easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,150
- 2,645
If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.
No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:We had a very nice discussion, but it didn't include an justification as to why lowering the amount of benefits received for an apples to apples comparison evades the description as a "cut". Lowering the amount of benefits received from FRA to a given year of death is most certainly a decrease in the benefits payout, i.e. a "cut".
The parameter of the example is both live to 77 for an apples to apples comparison. Saying Person A lives to 77 and Person B lives longer is changing the time frame of references.
Whether benefits are reduced over a specific period requires that the time period be common for the comparison.
Let's take a more extreme example to highlight the difference.
Let's say I'm in the military and "retire" age 38, and can draw 50% of base pay for the rest of my life (which say is 77). Say that is $20,000 * 39 years = $780,000.
Congress changes the rules. You can "retire" after 20 years at 50%, but you can't draw the pay until reaching the age of 65. The same calculation results in a payout of benefits over 12 years totaling $240,000. Which number is bigger for the same age of death $780K or $240K? Reducing the number of years of edibility for benefits is a cut.
WW
Republicans signal cuts to Social Security, Medicare with new House majority
The House GOP is itching for a fight over spending cuts — including to major entitlement programs.news.yahoo.com
Well, here we go again. I guess there needs to be room for more tax cuts for the super wealthy.
Most dumb people don't know about the Social Security COLA.No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:
Yesterday you computed the time value of money and the life expectancy of a baby boomer just retiring now after paying into SS for 45 years living to 79, and his kids who would have to work two more years before collecting, BUT would live longer and collect longer.
The kids are NOT being cheated, they work a little longer, but collect longer. Its fair.
If your boss said he was going to "cut" your salary, what does that mean to you?
Most rational people would say it means your paycheck will be smaller. NO ONE is saying your SS check will be smaller. You will just have to work a little longer to get it. As long as it's there, I'm OK with that.
If you want to see those SS payments you are counting on, SOMETHING has to be done.
What would YOU suggest?
Most dumb people don't know about the Social Security COLA.
Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022.
Social Security COLA Estimate Set at 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May | ThinkAdvisor
CPI rises to 8.6% over past 12 months, the largest since December 1981. Gasoline up 4.1% from April to May.www.thinkadvisor.com
So SS Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) takes in account the inflation rate for 2022 and means everyone on SS gets an 8.6% increase.
Just to repeat.. Biden's "guarantee to rid fossil fuels" costs the federal government MORE than $114,987,504,000 for 2023 in Social Security payments due to adding to inflation rates. Again up 8.6% for 2023 as Inflation Rises in May 2022 due to inflation due to in part Biden's guarantee.
Oh and by the way this is what the Social Security Trustees predict for Social Security...
Payments to be cut 23% after 2034!
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
No tap dancing. No extreme examples. Back to yesterday's discussion:
Yesterday you computed the time value of money and the life expectancy of a baby boomer just retiring now after paying into SS for 45 years living to 79, and his kids who would have to work two more years before collecting, BUT would live longer and collect longer.
The kids are NOT being cheated, they work a little longer, but collect longer. Its fair.
I don't want to look back thru the posts to find how we solved SS yesterday but it went something like this:
1. Raise the ages for early (62) and full (67) retirement 1-year now, with the SS Trustees able to raise one more year if/when necessary for solvency.
2. Raise the cap from the current $160,000 to $320,000.
3. Do NOT raise the tax on employers or employees.
That should make SS solvent way into the future.
1. Raising the ages brings in more cash now and pays out later with inflated dollars.Again, you change the time frames which means it's not a fair comarision.
The reason to raise retirement age is to DECREASE payouts to individuals by making them work longer. Yes you are correct, the individual checks may not change, but the total benefits paid out are less if you can have someone dyeing at 8 years instead of 10. That's the point of raising the age requirement.
A fair comparison is to establish an expected age of death, then compare payout. Hence the 77 age of death and comparing a 67 year old retiring to a 70 year old retiring. Total benefits received is less.
WW
Did you guys send your solutions to Congress for implementation?Sorry, that is not how we solved it yesterday. I didn't agree with #1. Please expand on #1 again. Would that be an immediate change such as:
#2 and #3 I did agree with. Although with #2 I still think it's a little low.
- No impact if you are currently drawing SS?
- If you are currently 67 does SS stop until you reach the new 68 FRA?
- If you are 66 planning on retiring later this year when you turn 67, does that get canceled and now you have to work an extra year?
- Is it grandfathered? So it only applies to workers under X age?
WW
Another steaming load. There's no way they would ever do that. Take steps to keep them solvent for longer, yes. Eliminate, never. Who's feeding you this nonsense, anyway?If Republicans had the votes in Congress they'd eliminate both programs.
1. Raising the ages brings in more cash now and pays out later with inflated dollars.
2. You are talking like an insurance actuary. I'm just trying to extend the SS solvency past 2034 to 2044+ when they can make more adjustments after the boomers die off.
Did you guys send your solutions to Congress for implementation?
1. No impact on current SS recipients, unless you want to reduce a COLA as a contribution.Sorry, that is not how we solved it yesterday. I didn't agree with #1. Please expand on #1 again. Would that be an immediate change such as:
#2 and #3 I did agree with. Although with #2 I still think it's a little low.
- No impact if you are currently drawing SS?
- If you are currently 67 does SS stop until you reach the new 68 FRA?
- If you are 66 planning on retiring later this year when you turn 67, does that get canceled and now you have to work an extra year?
- Is it grandfathered? So it only applies to workers under X age?
WW
Raising the age for those 54 and younger AND raising the cap should add years to solvency beyond 2034.#1 Raising the age isn't going to fix cash flow now. That's the thing. The age was already raised, and the position is to raise it again. The last time it was raised it was grandfathered in and phased in over decades.
#2 You are not going to extend solvency to 2034 and beyond by raising the age requirement. If you don't grandfather it then it will not pass. If it is grandfathered, the cut in benefits payouts will not be impactful for decades.
WW
Yes years ago, I think I'll send it again. Done.I know I have written my Representative and both Senators with my thoughts.
Can't speak for kyzr.
WW
Ya wanna pay more taxes? Go right ahead. I won't.Here are recommendations to cut spending and raise revenue to start paying down the $32T Debt
- Hire another "Grace Commission" to audit and fix the Federal budget deficit (eliminate duplication)
- B. Cut Spending: [CUT $625b a year]
1. Cut defense to 2017 levels of $600b until the Debt is reduced, saving $150b. NO WHINING
2. Cut foreign aid $55b (until Debt is paid we can't borrow to give money away)
3. Cut Welfare $200b & Medicaid $200b (about half)
4. Cut education $20b (state responsibility)
US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing
Current US Defense Spending:
Year Military Veterans Foreign Aid Total Defense
2017 $598.70 billion $178.00 billion $46.30 billion $823.00 billion
2018 $631.20 billion $180.40 billion $49.00 billion $860.50 billion
2019 $684.60 billion $202.10 billion $54.30 billion $941.00 billion
2020 $737.90 billion $219.20 billion $53.10 billion $1.00 trillion
- To cover the $900b budget deficit the following taxes need to be raised:
1. Raise the top tax rate about 7% above 2016 levels +$400b
2. Implement a new 3% Fed sales tax +$400b
3. Implement a new transaction tax on all stocks & bonds Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions | Congressional Budget Office +$100b
4. Implement a new remittances tax/fee on all money sent out of the US Taxing Remittances Can Build the Wall 2% of $140b is +$3b a year
- Reform entitlements, Medicare & Social Security, currently projected to be insolvent: Medicare 2024, SS 2035
So my answer is to cut spending AND raise taxes. No other way will work.
Then the system collapses, all we'd pay is interest on the Debt. You will pay what the law says, one way or another.Ya wanna pay more taxes? Go right ahead. I won't.