How GOP Social Security Cuts Will Hurt You

So ignore the issue. Got you..

 

Well you do know that the spending was required to save the economy from the Bush recession. And the annual deficit has now been significantly reduced but if the Trump tax cuts actually happen it will be a reinactment of the deficit surge after the Bush tax cuts, i

 

That's what it originated as, but politicians throughout the decades have borrowed against it, and now it is facing insolvency in the near future. The politicians broke it, now they have to fix it. I personally won't be affected by this because I'm already 65, but young Americans are once again screwed over by lying corrupt politicians.

 

Actually, if you are a federal employee, your monthly retirement check is reduced. Both of my sisters are retired federal employees who have worked and attained the 40 quarters necessary to qualify for SS, and both have their federal retirement lessened after applying for SS. That to me is a rip off, if you pay into it, you should collect your full amount you are entitled to

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the clarification

 

The SS/ Mediccare system takes in $1 for every $21 it spends. I know stealing money from children is considered a great social accomplishment in liberal circles but it is pathetic and cuts need to be made despite the endless greed of the left.

 

The OBAMACARE coverage ends DUH and the replacement INCLUDING pre-existing takes over. The Republican plans do not end pre-existing coverage stop with the Democrat scare tactics.

Yes it includes market based aspects to increase competition between insurance companies instead of these flawed government mandated policies.

How does that make it not a retirement pension plan just because government can force you to participate? As I said certainly not a great plan anemone I would never buy into but a retirement plan nonetheless and one that should be administered fairly and like any other retirement plan. The reason contributions are capped is because benefits are capped. Remove that from one then remove it from the other. That's fair.

 

How can Social Security be insecure? All that money is in a "Lock Box" - right?

 

You mean the slowdown and recession that started in 2008 and ended in 2009? Whgbdo you call that the "Bush recession"? Did money have to be spent to end the slowdown and recession that began in 2000 and ended in 2001? You know the "Clinton Recession"?

And guess what, the job loss rate bottomed out January 2009 and we began to come out of the recession and it ended in June before any of the $800 billing went into effect. And guess what, it didn't get us in to a full recovery in spite of the fact the Democrats kept spending and keeping the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years.

The Democrats never even came close to the worst Republican one year $400B eeficit after they were handed a paltry $161B deficit by the Republicans.

And BTW the deficit has been reduced by the Republican sequester the left blames all the illsnof the country upon. And the Republicans took majority control of government policy two years ago and we have seen some improvement since then. So when Obama was talking in glowing colors aboutbhiw things have been doing so much better the last two years he should have been thankingnthe Republicans and not trying to steal the credit as Democrat Presidents like to do ala Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

The surplus funds are in Treasury Bills, what investment holding is more secure? Where else should they be placed?

 

Vested personal accounts would be far more secure.

 

I'm sorry Bluesguy, but you are in error. If the AMA is repealed, the law is nullified and all parts of the AMA are no longer law, including pre-existing conditions being covered. Now, if the AMA is fixed, not repealed, then parts of the AMA are still in effect and pre-existing conditions may be covered.

I haven't heard Republicans say fix and replace. I have only heard "repeal and replace." Now that you know what repeal means, maybe you want it fixed instead of repealed? Some Republicans have decided that may be the better way. Just today, I read that Republicans are considering replacing PARTS of Obamacare, one piece at a time, and not repealing the entire law. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/republicans-obamacare-how-long-will-it-stay-232693

They are going to have to be quite careful in what they change about the law because it was designed to be interlinked. The mandate for everyone to be covered allowed pre-existing conditions to be covered. Without requiring young people to have insurance, the costs go up and pre-existing conditions may not be covered. One depended on the other. It's unknown how Republicans can craft the changes to keep pre-existing conditions covered without the mandate.

What I am saying about Obamacare is not a Democratic scare tactic. It's the truth. I'm not even a Democrat.

People need to know what happens if the law is repealed. There will be consequences. The supplements would be repealed as well, and millions will lose their health insurance.

Whether Paul Ryan's ideas will work or not remain to be seen. Giving seniors a subsidy may work, but the reason the federal government started Medicare was specifically because seniors did not have options to purchase affordable insurance. If the law is repealed there could be significant consequences for seniors' health care costs.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Social Security is not a pension plan. It is a tax on the front end and welfare for the elderly on the back end. I've already provided you with reputable links (Cato) that say that very thing. The taxes you pay into Social Security are not your money, it is a tax to the federal government. There is no lock box with your name on it. The money you have already contributed went to pay for someone else's (older than you) benefits. When you begin to draw benefits, some younger person will be contributing those funds. As long as Congress keeps it intact, you can expect to draw some benefit in your elder years, but there is absolutely no guarantee other than keeping people in Congress that will honor the purpose of the tax. That is why you need to know who you are voting for and what they represent. If you vote for people that want to wholesale overhaul SS or do away with it, don't be surprised when your benefits evaporate.

Yes, the contributions are capped because logically the benefits are capped. When Congress has dipped into the SS funds to pay for other things, that rule may have to change. More money has to go into the program to sustain it. Fair or not, the caps on contributions are probably going to be lifted without lifting the caps on benefits.

Now, Trump has mentioned renegotiating the debt. People need to understand part of the debt the US owes, it owes to the Social Security Trust Fund. Renegotiating that debt down will cost future retirees benefits.

 

You paint with an overly-broad brush, but, I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you, even though I'm a rock-solid right-wing Conservative.

What a Republican administration needs to focus on FIRST with worker-funded government retirement entitlement programs is cheating, and liars who milk these systems with fraudulent claims for "disability" benefits. Too often these millions of parasites and slackers have been helped along by bleeding-heart Democrat "social workers" who do everything they can to ingratiate these people into voting Democrat at every opportunity -- to keep the "goody" flowing in.

That said, there a number of politically-prominent Republicans who have mounted efforts to steal EARNED benefits from workers who have been forced by law to pay into systems like Medicare and Social Security. Politicians like "Crusader Rick" Santorum and Governor "Butter-tub" Christie. And we can see what their political fortunes are like today as a result.

Bottom line: ANYBODY, in either the Left or the Right, who tries to steal EARNED benefits from people as they are retiring is going to commit political suicide. And the sooner, the better!

."Surely we can find a legal way to avoid paying benefits...."

 

For the individuals I agree, but even there any privitization that has been proposed or would ever pass would be a partial privitization.

But we are talking now and the system we have in place so again.

The surplus funds are in Treasury Bills, what investment holding is more secure? Where else should they be placed?

 

Are you of the fallacious belief that the Republican plan is to real Obamacare and then NOTHING? That's absurd, they are going to repeal and replace it and pre-existing will be included in THAT plan. They are not going to not have preexisting coverage.

It is a pension plan in which you are forced to participate in your work a lousy but a pension/disablity plan you are force to participate. Just because it is paid for by for forced contributions, a tax, does not change the fact that that is what it is.

It is not an entitlement program like a welfare program.

Guess what, in a pension plan, a defined benefit pension plan like SS, it's not your money. It goes into a trust and you draw off that trust, if it is still there when you retire and the trustees may have to adjust how much you get according to the health of the trust.

So back to the point, if you left the cap off contributions then it is only right that you lift cap on the benefits that you have earned.

If you want to make it a welfare program then let's end it and stop collecting FICA taxes and just pay for it our of general revenues and working people can take the money they were contributing and put them into their own 401k's. I would have LOVED to have been doing that for my entire working career. But I have been forced to pay what I could have been using for that into the SS RETIREMENT system. And the more I pay in the more I expect to get until I reach the caps, which I haven't.

 

There were 2 choices: Vote for nuclear Armageddon or vote to make America Great Again. Both are promises. 250 million dead Americans is not something that any sane person should vote for, unless you live in one of those places in which the USA murdered your family, friends, neighbors and made the survivors miserable, or the ones that are ready to take over when the dust settles.

 

No one borrowed against it.

Since its inception, surplus funds were always turned over to the General Fund and a treasury bond issued for the cash surplus.

It faces insolvency because it pays out more than it collects in taxes.

Nobody "broke" it.

 

How about increasing the FICA payroll tax?

The last increase in the FICA payroll tax was in 1990. That's 26 years ago, for those who are counting.

Eliminating the payroll cap will generate a maximum of $130 Billion annually, against shortfalls approaching $500 Billion annually, so no matter what, you'd have raise the FICA payroll tax.

 

You shouldn't make assumptions.

 

It's a combined 15% how high should it be exaclty and are you going to get rid of the EITC and make everyone pay more into the system? And raise the contribution cap then raise the benefit cap fit the highest earners already pay in the most and lots of them pay the entire 15% directly out of their pocket and get the least return on their contributions. The person making the 118,000 pays in between 7,000 and 14,000 per year depending on employed or self-employed. That means in a 40 year work history the will pay in between 280,000 and 560,000. The person making 38,000 will pay in about 2,300 a year and about 92,000 during their work history and a BIG chunk of those people pay far less and even make money off the system.

Now take those contribution and run the numbers if that money was being invested at just a 5% compounded return and see how much money the persons would have.

So how much disparity are you going to put into the system?

 

How much interest did the US pay to the Bankers since 1913. I bet it's enough to make Social Security taxes a lot lower, and still have the system be solvent.

 

With all due respect, you don't know what they are going to do. They don't even know what they are going to do. There are a couple of plans out there, but all the Republicans have done since the thing was passed was vote to overturn it with nothing to replace it. Past behavior doesn't necessarily indicate future behavior, but the majority in Congress wasted a lot of time and effort doing nothing for many years. Now, they can't keep wasting time. They have the majority of both houses and the responsibility to legislate. They can replace it in parts and keep some of the ACA, repeal and replace it completely, just repeal it and let the chips fall where they may, or do something no one has discussed yet.

Here's what I do know… Insurance didn't want to accept covering pre-existing conditions unless there was enough money to cover the costs, and that money came in the form of the mandate. They struck a bargain on mandate/pre-existing conditions when negotiating. If Republicans have a plan to cover pre-existing conditions and do away with the mandate, I haven't seen it. Have you? I have seen that they want to do away with the mandate and that Trump liked covering pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on parents insurance until 26. We'll see what happens.

It's more than just a pension plan. It covers children, disabled, widows and widowers, elderly retirees, more, but call it a pension plan if you like.

Social Security is an entitlement program. You are entitled to compensation at retirement because you paid tax during your working years. Those that do not pay into Social Security are not entitled to that benefit. If you work for cash and do not pay into Social Security, you are not entitled to benefits. Here's a list of the top ten entitlement programs:

1. Medicaid/CHIP
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Food stamps
5. Child nutrition
6. College loans
7. Unemployment insurance
8. Supplemental Security Income
9. Veterans compensation
10. Civil service retirement

I'll grant you that SS is different from the federal welfare program because TANF funds, (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) the federal funds for welfare, are given to the states to administer while Social Security is administered at the federal level.

I understand that lifting the caps on income and leaving the cap on benefits isn't fair. However, the program is failing and has to be fixed- and better now than later. Imagine being 80 and dependent on your fixed income, but Congress decides to cut benefits by 15- 20%, rather than tell really wealthy people that they are going to remove the cap on contributions, but not benefits. Can you go get a job at age 80 to cover the shortfall … for the rest of your life? It may seem unfair to lift the caps on contributions but not on benefits, but … push has come to shove. The easiest way to solve the problem is to lift the cap on contributions and means test for benefits. They could also raise everyone's FICA, but that would be really unpopular as wages have been stagnant for so long. OTOH, all of the profits made in the last decade or so have gone only to the wealthiest. They've already raised the age requirement from 62 to 67. Having people work until they are older displaces young people from the work force, and their contributions are needed moving forward. SS either needs more revenue or less benefits/beneficiaries.

Your expectation is similar to mine, but we are both going to get exactly what Congress says we can get, regardless of what we expect. We'll see what they do about it.

 

President Trumps tariffs and huge wall will raise labor force participation rates with higher wage jobs, and then he can privatize welfare like social security.

the slackers and parasites are the rich who outsource jobs, hire illegal immigrants, and don't pay living wages, which drive half of working age American adults out of the workforce on the disability rolls.

the poor are not cheaters for wanting to pursue happiness the best way they can, it is the bleeding heart democrats and cold hearted conservatives who made it this way.

 

Well maybe you don't because you haven't been listening but yes they have been discussing the policies they want to enact and pre-existing is in all of them. Even the stay on family plan till 26 is in the proposals they have presented.

Yes like I can buy a disablity insurance at work too. It's not either or.

Not it most certainly is not. An entitlement is something that as a citizen you are entitle to, you don't have to do anything, you are simply entitled to it. You are not entitled to Social Security, you have to contribute to it in order to collect a benefit, you know as in a PENSION PLAN.

It's different because it is not a welfare program. It might be better to turn it into one, but it is not one now.

And by increasing the forced contributions on people who are equally a citizen with you simply because they got it is not the answer. First most will shift away at all from earned income so you be trying to squeeze more out of less. Second just how much of their income are you going to subject to the SS component of FICA?

The FIRST thing that needs to be done is simply get people back to work and contributing, especially younger and middle aged workers. THAT alone makes a HUGE dent. Then start moving to partial privatizations to increase the returns on the contribution on it individuals and having it remain THEIR money.

Better sooner than now but when Bush tried to start a reform look how the Democrats revolted and attacked him and the the Obama NEVER even thought about a reform.

Oh GEEZ just get off it. There has NEVER been a Republican porposal that touched a dime of current or future retirees. Just stop with the canards.

No you don't renege on your fellow citizen and take their wealth to so you can spend it. Why do you think you have a right to force them to fund your retirement? And the fact is they will move more to investment income instead of earned income.

But sticking it to the more successful would be pretty popular?

Yes and that is the way to stop the bleeding, get people back to work and then incomes will rise and get more contributions flowing in. And there have been a LOT of losses for those wealthiest, who do you think lost all the money in 2008-2014? And no the earliest retirement age is 63 right now with full retirement benefit at 66. And yes people will have to work longer because they are living longer, the amount needed flowing into SS is based on the tables as to how long you will live, the longer you will live then you either have to contribute more or you are going to have to work longer. But again, if people can put some of their money into broad based investments for the long term then the less has to come out of the SS trust.

If you are about my age close to retirement, actually could collect now, yes nothing is going to change even if there are huge reforms for future generations.

 

The Republicans are planning on slashing benefits for existing retirees.

 

Social security is NOT an investment fund and no, it is NOT your money either.

 

Eliminating the SS income cap would ensure that it was fully funded for the next 100 years or so if the benefits remain as they are today.

- - - Updated - - -

Since when did the extreme alt right consider Snopes to be a reliable source?