House repubs to target Social Security and Medicare cuts

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LIAR. From your link:
“What we have been very clear about is, we’re not going to touch the benefits that are going to people relying on the benefits under Social Security and Medicare,”

And?

Republicans aren't to be believed, they're liars and completely dishonest.

The only way to protect Social Security and Medicare is to vote Republicans out of office.

 

[hadit]

Is your orange god actually running or is he just fleecing idiots like you?

Boy, am I glad nothing like that's going on. That would be scary.

 

[hadit]

And?

Republicans aren't to be believed, they're liars and completely dishonest.

The only way to protect Social Security and Medicare is to vote Republicans out of office.

That's a steaming load right there. Neither program can long exist under the current circumstances. Something has to change and pretending everything's all right is the stuff of fever swamps, where beliefs trump reality.

 

[sartre play]

The bottom line is: Unless "fixed" SS only pays 70% of promised benefits after 2034.
Potential "fixes" include:
1. Raising the early and full retirement ages, currently 62 & 66 to 64 and 68.
2. Raising the cap on earnings, currently $130,000. Meaning SS tax stops at $130,000. Say raise to $260,000.
3. Raise the SS taxes taken from pay checks & employers.
4. Or some combination of the above.

Considering generational fairness.

Raising the cap on earnings sounds like a very good point. Those who have enough money that they will never go with out food or housing, but will still have the cover of SOCIAL SECURITY, if they would ever need it. So PLEASE EXPLAIN to me what would be the negative (if any) of that raise?

 

[sartre play]

Sure there are other sensible solutions to improving how SS works.
What wont work is trying to deal with millions of old people living on the street, or on the dole.
And younger people need to know that back up support will be there for them also.
Lets talk about real possible solutions, Not political party propaganda.

 

[Ralph Norton]

And?

Republicans aren't to be believed, they're liars and completely dishonest.

The only way to protect Social Security and Medicare is to vote Republicans out of office.

Good luck with that.
Dumb ass.

 

[kyzr]

#1 Current Full Retirement age is 67 for those born after 1960. Those people are already 63. So increasing it by 1 year will impact them, but not by any factor that would have a huge impact. If such an age change is "grandfathered" to get political approval, it won't have a short term impact. Then there is the impact of a meaningful age increase and collateral impacts. For white collar workers, maybe not much. But for those in blue collar jobs (those relying heavily on manual labor) are likely to see an INCREASE in disability related retirements negating the impact of just raising regular SS retirement age.

#2 Raising the cap on wages, is an option that will help in the near term something raising the age doesn't do. The wage cap in 2023 is actually $160K so doubling it would take it to $320K. The other aspect to this is an increase in "non-wage" income. Investment incomes have never been a source of revenue for SS which has always been tied to wages. As the economy has shifted, maybe it's time to discuss non-wage income.

#3 Raising the SS rate paid by EE's and ER's is another consideration. One I personally don't agree with as small business employers are already paying. They pay their EE's and kick in the other part so in essence they are paying the 12.4%. Self-employed pay the whole 12.4% straight up. I'd support raising the cap and expending the definition of "income" before raising the rates.

"Generational fairness" is a qualitative term not a quantitative term. As such, IMHO, there is no such thing. If the term "generational fairness" means no changes to existing seniors (which is a political decision) as a means of getting passage so the burden is placed on younger generations because - well it's the only way to get passage. I'm not keen to the idea.

Another option that is not on your list is "means testing". Should a senior after retiring and having other income generating other income over $500K per year in retirement receive an additional $40K in SS? Don't know and that would be a tough discussion. That was max, the average SS benefit in 2023 is actually ~$22K.

WW

All very well said. I thought of another option.
Make EVERYONE who is now not in SS be part of SS. I believe that many government employees are exempt from SS and have their own pension plans. I would require those people to join SS.

In reverse order:
1. I oppose means testing. Everyone pays Income Tax on SS payments. That's enough of a tax contribution.

2. Generational fairness is qualitative. I'd take a smaller COLA (1-year) to contribute to SS longevity from the old folks receiving benefits. Young people work a little longer.

3. I agree do NOT raise the SS tax rates

4. Raising the cap on wages is a good idea. From $160,000 to $320,000 works.

5. Whether we increase the ages by 1-year or 2-years now is up to the actuaries. 2034 is 11-years off. By extending SS to 2040 or 2045 gives plenty of time for additional adjustments in the future. Say 1-year now with the SS Trustees and their actuaries to trigger another year if/when needed.


Social Security would then be made secure for all who contribute, long term.

 

[kyzr]

If the government invested SS funds in the economy it would soon own the entire country.

If we don't then China will own the entire country? What's your point?

 

[initforme]

How is he "fleecing?" anyone?

Trump doesn't support cut to those programs. He is against cutting them.

 

[kyzr]

Raising the cap on earnings sounds like a very good point. Those who have enough money that they will never go with out food or housing, but will still have the cover of SOCIAL SECURITY, if they would ever need it. So PLEASE EXPLAIN to me what would be the negative (if any) of that raise?

No negatives other than Republicans won't remove the cap. They may raise it as part of a SS "fix".
Its a matter of what is acceptable.

 

[hadit]

That is why the republican party is pushing to raise the age of ssi and keeping it barrowly high enough to retire at all. Billionaires and the elites want wage slaves. They want to milk every cent from our poor and middle class and they can't allow retirement.

SS is unsustainable on its present course. It takes 3 workers to support 1 retiree and soon that will be 2. Don't you think it's irresponsible and unsustainable to force 2 workers to completely support a retiree?

 

[kyzr]

And?
Republicans aren't to be believed, they're liars and completely dishonest.
The only way to protect Social Security and Medicare is to vote Republicans out of office.

...if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
McCarthy didn't lie yet.
Besides, democrats didn't put up their fixes for SS & Medicare, so don't start squealing yet.

 

[hadit]

...if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
McCarthy didn't lie yet.
Besides, democrats didn't put up their fixes for SS & Medicare, so don't start squealing yet.

These are the people who wait for Republicans to take power, then immediately start squealing that they don't have plans to fix what the democrats were fully capable of fixing just a month before.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All very well said. I thought of another option.
Make EVERYONE who is now not in SS be part of SS. I believe that many government employees are exempt from SS and have their own pension plans. I would require those people to join SS.

Just FYI...

Since 1984 all federal workers (including the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branch) pay Social Security Taxes.

Here is some more information...

NASRA

www.nasra.org

Most "government" employees are covered by SS and this page points out some of the exceptions.

An important point to remember though is that even though those EEs don't pay into SS, they also are not eligible to draw SS for those work periods.

WW

 

[kyzr]

Just FYI...
Since 1984 all federal workers (including the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branch) pay Social Security Taxes.
Here is some more information...
Most "government" employees are covered by SS and this page points out some of the exceptions.
An important point to remember though is that even though those EEs don't pay into SS, they also are not eligible to draw SS for those work periods.
WW

Thank you for that NASRA link. That's what I was looking for.

You may or may not know but there are times when those government pensions get crazy high benefits that taxpayers are on the hook for. Having them join SS would help municipal budgets.

Yes, they would eventually draw SS benefits, but their contributions should be a net gain for taxpayers. Like when our state went from defined benefit pensions to 401Ks. There would be a transition where their pensions freeze, and SS picks up.

Looks like we solved SS. Now what about Medicare? Going bankrupt next year!

https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thank you for that NASRA link. That's what I was looking for.

You may or may not know but there are times when those government pensions get crazy high benefits that taxpayers are on the hook for. Having them join SS would help municipal budgets.

Yes, they would eventually draw SS benefits, but their contributions should be a net gain for taxpayers. Like when our state went from defined benefit pensions to 401Ks. There would be a transition where their pensions freeze, and SS picks up.

Looks like we solved SS.

Ya, you hear about the odd case of someone "working" crazy amounts of overtime during their final years to pump up their retirement which is commonly calculated on a "high 3" rule. But those are the exception and not the rule. (IMHO, overtime shouldn't be used in pension calculations, nor should overtime dollars be part of contributions. But that is a different discussion.)

You use the term "government employees" it would be helpful if you were were a little more exact because there are a lot of different types of government employees that fall under different rules.

You mention "taxpayers being on the hook" which in general isn't really true. The vast majority of government pension plans are funded through employee and employer contributions into a pension fund which pre-funds the benefits as part of their annual compensation package. For federal employees it's called the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), in my state it's called VRS (Virginia Retirement System). In addition to also paying into Social Security.

I don't understand where there would be a "net gain" to taxpayers. The vast majority of "government employees" already pay to fund pensions and already pay into social security.

(Not saying there are not the anecdotal abuses of the various systems, but again those are the exception.)

Like when our state went from defined benefit pensions to 401Ks. There would be a transition where their pensions freeze, and SS picks up.

This comment I find confusing. You make it sound like existing employees who had been in a pension program would have that program terminated and they would only get SS. Not going to happen, those in pension plans will remain in pension plans and "SS picks up"(?). This part I don't get. They already pay into SS and will be eligible for benefits when they reach retirement age.

Neither federal, state, or local governments that currently have pension programs and already pay into SS are just going to terminate the pension and tell EEs that the only thing they will have going into retirement is SS. Not going to happen.

In my state they moved to a hybrid system a number of years ago. Those hired prior to a certain date on on the older defined benefit plan. Those hired after a certain date on a hybrid plan. The hybrid plan has a smaller defined benefit, however it encourages enrollment in 403B/457 plans with a matching option. So part of the retirement plan is defined benefit and part is defined contribution. But again, employees enrolled in the old plan got to stay on the old plan - it was not just ended.

WW

 

[Clipper]

Raising the cap on earnings sounds like a very good point. Those who have enough money that they will never go with out food or housing, but will still have the cover of SOCIAL SECURITY, if they would ever need it. So PLEASE EXPLAIN to me what would be the negative (if any) of that raise?

They will cut benefits & raise the retirement age so that they DON'T have to raise the earnings cap.

 

[kyzr]

Ya, you hear about the odd case of someone "working" crazy amounts of overtime during their final years to pump up their retirement which is commonly calculated on a "high 3" rule. But those are the exception and not the rule. (IMHO, overtime shouldn't be used in pension calculations, nor should overtime dollars be part of contributions. But that is a different discussion.)

You use the term "government employees" it would be helpful if you were were a little more exact because there are a lot of different types of government employees that fall under different rules.

You mention "taxpayers being on the hook" which in general isn't really true. The vast majority of government pension plans are funded through employee and employer contributions into a pension fund which pre-funds the benefits as part of their annual compensation package. For federal employees it's called the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), in my state it's called VRS (Virginia Retirement System). In addition to also paying into Social Security.

I don't understand where there would be a "net gain" to taxpayers. The vast majority of "government employees" already pay to fund pensions and already pay into social security.

(Not saying there are not the anecdotal abuses of the various systems, but again those are the exception.)



This comment I find confusing. You make it sound like existing employees who had been in a pension program would have that program terminated and they would only get SS. Not going to happen, those in pension plans will remain in pension plans and "SS picks up"(?). This part I don't get. They already pay into SS and will be eligible for benefits when they reach retirement age.

Neither federal, state, or local governments that currently have pension programs and already pay into SS are just going to terminate the pension and tell EEs that the only thing they will have going into retirement is SS. Not going to happen.

In my state they moved to a hybrid system a number of years ago. Those hired prior to a certain date on on the older defined benefit plan. Those hired after a certain date on a hybrid plan. The hybrid plan has a smaller defined benefit, however it encourages enrollment in 403B/457 plans with a matching option. So part of the retirement plan is defined benefit and part is defined contribution. But again, employees enrolled in the old plan got to stay on the old plan - it was not just ended.

WW

1. OK, forget the municipal employees with the OT inflated pensions. An example, many cities are in the same boat.

How to start defusing NYC’s pension bomb

Gotham’s public-health crisis risks becoming a financial crisis — including by ravaging the underfunded retirement systems promised to public workers. Four essential steps could avert catastrophe. …

nypost.com

2. Your "hybrid" plan souonds right. I may be man 'splaining it wrong.
When I was hired by my state, an "encore career", I did not get the defined benefit pension, I got a 401k. Those already employed got their defined benefit pensions frozen (not terminated/eliminated) and also got new 401Ks. So they got BOTH their defined benefit (where frozen) AND their new 401K, and SS.

3. Maybe the old employees didn't get 401Ks? I thought so, but I can't swear either way.

 

[sartre play]

Clipper
Most all of us lean towards one major party or the other,
IF we were to put as much as possible aside, WE as citizens could have a real voice.
Talking and finding a ground we could all stand on.
You or I could believe its true, that that's what they want to do & they do not care what the HUGE US wants.
there may be issues we can not reconcile,
But WE are a BEYOND HUGE group IF united, over things wanted or needed that benefit the 90 % of us.
We need to be the thinking plus part of Our AMERICA.

 

[WorldWatcher]

3. Maybe the old employees didn't get 401Ks? I thought so, but I can't swear either way.

Since the creation of 401K/403B nobody had to "get one". Any employee can have a 401K and able to make contributions through payroll deduction. Even for employers who didn't provide payroll deduction, EEs could have IRAs with no interaction with employers.

WW