Cuts to SS and Medicare

[Winco]

those things are only needed because the dems under LBJ raided the SS fund and merged it into the general fund, then senile Joe authored a bill to make SS income taxable.

Would you care to discuss your obvious ^^^^^^ untruths.
Referring to Post #580.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.



Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

Um, point of order, Chairman,.. Point of order..

Thank you, Sir!
Yes, I just have one question, Your Honor. You've stated that

Under the House version of the bill, however, the increased revenues from the new percentage taxable was to go to the General Fund of the Treasury. Under the Senate version, the increased revenues were to go into the Medicare HI Trust Fund. The Senate position prevailed.

Now just what the heck exactly is this "Medicare HI Trust Fund"? I thought we'd sort of agreed there was a "General Fund" plus a pair of "Trust Funds" separately dedicated to S.S. and S.S.D.I.? Where did this Medicare stuff suddenly come from? Sorry, make that two questions, Your Honor..

Wait, I still have some time left.. That was actually just one complicated question.. But I do have another. How was either proposal, these "increased revenues" going to either the "General Fund" (not a , Trust Fund, I might add) or to a Medicare Trust Fund adding anything to either S.S. Trust Fund, thereby making them more "equitable" or whatever gobbledygook you just said? Thank you. I humbly yield back the remainder of my time.

 

[Redfish]

Would you care to discuss your obvious ^^^^^^ untruths.
Referring to Post #580.

your post 580 confirmed everything I said, it attempted to rebuke them but it instead confirmed them, nice try though.

 

[Redfish]

I don’t agree because it’s just not true.

actually it is true and you know it. Sorry if the truth offends you.

 

[Dagosa]

then why so you think the govt should limit what they can get?

Post where I said that. Go ahead or stop making up shit.
Reduction in SS pay outs is RECESSIONARY. Not only does it hurt the recipient it hurts ordinary people too. We Used golf courses as an example. Without monies spend in golf, ordinary players would see closings or bill increases in membership dues. Even if you cut it for people with decent retirement incomes with out SS, it would be recessionary.
But that went over your head didn’t it ? So you had to make up shit…..

 

[Flopper]

No one wants to take away your social security and medicaid

But those programs should be part of any effort to reign in our runaway federal deficit

It's very difficult to make any cuts to these programs. The cuts have to be hidden such as changing the inflation calculation in Social Security or small changes in reimbursement rate to hospitals. Every politician when pinned down about a statement to cut Medicare or Social Security will take the standard copout, cutting wasteful spending. In the case of Medicare, only about 2% of costs are in administering the program and the cost of administering Social Security is currently .6% So any significant cut will reduce payments to retirees or their medical benefits.

The number of voters with families members on social security or Medicare would constitute the largest voting block in the country.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what's the actual point of anyone saying they're willing to "put them on the table"? Who is supposed to be frightened? Who appeased?

 

[Flopper]

Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total.

why ,do the more you make, you get .9% of medicare, why isn't it 1.45% for the employee or total 2.9% total?

• Single: $200,000
• Married filing jointly: $250,000
• Married filing separately: $125,000

What is this SS cap.2022=147,000
2023=160,200
Why is there a cap on SS?

The logic is that people with high income are more able to save for their retirement than lower income earner. Therefore earnings above the cap will not be subject to the Social Security tax nor the additional benefits it would bring.

 

[Flopper]

So what's the actual point of anyone saying they're willing to "put them on the table"? Who is supposed to be frightened? Who appeased?

You put it on table so it gives you something to take off the table

 

[Mac-7]

It's very difficult to make any cuts to these programs. The cuts have to be hidden such as changing the inflation calculation in Social Security or small changes in reimbursement rate to hospitals. Every politician when pinned down about a statement to cut Medicare or Social Security will take the standard copout, cutting wasteful spending. In the case of Medicare, only about 2% of costs are in administering the program and the cost of administering Social Security is currently .6% So any significant cut will reduce payments to retirees or their medical benefits.

The number of voters with families members on social security or Medicare would constitute the largest voting block in the country.

I disagree

I think you can treat a majority of the voters as intelligent adults

instead of treating them like children where you hide their medicine in candy

Freeze the budget and reduce every single spending program by 1% each year so that everyone shares the pain

Of course the bottom 30-40% will scream like hell

but the rest will understand the need

Do it fairly and it can be done

 

[Flopper]

Um, point of order, Chairman,.. Point of order..

Thank you, Sir!
Yes, I just have one question, Your Honor. You've stated that

Now just what the heck exactly is this "Medicare HI Trust Fund"? I thought we'd sort of agreed there was a "General Fund" plus a pair of "Trust Funds" separately dedicated to S.S. and S.S.D.I.? Where did this Medicare stuff suddenly come from? Sorry, make that two questions, Your Honor..

Wait, I still have some time left.. That was actually just one complicated question.. But I do have another. How was either proposal, these "increased revenues" going to either the "General Fund" (not a , Trust Fund, I might add) or to a Medicare Trust Fund adding anything to either S.S. Trust Fund, thereby making them more "equitable" or whatever gobbledygook you just said? Thank you. I humbly yield back the remainder of my time.

The hospital insurance (HI) trust fund, also known as Part A of Medicare, finances health care services related to stays in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and hospices for eligible beneficiaries
Funds for Part B and Part D benefits are drawn from the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund.

Currently 46% of Medicare payments come from the general fund, payroll taxes 34%, premiums paid by beneficiaries 15%. The remainders comes from varies transfers from states, social security, and other revenue.

FAQs on Medicare Financing and Trust Fund Solvency

In discussions of Medicare’s financial condition, attention frequently centers on one specific measure—the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, out of which Medicare Part A …

www.kff.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, the last thing I expected was an intelligent response. Thanks for that effort!

 

[Flopper]

I disagree

I think you can treat a majority of the voters as intelligent adults

instead of treating them like children where you hide their medicine in candy

Freeze the budget and reduce every single spending program by 1% each year so that everyone shares the pain

Of course the bottom 30-40% will scream like hell

but the rest will understand the need

Do it fairly and it can be done

The bottom 30% or 40% which would be at least 40 million voters would not see a program as fair and intelligent that puts the entire burden on those who are least able to bear it while the wealthy contribute nothing.

A 1% across the board cut in Medicare might not seem like much unless you are a diabetic retiree who has an average healthcare cost of over $20,000 a year or a major organ transplant patent with a cost of $800,000 or a severe heart heart attack, $700,000, etc.. . 1/4 of America's healthcare cost occurs in year before death and seniors are responsible for over half of all healthcare cost. They require the most healthcare and are least able to pay for it.

 

[Mac-7]

The bottom 30% or 40% which would be at least 40 million voters would not see a program as fair and intelligent that puts the entire burden on those who are least able to bear it while the wealthy contribute nothing.

You are not listening

Every nook and cranny of the federal budget would get the same cut

Everyone shares the pain

 

[lennypartiv]

SS needs inflows from outside of the system in order to bolster the trust fund.

Yes, the Dem way of saying bring in more people from shit hole countries.

 

[Flopper]

You are not listening

Every nook and cranny of the federal budget would get the same cut

Everyone shares the pain

Yes we would all share the pain, 99% to the poor and 1% to wealthy. The wealthy would see little impact on their lives because they don't depend on government for subsidies to live. They might have to rebalance their portfolios of investments to avoid investments effected by the US goverment spending cuts but they would be able pay their healthcare bills, mortgages. and country club dues just fine.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes we would all share the pain, 99% to the poor and 1% to wealthy. The wealthy would see little impact on their lives because they don't depend on government for subsidies to live. They might have to rebalance their portfolios of investments to avoid investments effected by the US goverment spending cuts but they would be able pay their healthcare bills, mortgages. and country club dues just fine.

Indeed, there's a parallel here:

1/4 of America's healthcare cost occurs in year before death and seniors are responsible for over half of all healthcare cost. They require the most healthcare and are least able to pay for it.

Except it's those with least time left, instead of those with the most wealth or income, who cost us all the most because most of them simply can't pay for it all themselves for whatever reason.

But, bingo, without Social Security, without Medicare, the rich

would be able pay their healthcare bills, mortgages. and country club dues just fine.

That's what it means to be "rich" -- independently wealthy, in no need of outside help. It was never intended to be about or for them unless they lost their wealth at some point so needed the help.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, the Dem way of saying bring in more people from shit hole countries.

The primary reason would not be to increase the inflow to trust funds but rather to provide workers to our dwindling workforce. Without workers there will be no economic growth. Retirements will continue to outpace new entries into the workforce for years to come. Although the Covid epidemic is gone, illness remains a major reason for people staying out of the workforce There is a critical shortage of affordable childcare which is keeping over a million women out of the workforce.

Where we are having the biggest problem getting workers is in restaurant and hotels, low end manufacturing and construction jobs, and semi-skilled jobs. These jobs could be filled by new immigrants.

However, we would have change our approach to immigration. Amnesty would have to viewed in terms of what the immigrant could do for American not just what America could do for the immigrant.

 

[Mac-7]

Yes we would all share the pain, 99% to the poor and 1% to wealthy. The wealthy would see little impact on their lives because they don't depend on government for subsidies to live. They might have to rebalance their portfolios of investments to avoid investments effected by the US goverment spending cuts but they would be able pay their healthcare bills, mortgages. and country club dues just fine.

Do you want to flog the rich?

Maybe consign them to a homeless shelter and give their home to an elderly couple?

Yes the poor will feel the cuts

But they will feel it a lot more if we crash the budget and everything goes to hell