bad alternative. These are the same people that were perplexed by Trump's populist rise and the immediate silencing of the fiscal hawks in the tea party. Its almost like their ideas are unpopular with majorities in both parties--but they would argue this is sign of their seriousness and principled conservative beliefs.
Increasing the retirement age = cutting my Social Security benefits by tens of thousands of dollars. Any politician who supports that will never get my vote again.
Something definitely needs to be done, and soon. Should be a combination of several things. For all the haters of the GOP and their limited ideas, what the hell has been done in the last three years to address the problem? Nothing. This has been an issue for several administrations. All assholes who never get a damn thing done. Not even worth the time to vote anymore. I look to the left and say screw you. I look to the right and say screw you. I haven’t been a member of either party in 45 years. It’s an embarrassment.
Looks like somebody needs a gummy and chill.
@6:36 Making changes to SSA benefits requires 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrats have a 1 seat majority, and have no prospects of obtaining 60 seats in the next 8 years. So the only way this gets addressed is by ending the filibuster. The GOP loves the filibuster because they have little interest in legislating. So they are fine with running out the clock until 2034.
The Democrats will need to run on this issue in 2028. That is the last opportunity to address SSA insolvency without imposing major cuts. Hopefully they have the courage to end the filibuster.
Never underestimate what people that do not depend in any way on a benefit like SSA retirement will do. Nobody up there in DC has a need for SSA retirement. They are quite comfortable and will not depend on it. So it has no impact on them and everyone they talk to. So they think it can be changed.
A couple months ago the blog was all lit up with the protest in France when they changed the retirement age. "Oh see, the people wont stand for it" kind of faded away as the government didn't backtrack one centimeter (its France they use the Metric system) and guess what, the change is still in place. To make the system viable they are going to have to increase age and taxes to pay for it, should have happened half a century ago, but, oh well we screwed the new guy to pass the savings on to you!
@1003 Rather than end the filibuster, how about finding a solution that some people from both parties can agree about.
Ending the filibuster sounds good when your party has control of the government, but after the Presidency and a few seats in each house is flipped, it doesn't sound so good. If a party can't get about 10 senators from the minority party to vote for something, odds are it's not all that popular of an idea. That goes for both parties.
Steuerle has made a career out of arguing that the retirement age needs to be raised. He acts as if most of the nation's workers spend their lives sitting behind a desk repackaging the same old tired arguments.
@153. So which is it.. SSA is good to go for 75 years or there is a shortfall in 11 years? If both, them there needs to be some changes soon.
The House is controlled by the Republicans but for 2 years was controlled by the Democrats while controlling the Senate and presidency. The Republicans had the same advantage for Trump's first 2 years. It's obvious no one wants to do anything or they'd propose something both parties can get some agreement on.
The 83 Amendments passed 88 to 9 in the Senate, 282 to 148 in the House. Both sides got something. Raising the retirement age, much greater DRC amounts, taxation of benefits, delayed COLA, Windfall elimination provision and more. Some items one would expect Democrats to favor more, others Republicans.
The parties unwillingness to compromise is a major roadblock.
One of many things they are against is letting illegal immigrants work and pay into the system. They pay into the system and don't take anything out.
@3:16
There are separate trust funds for SSA Disability vs. retirement. The SSDI trust fund is good for the next 75+ years, but the retirement trust fund will run out by 2034, which will automatically trigger a 20% benefit cut for all beneficiaries. See an example of moderate policy changes below that is a combo of revenue increases, and modest benefit cuts (it extends the trust fund solvency to 2071). Simply taxing all wages above 400k would extend the trust fund to 2044 (11 years).
This is a great interactive tool: https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
Slow Benefit Growth for Top 20% Of Earners
11%
Raise Age from 67 to 68
13%
Index COLAs to "Chained CPI"
19%
Tax All Wages Above $400,000
45%
Social Security remains insolvent. The trust funds will run out in 2071 at which point all beneficiaries will face a sudden 8% benefit cut.
Look, just raise the payroll tax by 1% for employees and employers, and tax earnings over $400,000 (adjusted for inflation) and be done with it.
Should it happen? Yes.
Will it happen? Not as long as it gives politicians something to threaten to insure political fodder and contributions.
Post a Comment