From Bloomberg:
... The Republican Study Committee, which comprises about 80% of House Republicans, called for the Social Security eligibility age to be tied to life expectancy in its fiscal 2025 budget proposal. It also suggests reducing benefits for top earners who aren’t near retirement, including a phase-out of auxiliary benefits for the highest earners. ...
14 comments:
Putting your head in the sand is not going to save Social Security. Congress needs to make tough choices or beneficiaries should expect a 23% across the board cut in their benefits in 2033. This issue is not magically going away.
Something needs to be done to preserve the trust funds. As people are living much longer than when FDR set up the program, it would seem to make sense to raise the age requirements.
They have been adjusted in the recent past but people are still living much longer after the new full retirement age requirements., than they were living past retirement age when Social Security started.
Here is what's going to happen. They will raise retirement age under the belief that if you live longer you can work longer. They will raise taxes. Because you always screw the next generation to pay for this program. They will move Medicare age to stop people from retiring at 75.
@9:59 There are solutions other than benefit cuts to the program, but benefit cuts are the only thing Republicans seemingly understand.
6:56,
Increasing income, reducing payouts or a combination of both. The 1983 amendments were good legislation, back when Congress actually solved problems. There were cuts and there were increased collections. Now, the well is so poisoned no discussion can be had because a benefit cut is met with apoplexy.
The GOP solution to Social Security is always take from the people, give back to business and focus on making it all go away. Ditto with Medicare. How dare public funds be used for giving people incomes or doctors visits when they could go towards business subsidies and corporate tax breaks.
It's true, the GOP says right out front what they want to do so why are people surprised when they try to do it? In 1983, Moynihan gave away the store to Reagan, and the GOP has been chipping away ever since they saw Democrats would "bargain".
The solution is raise the cap and make it apply, at least in part, to investment income.
@418 What exactly did Moynihan give away in 83? Those amendments were passed by a bipartisan Congress.
If SSA and Medicare are facing a shortfall in funds, something has to give and tax increases are not popular enough to get much support.
I am going to post this interactive SSA reform tool anytime this issue comes up. there are plenty of ways to extend the trust fund. It can easily be extended another 30 years solely by extending payroll maximum to all earnings (while increasing benefits for those higher earners).
Minor benefit cuts combined with revenue increases would be the obvious compromise.
https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
Well, the last time Congress did raise the retirement age (1983), Democrats controlled the House of Representatives by 269 to 165. Republicans controlled Senate, 54 to 46, with Reagan as POTUS.
@ Drew. Interesting link but no option that I saw for raising the percent of SSA tax on all wages 1 or 2%.Raising the tax on all those who work and will benefit makes more sense than some of the other options.
4:18
This is precisely the 'poisoning the well' that prevents solutions and shuts down dialogue. Any legislation will take... take from retiree benefits, take from higher earners, take from workers, whatever. Let's just come to an agreement on what combination of taking needs to occur, rather than hurl invectives.
@2:08
Under the Revenue tab "Subject All Wages to Payroll Tax." There is also an option for "Tax All Wages Above $400,000" -- the more info icon shows that the "All Wages" option is fairer to higher earners because in increases payable benefits at a better rate.
Raising the % of payroll tax on all workers would be a harder sell in my opinion b/c it would reduce take home pay for middle to low income workers. A 0.5% increase seems viable.
97% of the short-fall can be eliminated with the following changes
-- +.5% increase in payroll tax (14%)
-- Cover newly hired State and Local Wokerkers (5%)
-- Apply the Paroll Tax to "Cafeteria Plans" (10%)
-- Subject all wages to payroll tax (59%)
-- Diversify the Trust Fund to Increase Returns (6%)
And, the sooner you do something. the less painful any tweaks will be. Unfortunately, Congress has a history of waiting until it's almost too late. Why? Because we, the people, don't encourage those trying to do the right thing and demonize them instead of offering alternatives. George W Bush, for example. I am not saying we should have gone along with his suggestions, but, how about offering alternatives?
Post a Comment