How Would Democrats and Republicans Fix Social Security?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by wgabrie, Jan 31, 2020.

  1. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    1,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How Would Democrats and Republicans Fix Social Security?
    https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/01/11/how-would-democrats-and-republicans-fix-social-sec.aspx

    Why can't we implement both plans??? In a bi-partisan plan, we could give a little to each side.

    I was thinking that maybe we can put the Democrats' plan, to help the poor/low-end beneficiaries, to action by chaining it, below a certain stepped benefit amount, to the "Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E)."

    Then we use the current "Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)" for the middling amount of income benefit up to the current tax cap.

    Finally, I think we should raise the tax cap and provide benefits chained to the "The Chained CPI" (The Republican plan) for higher income.

    Also, that leaves the age for retirement and bonus/penalty problems up in the air. But, I don't have a solution to those problems.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,874
    Likes Received:
    4,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a better idea, let me opt out and give me back all the money I put in and then leave me be, I will be just fine.
     
    Shonyman32 and modernpaladin like this.
  3. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    1,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't like that. Social Security isn't just a retirement program, it's also disability insurance as SSDI, and a resource for the poor and elderly through SSI.

    You will be "just fine"??? Perhaps, perhaps not, but better to be safe than sorry.

    So, let's keep the program shall we? And, come up with solutions on how to preserve it.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  4. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    1,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,874
    Likes Received:
    4,400
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care if you like it or not. It's my money and I want it.
     
  6. PPark66

    PPark66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The purpose of the program is to reduce our cost on the back end of a worker’s life span.

    Essentially the me-me-me crowd is arguing for higher taxation whether they realize it or not.

    I’d rather reduce total cost to everyone tackling issues together rather than incur the cost of going it alone later.

    As for “fixing” the system I’d lift the cap and reduce the percentage withheld for everyone. A percentage of income is just that, a percentage of income.
     
  7. SEAL Team V

    SEAL Team V Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2019
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
    Mrs. SEAL likes this.
  8. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    10,725
    Likes Received:
    8,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not in favor of cutting SS benefits or raising the retirement age. These are our parents and grandparents we're talking about.

    In generations past, adult children took care of their elderly parents - often in their own homes. SS and Medicare are a big part of the reason we no longer need to do this.

    I favor raising the taxable income cap or eliminating it altogether and keeping SS as is.

    Younger people need to remember ... This isn't just someone else's social security. This is your Social Security.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,138
    Likes Received:
    3,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One plan is we can eliminate the cap for social security because income inequality is so high anyway. We can make social security tied to financial need and give more benefits to the poorer people who need it most. That is a version of what you are proposing. I'm also thinking that we should boost 401K requirements for companies and this will help people retire too. We can give really nice tax breaks to people who are taking care of their parents.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    44,218
    Likes Received:
    36,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eliminating the income cap is a MUST because there is no reason at all why the wealthy elite should NOT be paying their share of the tax burden. That must apply to ALL EARNINGS including those of Capital Gains IMO.

    Raising the retirement age is tricky and here I would place it on a more graduated scale. People with high incomes tend to earn more, have better healthcare and tend to live longer so raising the retirement age for those earning higher incomes would make sense. What makes no sense is PENALIZING those with lower incomes who tend to live shorter lives. For them the retirement age should be reset to what it was prior to the current retirement age increases. IOW's if you are a low wage earner you get to retire at 65 and if you are a high wage earner your retirement is at 70.

    The next issue is keeping up with inflation and here is my solution. Tie the SS increase into the rising cost of MEDICAL CARE! Yes, I know, that has the GREED OBSESSED clutching their pearls in shock and horror already but let's look at the BENEFITS of going down this route. Retirees should NEVER be in a position between having to choose either food or medications. Guess who ends up subsidizing these retirees when that situation arises? Yup, their families which in turn becomes a DRAIN on their ability to save and invest for their own retirement.

    There is another benefit that is somewhat less apparent but will probably materialize once it sinks in with the GREED OBSESSED. The more the Medical-Industrial-Complex GOUGES the sick and elderly the greater the INCREASES are to Social Security beneficiaries which is turn comes out of the taxes paid by the GREED OBSESSED. In essence they will be PAYING BACK in taxes what they are STEALING with the EXCESSIVE price increases for drugs. Once they figure out that there is a NEGATIVE feedback loop involved they will realize that they are only harming themselves by GOUGING the sick and the elderly with these price increases.

    Yes, my ideas are unlikely to get passed but I am willing to COMPROMISE providing you come up with feasible alternatives to my proposals.
     
  11. Shonyman32

    Shonyman32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Removing social security would be awesome for those financially stable. If I had the money they took from me I'd retire much better off than current.

    Could they remove the limit for social security tax?
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  12. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    783
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I'm sure you know, current payroll taxes are used to pay current benefits. Even had it been possible to make SS optional at some time in the past (say, when Goldwater proposed it in 1964), that ship has sailed.
     
  13. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,393
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only 1/2 of it is your contribution...
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,393
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Supposedly the median wage in the US is around $34K, or about $16.35/hour. There are approximately 150 million US workers so math tells us that about 75 million American workers go into old age with little savings/assets. I've read that perhaps 100 million Americans don't even work! IMO SS is not a retirement program but more of a life-line in their older years and to survivors.

    SS pays out to retired workers and their families, to survivors of deceased workers, and to disabled workers and their families. Surviving spouses and kids can get SS even though they never worked or contributed to SS. People who never worked might be eligible for SS. About 45 million getting SS are retired, 6 million survivors of deceased, and 11 million disabled workers/family. An analysis of SS might want to separate these areas and ask if the 12.4% FICA payment should be funding everything or just the retirement portion?

    Regarding funding of SS, should it remain a Ponzi-scheme, or some other method? The obvious problem with the Ponzi-scheme is there must be an equitable balance between those paying in and how much is paid out. I don't like the requirement that business must administer FICA collections for the government...get business out of this.

    Lastly, the problem with today's SS funding is politicians are incapable of simple math. If SS for 2021 will cost $1 trillion and there are 150 million workers, then divide $1 trillion by 150 million and this is the withholding amount. $6,666 per worker 'on average'!
     
  15. Shonyman32

    Shonyman32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2018
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I agree for the most part. It's a shame we are forced into it. I would rather fend for myself but people have come to rely on it and it would have to be a very gradual removal process that is so unlikely to ever happen now like you said.
     
  16. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're the Wall Street Wizard™ you claim to be, it shouldn't matter how much you paid in FICA taxes.

    False. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a joint State-federal government program paid out of the General Fund, but administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA is not involved in disability determinations under SSI.

    Eisencoward pulled a Castro/Allende/Mossadeq/Cardenas by nationalizing the State disability programs totally screwing Millions of Americans.

    SSA recognizes total permanent disability only, lasting more than one year.

    The State programs recognized total permanent disability, total partial disability, temporary permanent disability and temporary partial disability.

    If you were walking down the street and fell breaking your leg and couldn't work, Social Security will tell you to get bent and get over it.

    The States would pay you for the 6-12 weeks you were temporarily partially disabled.

    I guess it's a good thing Eisencoward screwed everyone over with a "better" program..

    Only those who are severely jealous of everyone would even mention income inequality, which is non-existent and for which there is no Law, Theorem or Corollary of Economics that says everyone's income must be or should be equal.

    Removing the wage/salary cap will only pay for one month of Social Security benefits and you cannot prove otherwise, so spewing propaganda is not becoming of you.

    Classic propaganda and disinforamtion.

    Tax-payers are not on the hook for Social Security.

    Right, because a permanent 7.5% UE Rate is what everybody really wants.

    Discriminate much?

    Your government says $54,000 and change.

    Right, it's totally unfair that a spouse assume the survivor's benefit of another and all women should work every minute of their lives so you can criticize them for not staying home and tending to the children.

    Increasing the FICA tax rate to 8.0%-8.2% will fund Social Security for the next 600 years with need for further increases.
     
  17. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. We should have a separate program to supliment retirement and just reduce the funds received from social security. Make social security purely a social safety net for disability and unemployment.
    The fundamental problem with social security is that you are paying for someone else's retirement instead of saving up for your own.
    We need a pooled type 401k plan that's paid by the people who eventually use it. This way it's not susceptible to population size and economic downturns.
     
  18. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    1,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh that's interesting. I didn't know about that before. If states had control the program in New York, where I'm from, would probably spend a lot more on it (I think that would be a good thing) and finance it through higher taxes (not so good). More people would have left New York for other states if we implemented that.
     
  19. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    1,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What about the poor elderly?
     
  20. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why it would be pooled.
     
  21. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,393
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said the 'median wage' not the 'median household wage'.

    Widowed spouses ARE NOT the only people who get SS without working and/or contributing.

    The FICA tax rate must be recalculated each year since the amount of pay out versus contributions is constantly changing YOU have no idea what SS and Medicare will look like in 600 years...
     
  22. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eisencoward nationalized them in 1958, I think it was.

    The worst State disability program was better than Social Security ever hopes to be.

    If you are not totally permanently disabled for a period lasting at least 12 consecutive months, you do not qualify for Social Security Disability.

    The good thing about the State programs was they covered all non-work related injuries. We like to think that if you're in a vehicle accident, you'll be covered by your auto insurance, but that isn't always the case and even more so if there's an uninsured motorist.

    Worse still, what if you're walking, jogging or biking and get hit in a hit-and-run, which are increasing at alarming levels?

    You could be out of work for 18 months and Social Security will deny you because it's not permanent. It's just temporary.

    Some -- but not all -- employers do offer disability insurance through private companies that will cover you, but not every takes it.

    I don't really like government involvement, but at the same time, it really grates my nuts to have employers dictating what insurance I can or cannot have and who is the provider, or even what benefits I can or cannot have. The governments, both State and federal can certainly provide a conducive environment that gives employees a choice and has their employer paying all or part of the cost and for people who do not work for whatever reason to have some kind of option.
     

Share This Page