toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,039
- 4,953
- 280
lol You claim he wants to increase benefits for the poor and cut benefits for the wealthy in order to benefit the wealthy.Yes - Johnson wants to turn SS into a welfare program for the poorest while imposing enormous cuts on everyone else - making it no longer a retirement program in ANY way. Plus, subsequent to that there would be no reason not to cut it further, as we already have a welfare program - so SS could be pitched by the GOP as irrelevant.The Democrats have only one way to keep SS solvent, raise taxes, and while SS will not become insolvent until the 2030's, the longer you wait to raise taxes, the higher the tax increase will have be."Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS."Predictably, the left will trash anything the Republicans want to do with SS. Here's another take on the bill:Johnson's "Social Security Reform Act" changes the program's benefit formula to provide modest benefit increases for the lowest-earning workers in the system- those who earned up to an annual average of about $22,105 over their lifetimes in inflation-indexed pay - with cuts for everyone else ranging from 17% to as much as 43%, compared with currently scheduled benefits, by 2080.
The GOP unveils a 'permanent save' for Social Security -- with massive benefit cuts
What else were we to expect from these clowns. Tax cuts for the rich, and cuts in wages and Medicare and Social Security for everyone else. Health Care? Forget about it, if you are not rich, you don't need it.
The Social Security Reform Act of 2016 ensures Social Security will be there when Americans need it by:
Sam Johnson Unveils Plan to Permanently Save Social Security
- Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
- Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
- Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
- Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
- Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
- Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
- Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
- Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.
Nonsense. Progressives have consistently defended SS against the destruction that the right has proposed from time to time.
Remember that progressives have been part of constructive changes made with the purpose of keeping the system solvent, even when they have resulted in lower benefits.
Let's keep this on the up and up here.
At some point, changes will probably need to be made, but there are LOTS of ways to improve solvency while keeping the system intact as it is.
Plus, we have YEARS to do that.
Johnson's bill, which you have apparently dismissed on partisan ideological grounds without examining it, would increase benefits for the poorest retirees and use means testing to reduce benefits for wealthier retirees and eliminate the SS tax on benefits collected on SS benefits for those retirees who still have to work while collecting them, which would further benefit poorer recipients. It would essentially begin to move SS from being a social insurance program to being a welfare program, which would make it sustainable for many more years without a tax increase.
This is a total scorched earth assault on SS, with a thin veneer for YOU to hide behind.
AND, I've already pointed out that your first paragraph is absolute bull. There are lots of ways to add support to SS. Everybody knows that. And, there have been points in the past where many of these have been used when there was honest bi-partisan cooperation on SS.
Beyond that, we have YEARS to figure this out, so nobody can view the Johnson thing as anything more than a shot across the bow - a promise to further put America's work force at serious financial peril as a way of benefiting the super wealthy.