E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC’s Doug Adams
Calling Social Security "broken," three Republican senators unveiled a plan Wednesday to overhaul the 75-year old entitlement program by raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for some wealthier Americans.
Two freshmen -- Tea Party Republicans Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- joined Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who has been working on this issue for more than five years.
A key part of their proposal would be to gradually raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 years old by 2032.
“If you talk to young people in America - they've already accepted this,” Paul said. “I tell people ‘the knowledge has already been discounted. Young people know the age will have to go up gradually.’”
The senators also proposed "means testing" for Social Security benefits, meaning the reduction of benefits for wealthier Americans.
Under their plan, seniors making over $43,000 a year would have their monthly benefits reduced by $300 to $400 by 2032.
This year is the first year in which Social Security pays out more than it takes in, because people are living longer, and the huge wave of Baby Boomers is starting to hit retirement age.
Neither Rep. Paul Ryan’s FY2012 budget nor the deficit plans outlined by President Barack Obama to date address specifics for addressing Social Security’s long-term solvency.
Graham noted the political hazards of discussing changes to benefits for America’s retirees, saying that Paul and Lee are the only co-signatories on his proposal.
"These are the only 2 guys I could find,” he said.
Mnsbc.com's Carrie Dann contributed.
Leave a Comment:
The Democrats will do with this, what they do best. Demagogue.
That pig can't fly and the rest of the country knows it. Keep giving us these GOT/TP ideas. They clearly define who you are and where you are coming from. Let Michele Bachmann be your spokesperson, that will get you extra votes.
Aww Ron. So that pig must have flown into the White House and lit a fire under Obama cause, why look-y here, he managed to cobble together a "vision."
But in Ron-world those two events - the Ryan plan and Obama's "vision" are totally unrelated, right Ron?
You should take a gander at the definition of causation. Go ahead and google it my man.
So will seniors making more than $43,000 still have SS taken out of their check?
WOW Ron... can you say 'Party of NO'?
Finally, someone with the courage to do the right thing! And, I am one who would suffer the cuts in this bill so it is my own ox being gored.
There is no reason why the waitress who served me eggs this morning should be paying for Warren Buffett's social security checks. Call it for what it is now (not what it was intended before the politicians stole all the money to buy votes and bribes- er, contributions), welfare for the elderly. Means test it by all means!
$43,000 is not a lot of money. What's the means testing for someone making 1 million?
Bob,
Repubs and their SLASHONOMICS agenda: Do you understand that Ryan (WI) wants to kick seniors and children to the curb, leaving no safety net and ALL to protect the wealthiest 2%?
You can't just slash entitlements and lower taxes on the rich and call that a fair deal.
Don't think you're not doing a little demagoguery of your own.
Republicans are trying to make it impossible for us to ever get our money back. Republicans are trying to down-play my retirement money that I've been paying into all my life so they can set us up to steal it all.
By saying "young people" already accept that TO THEM they're just giving away their money is obscene. IF "young people" knew what Social Security is really for, I doubt that any one of them with any sort of education would be saying, ok you just take my money I don't care.
Social Security wasn't "broken" when President Bill Clinton re-paid and replenished all the money the Republicans stole out of it before. When Bush took office, every penny of our money was in tact! The Republicans took it all, and replaced it with an "IOU" signed by George W. Bush.
Well Social Security wasn't "BROKEN" when Republicans took all our money, now that it's time to pay it back to us, suddenly the system isn't any good anymore.
Republicans are the worlds biggest crooks, and them trying to steal our retirement money, and try to take make it legal to steal, proves it.
I'm glad someone finally has the will to come out with a plan for SS. I'm also very surprised Republicans are talking about means testing...nice to see some compromise language.
We need to make some decisions in this country. We can't keep running these deficits. If we do, everything will collapse in a decade or two and we'll all lose.
American Girl,
Clinton didn't repay SS money. He did exactly what every other president has done...he borrowed to make the deficit look lower than it actually was. I'm not saying he was a bad president (in fact, I think he and the Republican congress accomplished a lot in the 90's), just trying to make sure the facts are correctly stated.
how is this not the passing the debt on to our kids that the republicans are so against when it comes to other spending?
Means testing...why? Everybody pays the same percentage of their earnings into SS; so, why should they not all get the same percentage of the payout. This Republican means testing plan is plain old socialist redistribution of wealth. Sorry dudes, go back to the drawing board and try again.
Once again we see the Republican'ts in their war on the elderly, disabled and poor wanting to throw them all into the street in the name of sacrificing for their Billionare and Trillionare friends.
The Republican'ts want to take grandma's Social Security check and give it to the Well to do, the Billionares and Trillionares. Just say no to the Corporate Republican't Tea Party.
Folks, the money is gone, there is no repayment plan. And it was not only the Republicans who stole the money, the Democrats were in on the Ponzi scam, too. There is no time left to push the problem down the road like the president tried to do today in his speech. As painful as the cuts are now, you can't even imagine how bad it will be downstream.
Cut everything; make everyone hurt. There are few people on this board that couldn't balance the budget in two weeks, because we don't need bribes from special interest groups to get reelected or buy votes with taxpayers money for the same purpose.
Note to politicians from both parties: The time is now. Do your damn job and do it now.
I fully support Social Security reform. But this is a tough plan. Remember Paul Ryan's Roadmap to America's Future? That was the plan he put together a year or so ago, and it did address Social Security unlike the budget plan he dropped last week.
Anyway, Ryan also wanted to gradually increase the retirement age to 70 -- in the next century. He also proposed means testing, but I don't think his cutoff was as low as this Rand Paul plan or as onerous although I can't recall precisely. Ryan also made explicit provision for seniors who performed physical labor which might make working until 70 problematic for them. And he also actually raised the minimum benefit for low earners. At the time, only a handful of Republicans came out in support of the plan. And of course, the Democrats trashed it up and down the street.
But compared to today's plan, Ryan's was the voice of reason. And it was quite reasonable in the sense that the changes were worked in gradually over a long period of time, and there was a significant progressive aspect in terms of the means testing and accommodations for certain classes of seniors.
Too bad the Dems didn't sign on to it then. Cuz the climate has changed considerably, enough so that this more radical plan is seeing the light of day.
I'm a liberal Democrat in favor of means testing for social security. I've supported it ever since I saw a 60 minutes program on social security a couple decades ago. 60 minutes interviewed wealthy retirees living in an exclusive retirement community in Florida about their willingness to give up or reduce their social security benefits. None of the people needed social security. Not only would none of them even consider the idea of means based social security, they insisted they were "owed" social security because they paid into it. They had given 60 minutes access to their social security information (how much they had paid in and how much they had received back), and they had all been paid more than 100% of what they paid in years earlier. One retiree who insisted she was owed this money, because she paid in for so many years had received 100% of what she paid in over 2 decades earlier!
I don't know what amount is the right amount of outside income (whether income from active employment, or passive income) before a person eligible for social security should have their social security payments reduced, and at what point there should be no benefits, but it is crazy for people with large 6 and 7 figure incomes to receive social security. My dad didn't retire until he was just shy of 80. (He continued working long past normal retirement age because he loved his profession, not due to financial need). When his accountant told him he would be collecting social security, even though he hadn't retired, and even though his income was very high, he was embarrassed and felt, and still feels, he shouldn't receive social security.
@Bob
I know a number of Democrats that would support means testing and raising the deduction cap, perhaps you should not start your seed with a rant against Demagoging with Demagoguery of your own.
@Spider
Not entirely accurate, since there is a deduction cap that is I think about $106,000. Everyone who earns less than the cap pays the same percentage of their earning, but those who earn more pay a small and smaller cumulative percentage of their entire earning. (Someone who earns $212,000 would pay a smaller percentage of their earning by half).
Rotorhead Johns Creek Ga.
It's refreshing to hear the libs and repubs blaming each other for what the mess the country has gotten into in the past thrity years. You are both to blame, you elected the crooks who you thought would give you something for nothing. Both parties are to blame wheather you like it or not. It is time to stop giving every tin horn country in the world bribe money so they will be our friends. The money goes right to the dictator and his pals rather than those who need it the people. If you took out all of the pork in the budget and kept the taxpayers money here at home there would be close to a trillion dollars that could be used to balance the budget. Medicare/medicade is is another budget buster. There is so much abuse in the system the only way it can go is bust. There is no way to fix the system without pissing off some group of people but it has to be done. If not this country will end up like most of the middle eastern countries, run by several rich crooks while the worker bees starve.
No one likes to be blamed but we are all to blame for electing the leeches we now have in office
Reliant
"Not entirely accurate, since there is a deduction cap that is I think about $106,000. Everyone who earns less than the cap pays the same percentage of their earning, but those who earn more pay a small and smaller cumulative percentage of their entire earning. (Someone who earns $212,000 would pay a smaller percentage of their earning by half)."
Yes but their benefit is paid out based on what they paid in not their income. So if you want to remove the cap on payments in then you have to remove the max benefit too. I am seeing here that everyone wants to remove the cap on income but no one addresses the benefit side.
D.H.
I was just pointing out that the statement was factually flawed. I did not espouse a perspective on altering the Cap one way or another.
But since you have brought it to mind; The Current SS cap is regressive in it's nature, in that lower income earners incomes are debited at a higher percentage of overall income than higher income earners. I as an example hit the SS Cap every year and stop paying into the system. It feels like a nice little mid year raise. However, I for one would not object to increasing or eliminating that cap without increasing my calculated benefits. Both the 'Means Testing" identified in the seeded proposal and modifying the SS Cap result in changes that provide less benefit per dollar contributed for some workers vs. others.
Not everything is life needs to exactly equitable. I benefit from an orderly society that follows the rule of law. I benefit from having a population that has enough access to health care that segments aren't prone to disease and stoking of potential pandemics. I benefit from a society that has a generally educated populous, as the higher the general level of education the lower the overall crime rate. So if I need to contribute a little more to reap my share of these benefits because I am more able to pay, then I accept that.
The Social Security system is not sustainable. There's less money being pulled in to pay out. It's not an unlimited system. It relies on working people to pay into the system to pay out to those not working to put in the system. With the largest bubble of pensioners coming onto the take side of this, the system needs to be overhauled, but even raising the age isn't enough. It only pushes it down the road to be fixed later on.
The same thing is happening in Europe. Too many people were told they could retire and the government would take over and cover them and protect them, but when they made these programs they never accounted for certain things like population growth and a baby boom in the 50s and 60s, inflation and a bunch of other factors... Their math sucked.
There's too many hands reaching into the pot and only the people who save for themselves are going to weather the storm when the system inevitably collapses.
Leave the "They only want them to die" trash at home... The elderly are a huge voting block, no politician would want them to die!! That's why no ones touched this slow moving train for years. People knew it wasn't going to work... Why do you think the government created 401ks and ROTHs?! To help you save for yourself, so you could sustain yourself on the pitance the SS system will give you!
But seriously, that statement is ignorant and you should think it through before you make one like that...
I have never seen a 70 year old bricklayer, or a contractor that would employ a 70 year old bricklayer.
Bricklaying is not the only job out there, Forrest. Like your namesake, you aint too bright.
Actually, most companies are not KEEPING people employed until they are 70!
Yeah!
Tell that to the production line workers, cashiers, servers, and anyone else who HAS to stand on their feet for 40 or more hours a week!
The scheme here is to WORK them to DEATH - they're expendable!
All that matters is the almighty $$$!
Yeah I,m not that bright but I have never seen any 70 year old cops, firefighters, cement finishers, iron workers, I could go on and on even though I'm not that bright, but I do know "that stupid is as stupid does". 70 year old big rig truck drivers is stupid, 70 year olds on a road crew is stupid, dangerous, and frankly it is cruel.
Come on now Feisty, why in the world would anyone need to work?
The government will support them. Right?
What's that, the government is out of cash, what with all the money going to service the debt? Huh, that sucks. Maybe we should do something about the debt. You know so we can take care of all the old people. What'd say Feisty - a good idea?
Forest and Feisty: If it is cruel or age biased perhaps these workers can save some of their own money up and retire earlier instead of relying on others to pay it for them. Of course, that means less beer and cigarettes over their lifetime, but they can take solace in the fact they'll also be cutting down on the cost of national healthcare.
Hey norm, you probably won't have to give up your champaign.
Spoken like a true bigot Norm!
Thanks for sharing!
Norm,
if they pay 13% of everything they make, ever; wouldn't they be relying on access to their own money?
Forrest Grump
Seeing that almost every profession you just listed is unionized, let the unions pay them.
Forest and Feisty: If it is cruel or age biased perhaps these workers can save some of their own money up and retire earlier instead of relying on others to pay it for them. Of course, that means less beer and cigarettes over their lifetime, but they can take solace in the fact they'll also be cutting down on the cost of national healthcare.
Or we can pay them $150 an hour to make up for the shortfall on their career span.
SS was never intended to be your retirement program. Let me say it again, slowly for those of you that just don't get it. SS is NOT a retirement program!
If you want to retire before 70, get a 401k, contribute to an IRA, sock some away in traditional savings/investments. Pay yourself FIRST. That means put the money in before you do anything else! Then live within what you've got left. Quit depending on the gov't to do this for you - it's not the responsibility of the gov't.
Looks like to me if Bob and his Yahoo Chorus keep cutting education Funding and such like Bricklaying may be the only profession that The Kids are going to have left to make a living at. If we go that route maybe my 60 year old wore out bricklaying friends can get a job teaching the younger generation. Oh I forgot they don't want to spend any money on building things so I reckon the bricklayers won't have a job to go to anyway. Course I reckon that would solve the problem of them paying into a retirement fund wouldn't it. Kind of hard to make a contribution to something if you don't have a place to earn a contribution in the first place.
Same thing Joe unions get money from members dues, so I take it you are for a huge increase in their wages so they will have the money to give the union to give back to them later. Hell Joe even if you did that it that sounds a lot like SS.
sildenafil... while agree with your premise that people should plan and save for their own retirement... your statement above is actually incorrect.
Here is a link to the government site on social security questions...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
Question #4 addresses this directly...
Sorry... but YES it was intended to be a forced savings plan for retirement. The real problems came in when the program was expanded to include disability benefits that extend to non-primary workers and the families of primary workers.
These 70-sometings: Maybe they can earn JD degrees, and fruadulently bill their clients for time they spend reading other people's comments and ideas?
Jealousy does not become you Drive By.
You should at least try to be a better man, cause right now, particularly with silliness like that, you are not. :(
But I'm sure, like me, you have diligently saved, and invested and are, or will be totally prepared for retirement. I gunning for shutting it down well before 60.
So how about it DBO, you all good?
To all the, 'these people should have saved money for their retirement', yes of course they should have. 15 year old girls should not be getting pregnant, people should not be addicted to drugs...you can go on and on. What it gets to though is that, you are going to have this burden on society regarless (unless you go for a Hitler type solution). So what do you do with old people who refused to save money and then go to an ER that has to take them in? How do we pay for that? There is no $$$ to take from this old bum....should we have forced him to save for his retirement? Yes...but that is big govt stealing my money...yada, yada, yada. Should we force him to pay into health insurance to pay for his bills? - Medicare? The truth is that many of these programs are cheaper than the alternative. Do I like supporting people that made poor life decisions while I worked hard to get where I am? No, of course not. But one way or another society will pay for this.
"Seeing that almost every profession you just listed is unionized, let the unions pay them."
Lol damn joe, you just keep saying the stupidest things.
This is a simple one here.
Not every blue collar worker belongs to a union.
In fact very few do.
Judging by the retarded comment you made I'd have to guess you never broke a sweat for your pay in any one day of your life.
Jobs like he described are labor intensive.
They break peoples bodies down.
I haven't lost you yet have I?
OK
These people aren't physically going to be able to make it to 70 because of work related health problems, like back pain, arthritis, knee problems and such.
They'll be forced out long before 70 onto disability after having been forced to work until they are broken down.
That's one of the reasons this is a sh1tty plan.
For reference I'm a 34 year old nonunion machinist and I oppose this crap.
Those people who chose physically demanding (often median income and below profession) perform valuable services for society as a whole and should be respected as well as the trust fund babies who can go to Ivy League Colleges. Those people can not as a rule continue with the physically demanding labor that late in life.
I for one do not think we should disrespect the people who earn a living by the sweat of their brow and the strength of their back by insisting that they continue to work till 70, just because a paper pusher or middle manager can theoretically stay in the job longer and remain effective. Add to that what many Boomers are finding out, it is very hard to get rehired now if you’re competing against young workers new to the work force. I have read a couple of articles that suggest that laid off Boomers may, just be laid off for life given our current work force situation.
The gist of this is that there is probably no simple straight line increase in the retirement age that would be fair and ethical. Perhaps certain categories of work can withdraw SS at different ages. I don't have the solution myself, but I have no desire to see segments of the population consigned to a meager existence in their later years because we don't value some work as much as others or we figure they can keep going even if they are infirmed by old age maladies.
Hypocrisy- Who says it HAS to, did we have a say in HIS decision to be a bum? How about be responsible of your own decisions and actions. Maybe if they knew no one was going to bail them out then they make different decisions to begin with. And by the way I doubt your analogyof the bum works because by definition the bum never worked to pay into the programs to begin with. If you are not physically disabled or handicapped and under 65, no bail outs. Own your own life and live with the consequences. That includes teenage pregnancies, high school drop outs who later complain about not being able to get a job, and those who aren't fiscally responsible.
Forrest - an aquaintence of mine from marshalltown, iowa may not have been 70, but he was well over 65 was still layng block. He may not have won a race with a 30 year old, but his accuracy and work quality was better. A good worker and friendly to boot. Regardless, the mason tender/laborer has the most physically demanding job, if he does it right.
I know if I was his age I wouldn't want to be laying block, working concrete or bridge building.
Reliant - thoughtfull point of view. I am sure that many workers in their 50's and 60's are facing career changes thru no fault of their own.
Dosh - the concept of someone in the construction trades of ironworkers, concrete (flat and structural) or masons working in those trades until age 70 is almost incomprehensible unless they move into management. As you say they have physically demanding work. Most realize this and move on to other occupations on their own accord. With construction trades down 20% many have no choice.
His is an exception to be able to do that work at that age. Most older workers do have the experience and expertise but that is not often valued in today's business climate. He is fortunate that the contractor keeps him on and appreciates the value of his labor. Most contractors do not, as soon as your body breaks down and you slow down your gone. There are many honest hardworking people out there who will not be able to properly perform their job when they get to that age.
$43,000 a year Are you kidding me! It's time all people who are retired and approaching retirement organized and banded together and voted the GOPee the party of NO the Party of the RICH was voted out of office at every level.
sildenafil,
Been there done that re: your trite suggestion about 401(k) and IRA accounts. Played by the "rules" all my life only to see my net worth evaporate because of the Wall Street shennanigans allowed under Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall and Bush the Idiot's absolute refusal to hold business accountable for what regs remained. I'm not some house-flipping magic mortage fool either...paid a reasonable price for my house at the time...30 yrs fixed at a decent rate...but again thanks to Wall Street...
The trickle down nonsense that paying the rich will ultimately enrich the poor is absolute crap. That "A rising tide floats all boats" line used by the trickle down liers works fine if one is owns a boat. For everybody else who is treading water like hell just to keep their head above the surface...all a rising tide means is deeper water to drown in.
70 years old to get SS. Those guys in washington set behind a desk and after 4 years they get a pension. They want us to work till we are 70. I had to retired at 62 with bad back and bad knees. I wanted to work till 65 but there was no way in hell I could do it. Must be nice to work in washington where you write your own rules, give yourself raises and take plenty of vacations. Just think we pay your salary and all you do what ever you want. Even screw us every time you can. Instead of giving billions away to other countries put some in SS. That would be the right thing to do.
And how come progressives who vent endlessly about the evil rich, have no problem with retired millionaires collecting Social Security?
Retire millionaires should not collect social security...seniors making $43,000 however, should not see a reduction in their benefits. They are not millionaires.
That's funny Pat, cause see those retired millionaires all seem to say the exact same thing - "It's my money, I paid it in, I want it back."
Or is it just that they were donating all those years Pat? Cause see, if you don't give their money back to them, and they were not told they were donating, then that's just stealing. And golly Pat, but stealing is wrong. :)
You nailed it Spanky!
Progressives are like Robin Hood... (and we all know that Robin Hood was really just a HOOD!) They steal from the rich to give to the poor... problem is eventually they steal so much from the rich that there ARE NO MORE RICH! (which is what they want)
Unfortunately, once that happens the poor will revolt... then what?
My advice... buy ammo and lots of it ;-)
What would be interesting to see is just where the TP - GOP folks would place the wealthy...or even themselves..since they have their own retirement benefits set up ,,hey,,they can call it retirement after 5 years..and draw retirement funds from us tax payers forever if I read that right..then they can draw social security also...of course, most likely they will be excluded from all this mess they are coming up with right now. The fine print on anything politicans come up with,.,no matter what party..is where all our eyes need to be ...and then,,if it is something that we do not like...we voters have the right to stop it..
Stupidity is robbing from the poor and the middle to give to the rich--ala GOP style, Robber Barons welcome.
Bob, could it be the rich also paid in for their fair share? Fair means equal. I have no problem having the rich pay more for healtcare, because they can afford it. But SS should be fair and equal, no matter which side you are on. Raise the ceiling, let them pay more in, and keep pols hands out of the "Trust" fund.
Yo SOB - I have been stock piling ammo, together with water and food, for over two years now.
I say invest in gold and LEAD.
This is why this program should be eliminated. Give everybody the 13% of their pay that goes into SS to invest in their own retirement fund and then you wont have the government telling you when you can retire. Give people control of their own money and get these rip-off government programs out of our lives.
TO: Bob-1887910
“Bricklaying is not the only job out there, Forrest. Like your namesake, you ain’t too bright.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you trying to suggest that Senior Citizens try to find a new career instead of having their Social Security money?
Anybody who defends crooks, is a crook.
Instead of us having our money we’re supposed to go find a job instead? WHY? Because Republicans want our money more than we do! Or because Republicans stole our money now don’t want to pay us back?
And stealing Senior Citizens’ Social Security money is what Republicans are going to campaign on and expect to get elected?
You're either drunk or crazy as hell.
And Bob: Wealthy people don't pay into Social Security, they don't need it, and they don't get it.
American Girl,
Everyone pays into SS until they reach a specified income threshold - that's rich and poor alike.
Why should I have to continue working to pay for someone else to retire? I'm fine with taking care of people that truly cannot take care of themselves, but I'm not fine with supporting someone that chooses not to work.
I am sick and tired of you calling the Republicans, Tea Party, and so called rich thieves. How do you come up with that? They don't TAKE from anyone but just want their own money to donate, support, and do with as THEY please. It is after all the money THEY earned. According to all the liberals it's money THEY are entitled to somehow. I am sorry, I just don't understand that thinking
Spanky-
"Yo SOB - I have been stock piling ammo, together with water and food, for over two years now."
FINALLY- this little pr*ck shares what he really is. A bona fide whacko millitia type. "Hey, let's play army man". OK, 'Spankie"- I'll shoot it out with you when the time comes. With pleasure. See, like many others in this country, I don't much care for subversives of any stripe.
Gosh Drive By you really seem to have anger issues.
I am a gun enthusiast. I have several and enjoy shooting them. I also am prepared for a natural or man made disaster - generator, water and food supplies, and yes, ammo.
How about you Drive By, you prepared for the big one?
Or is it to you anyone who own a gun is a "wacko militia type?"
Whack goes the mole - you are the best and you never disappoint DBO. Thanks for the chuckle.
Again, no leadership. Republicans want this and Democrats want that. If there is going to be pain, the leaders of this country should be the first to take a cut.
I think they should recieve it.
If they paid in their share they held up their end of the bargain.
Hey spanky, hate to break it to you, but you survivalists irritate the hell out of the rest of us gun owners.
You guys have caused the rest of us alot of grief because the gun control nuts equate all the sane responsible gun owners with your lunacy.
"A key part of their proposal would be to gradually raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 years old by 2032"
What a proposal.....
let's see, with MEDICARE gone or gluted by their plan.....nobody will live to age 70 by 2032........and if they do, they certainly are in failing health trying to work exactly where?
chilled
"A key part of their proposal would be to gradually raise the mandatory retirement age to 70 years old by 2032"
What a proposal.....
let's see, with MEDICARE gone or gluted by their plan.....nobody will live to age 70 by 2032........and if they do, they certainly are in failing health trying to work exactly where?
That's it intention to kill people one way or the other
Bev,
That's it intention to kill people one way or the other
Isn't that called fear mongering?
thetotas, no, that's called telling the truth.
Sounds like fear mongering to me.
Michelle - I have no problem having the rich pay more for healtcare, because they can afford it. But SS should be fair and equal, no matter which side you are on. Raise the ceiling, let them pay more in, and keep pols hands out of the "Trust" fund.
What?
On average, SS recipients use up what they paid into the system in 8 years, but also live on average about 15 years after retiring - and the difference is only going up. That's not a manageable situation...it needs to change. If we change it now it means relatively modest impacts...if we continue to wait, it won't be a modest impact anymore.
So, for the good of tomorrow's senior citizens, we need to address this now.
If the mandatory retirement age is higher, then it will be ever more difficult for young people to enter the labor market. In addition, unless there are union agreements that keep older people on the payroll ahead of younger people, there will be an increased incentive to "get rid of" older workers before they are able to realize their retirement benefits and people between the ages of 60-70 will be at greater risk of falling between the cracks. We can't separate issues of social security, full employment and health care, and Sen. Graham and his colleagues would earn more support if they can address all three concerns.
Great post, Kate. There is no easy fix to these issues. As workers are older and have seniority, companies want to replace them with younger employees who will take less---so what happens to the older folks who can't find a job and can't collect Social Security?
I'm a 65 year old former constuction manager, and no one wants me, too old, one exec. said, " I can't put her in the field, that would be like letting my grandmother work in the field". He was the division manager of Lennar Homes in Ft. Myers, Fl. Did not matter that I could do the job, age discrimination? You bet! But Florida is a "right to work" state, which means workers have NO rights.
This is the crux of the problem; finding a job that will pay a living wage until you are 70. I had a good job and saved mone (in an IRA) for 22 years. Then the company got bought out and I had no job and no pension (the company never offered one) and I was over 50. Fortunately, I have found other jobs - but they pay half what I was making and I still live within my means (I make $1200 take home for 30 hours work) and I am lucky to have a job. I did save for years but I still do not have enough to retire. And for those who say SS should not be retirement - I paid in to SS and I do have an IRA. But remember life has a way of bringing suprises. The stock market has had several ups and downs - I knew the risk when I put money in a mutual fund. Overall I still made money. But my mother (once my father died) needed monetary support and I have provided it. So just to tell people to save is not going to make retirement secure. Health care regardless of how good your insurance policy is can be very expensive. What seemsed like a sure fire investment may not be. And once I was making 5% on my savings account (a safe bet) - no longer due to other people who took excessive risk. I cannot control the actions of others which have cost me interest money on savings and probably a good paying job since age discrimination is rampant. And by the way I did go back to school and I have had a BA since 1976.
i've no problem raising the retirement age - i've come to accept (and fully expect) that social security will not be there in 30-40 years when i retire. thus, i'm planning on it not being there.
that said, if we're going to cut benefits for the wealthy, then let's get serious about cutting benefits for the wealthy. jack welch makes several grand a month via his social security check and like $800,000 a month (yes, a month) through his GE pension. tell me, does he REALLY need social security?
I'm with you. I've long accepted as fact that every red cent taken out of my pay for both SS and Medicare taxes is just money farted into the wind.
Stop beating around the bush and just take the goddamned weedwhacker to it already.
Exodite,
I don't know what kind of man you are but it ain't much of one. I'm 40 and have paid over $150,000 into SS and medicare so far and plan on contributing into it for another 25 years. I'm the kind of man that will grab another man's ball sack and rip it off if someone trys to steal from me. I da%! sure well better see that money back when I'm older. Anyone who even flirts with the idea of making my life a living hell when I'm older does not get my vote.
I say we hire you to go to the republican caucus and start ripping ball sacks off.
why does the GOP want to do anything to SS . why can't they leave it alone for about 20 years then they can do something to it . there is enough in the SS trust fund to last for v30 years if we do nothing to it then there is enough in ther to last another 10 years to where it can pay out 80 percent of its requirements after that . these dam GOP are trying to get their dam hands on it ever since 1935. now they are trying to get control of medicare ever since 1965. anything to destroy it
But Bob, you don't answer the question...what DO you say to the 70 year old bricklayer?
"Wal-Mart's hiring greeters."
I'm not bob, but I suspect it'd be something like: "really, you didn't foresee this coming? Wow, dude that was some mighty piss-poor decision making. " "say I don't suppose you save any of that money, did you? What's that you figured you could keep laying them bricks till you were 90?" Huh?
Or maybe "you made the bed, now you get to lay in it."
The world is a harsh place. You kinda have to think things through and make good decisions, or end up like a, umm. 70 year old bricklayer.
Come on, silly. But I like your plan PAT- steal the 70 year old successful person's SS to give to the bricklayer.
Yep, sounds fair and reasonable.
Save the money while your working, just like you do every year when you plan for the winter months with no work or do you just spend all summer and collect unemployment in the winter. It's called knowing your situation and planning accordingly. No the contractor answer is spend spend spend while I have it and rely on entitlement when I don't. SS was supposed to be a supplement to retirement not your sole source.
I don't trust the GOP at all they are crocks and would do anything to give their rich cronies as much money as possible . they don't care about the middle class ,or the poor in this country
But Bob, you don't answer the question...what DO you say to the 70 year old bricklayer?
"If you talk to young people in America - they've already accepted this," Paul said. "I tell people 'the knowledge has already been discounted. Young people know the age will have to go up gradually.'"
The senators also proposed "means testing" for Social Security benefits, meaning the reduction of benefits for wealthier Americans.
Despite not believing that SS is in a crisis, there is nothing wrong with attempting to address it. At quick glance, don't have a problem with these proposals from these republicans, it would seem a proposal like this could garner some bipartisan support. Not sure where they got the $43,000 number, I would rather see a number closer to $60,000 of retirement income. The income level whatever it may be would be 401k or IRA withdrawls, pensions etc. So I think a person making at least 60K and above could survive with a couple hundred less.
The only thing I would add is that they should eliminate or up the cap for social security taxes right now so the wealthy pay it for a greater portion of their income.
This proposed change, means testing in the case of Social Security, will fundamentally change the social contract the government has between itself and the People. So what the government will be saying is that you owe them 13% of your pay, each year, every year of your working life, and if you have saved a certain level of the money you earned for yourself that exceeds the governments defined limit, you'll get nothing in return.
So the "investment" concept of Social Security now transfers to it being just another progressive tax.
So now won't the "rich" be getting any benefit for the tax they pay, they also will have to pay for of the tax. This makes the Social Security tax (It's really now a penalty) nothing but a wealth transfer tax.
Yellowdog---I don't understand why the cap isn't increased. Presently it is at approx. 106K. What if they phased it out from 106K to say 500K of wages and then brought it back in. Would it be so horrible if someone who got a million dollar bonus paid extra FICA?
The cap should be indexed to inflation and if there is means testing it should start at 250,000.00 a year and be indexed to inflation.
This proposal should be called "when pigs fly".
It took five years to come up with this proposal. It sounds more like a 15 minute thought.
So now won't the "rich" be getting any benefit for the tax they pay, they also will have to pay for of the tax. This makes the Social Security tax (It's really now a penalty) nothing but a wealth transfer tax.
JoAnna the rich will still be getting their social security, but due to their high income levels they will need less and therefore receive less. Shared sacrifice and all. As you have told me before, sometimes life isn't fair.
Steeler fan - Yes they should raise the cap. If it was up to me millionaires should be taxed for everything they earn. By the way, I would have been honored for you to be my CPA. This year was not fun paying the tax man.
The cap is indexed to inflation. Since they changed the way the determing inflation by removing food and other items from the calculation, we have been at zero inflation for the past couple of years. No cap increase and no SS payment increase.
I vote to get rid of the entire system and give everybody their money and make them responsible for saving for retirement, then you can plan your own retirement and not be dependant on the government telling you when you can retire.
And Social Security would no longer be an entitlement, and should be moved to discretionary spending.
And "shared sacrifice" isn't taking from one group and giving to another group in any and all cases. There is nothing "shared" about that , and that's called theft.
So does that mean they receive more? I assume you aren't intending for that but just another tax for them to pay YOU
Another thing I don't see anyone address here is the public union worker who can retire at 120% of their income due to soaking the overtime their last three years and retire on the average at 55 and then they get SS too. Are they any different fromthe "RICH". Why do they need SS if that's your mindset
JoAnna, you are right they just want another tax. If you use their math you would pay, 7% in SS, 40% in Federal Income Tax, 10% (California and talking about raising it), 8.5% sales tax, 1.1% property tax, and another 1.6% for medicare. That's 68.2% of your money! Just how much do they need to be happy? I bet we could give all to them and if we could somehow still own the company they would want that too
I say take away the max rule of incomes 107,000-116,000 amounts that have the Social Security tax. If you make 5 Million you have the 6.2 Percent of the 5 Million pay into social security. However, I would not require the business to pay the matching past the 116,000. Problem solved.
job1... sounds like a sane thing to do ... but the tea party wont buy anything that makes sense
I like it! keeps the burden off the business, and on the earner of the money.
One thing though, If we raise or remove the income cap, we CAN NOT means test. That's simply unfair.
Sounds like someone does not earn over $116k. Imagine that.
Yep kiddies the simple answer always is: raise taxes. Easy peezy, fresh and easy.
Except not so much, and it will never happen. Funny thing is you have no idea why.
Spanky:
I've watched you share your wisdom here for a long time, and I've come to appreciate your fine-tuned ability to respond directly to the issue and not become bogged down in rhetoric. No one else can match your skill in civil debate; most other posters simply resort to thinly-veiled criticism and ridicule.
You have an excellent grasp on every issue, and a clear and conscientious answer for everything...so I have to ask: when are you going to toss your hat in the ring for 2012?
You would be a sure winner - if you would deign to come down off your high and mighty throne.
Dude, ummm, the pay cut would be stupid. Plus there is the popularity part. :)
But other than a mis-appreciation for earning potential, I think you got is just about right.
And I know my little sparkle monkey Drive By totally agrees with you.
yea then the busines owner can pay 35% because now it's profit. Nice try, solves nothing. If the wage earner pays more he recieves more. Don't work any other way. How about we opt out and take care of our own retirement?
DH, I like it, let the people take care of their own retirement and healthcare. Get government out completely. For at the stupid people who took minimum wage jobs and didn't save for retirement, it is not up to the bailed-out bankers to take care of you. This is exactly what Jesus would have done, let the bankers take money from the government and let the stupid, lazy poor people starve in the streets. Of course, we would need more security and police to take care of the increased crime that would result from this, and more prisons...with their socialist healthcare for all prisoners. Since we are being fiscally conservative now, we will need a pay as you go type system to pay for this, so taxes will drastically increase to pay for all of this, but it seems like the fair and moral thing to do.
right now ( today} there is not a good chance you will be hired to do anything if you are over 45 ... when your 50 its even harder to get a job ... what chance does a 65 or 70 year old have ...
I have a proposal. If you are eligible for the BIG Bush Tax Breaks ($250,000 or more a year), then you can have YOUR Social Security reduced! If you make more than $1 million or more a year, you can have your Social Security eliminated. All those from $249,999 and under, leave them alone!
Those numbers seem a bit high. I don't know why anyone making 500,000 a year should collect social security.
How about we opt out and let you figure your own retirement out. I don't need or want SS and I don't want to pay for you
No every worker should pay into social security, whether you should receive it should at some level be means tested. If you pay in to social security your whole life and never receive it you should not complain that you didn't get your money back, but thank God (or yourself) that you were fortunate enough to make (or inherit) enough money every year from the age you reached social security eligibility until your death that you didn't need social security.
Oh, everyone who makes good money and invests wisely inherits it. Come on. I don't know what percentage of the population inherits there money but I would bet it's very small. I think I heard that 80% of the 2% who pay most of the tax actually makes between 250-500k a year. These are your entrepreneur's and small businessowners who worked there but off to get where they are. They HARDER and LONGER than most to get there. That's how I did it and I only have a poor high school education. If I can do why can't others. Oh, they do and then everyone wants a piece of the pie. Live in California and tell me how "RICH" you are 250k a year, just upper middle class is all you are.
You are right I would be willing to give my first 30 years of paying into SS, just don't makew me pay anymore and I will take care of myself.
8 years of tax breaks for the rich ended with a loss of millions of jobs ...record deficits and a failed economy ... now the GOP wants to keep that failed strategy going by forceing the elderly to work longer for less and give more tax breaks to the top 2% and corporations .. didnt america learn any thing from BUSH
@timewonttell: No.
Maybe we should do a better job educating people on prepping for retirement. Depending on Social Security as your only means of support is foolish.
Jess how do you "prep" someone for retirement when their employer is not required to help, they are only making enough money to pay the bills? There are a hell of a lot of people in this country who live pay check to pay check with no means of stashing away cash for retirement, they have been abandoned by the system and Social Security that has been withheld from every dime they ever made will be all the retirement funds available, how do you prep someone like this on how to retire without Social Security when that is all they will have? Look it was decided that employers would be allowed to pocket the money they used to invest in their employee's retirement, now you want to take away the only remaining safety net? Bull$hit Jess.
You start planning at an early age for your retirement. It's not an employer's responsibility to ensure someone's ready for retirement. There are plenty of people living paycheck to paycheck but they somehow manage to have the latest phone, the latest car, take great vacations, and don't save or invest a dime toward their retirement. While there are some true hardship cases out there, more often than not it's about choices. Even people making very modest livings can generally afford to squeeze a few bucks out of their income each month to plan for the future. Unless having a big screen TV and a weekly manicure is a priority to you. My point was-you better be planning on more than social security to have a comfortable retirement.
Jess you are right it is wise to not rely on social security for retirement. But not everyone has the ability to put money into a 401K, etc., and safe for retirement. Retirement/pension plans used to standard in many blue collar fields, for the most part they are a thing of the past. The idea that most people who don't have the means to save for retirement are wasting their money on big TV's, the latest phone, and weekly manicures is ignorant! And a "few bucks a month" won't provide funds for their retirement.
WBush-
It"s called compounded interest. If you start an IRA at 25 with 5k and put 2k a year for 40 years (age 65) you will retire with $360952.52. This is assuming a 6% return annually which is conservative. You can be more aggressive especially in the early years. Than you would have 21657 annually or 1804 a month which is equal to what SS pays on average.
Teach this to your kids and the next generation will be much better off than most of us. No government, employer necessary, just YOU and some personal sacrafice
Â
People who work for a living can't work till they are 70, the only people that could possibly work till they are 70 are senators and representatives in congress, congress is assuming people won't look at the "real" numbers involved in this scam, if I were a government official I would think long and hard about taking away what people have worked and paid for all their lives, unintended consequences could prove tragic for all involved when such misguided scheming and treachery overrule what is fair and just, the revenue to make good on the promises the country has made to it's citizens is available, cuts can and should be made elsewhere along with some paring back of the subsidies that corporate America is no longer worthy of, I would hate to see the same type of chaos in this country that is witnessed daily in other countries, but the people that think it can't happen here are sadly mistaken, if there is sufficient cause it will, and it should.Â
If it does happen here it will likely get real ugly because unlike these other populations, Americans are extremely well armed, and these very same people who propose these policies also tell us that we may have to use "second amendment remedies".
I have read all the posts and cant find MR SKIPPY today .. and i really need a good laugh
Typical Republican plan: If it's working, break it so you can eliminate it. Why is mr. graham not talking about eliminating the cap on FICA taxes. That would provide more funds than Social Security would ever need. Why we could even lower the FICA tax percentage if the cap were removed. Wonder why the Republicans haven't jumped all over that!
"Lakerman
Why is mr. graham not talking about eliminating the cap on FICA taxes."
How about this...
Social Security was designed to serve as a 'forced saving plan'. The money deducted from your pay was to be invested by the government and there for you when you reached an agreed upon (predetermined) age. SO... it was your money and would come back to you.
Unfortunately the government managed to turn Social Security into a sort of welfare plan. People that never contribute to the plan end up drawing benefits from it.
Let's ignore the fact that non-contributors are drawing benenfits and think of SS as it was originally intended, as a forced savings plan. If you take more from the rich, and social security deductions are supposed to be returned to the contributor when he/she reached retirement age... then shouldn't the rich get more back when the time comes for them to collect?
But no... that can't happen. We want them to put more in but get back the small amount that everyone else gets. So essentially they should fund what everyone else was SUPPOSED to be putting in for themselves.
How is that fair?
If you want them to contribute funds in the form a charity tax then call it that and dont try to hide what you are trying to do.
To show you how ridiculous the proposal is, does anyone think means testing at $43,000/year makes any sense. If that's the solution, then you really are saying that SSB is just for the poor and that between now and 2032, you folks in your 40's better start saving a sh*t load of money. Boy, does that crimp a consumer driven recovery. Oh, and since Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare, I wonder how much health insurance you can buy at age 70 on $45,000 in SSB, even with the $15,000 subsidy? And does anyone understand that private industry will be hard pressed to keep these senior workers under their company health plans? The insurance industry eats alive small businesses for every one of their workers who are over 50. Who is smarter here: the health insurance industry who does this for a living and recognizes the significant increased health risks for those over 50, or a bunch of guys with no "skin in the game"?
Another issue facing those over 50 is the fact no one wants to employ you, not if that employer offers insurance coverage, which would be what the over 50 worker needs. So the Republicans want you to work until you are 70 all the while knowing you can't get a decent job when you turn 50, living on cat food, sleeping in the streets and hoping you don't get sick for 20 years won't sound very good to a lot of people but the Republicans seem to think it's a hellofa good plan, may they all be blessed with the same opportunity.
Perfect job for you!Â
First off, Social Security was not intended to be the only source of income. The three legs of retirement, pension, Social Security and 4% per year from a 401K/stock option account counts as an entire retiremnt package. I would get about $1900 a month from Social Security at age 66. That's nothing to sneeze at when added to my military pension, work pension and 4% yearly from savings accounts.
100% correct but the problem becomes that so many poorer folks do not have jobs that provide pensions and do not save anything for their retirement. I know many folks just entering their 60's who never had a job with a pension and failed to save more than $30 to $50K for their retirement...now several of them are also unemployed.
Pension? Two? What about the average Joe/Jane who has no pension, or like the workers in Wisc, have to take a pay cut to "fund" their retirement? I agree that the original intent for SSB was so that we didn't have destitute old people. But the modern private employer has not kept it's end of the bargain. On the one hand, private employers want to rely on the existence of SSB to give them a "clean conscience" for the fact that they don't fund pensions for their employers, and on the other hand want to say don't tax us, our profits are for us and our shareholders, we have no societal responsibility to our workers - they're on their own.
However, Americans are notorious bad savers. Saying this, most Americans who save have about 300K to 500K maximum; very few save a million fewer over a million.
Pensions are getting attacked in the form of frozen pensions and decreased benefits, another tactic by the GOP to eliminate pensions altogether. Eliminate pensions and Social Security, 500K in a savings account will not be enough to live on especially if one has to pay more for health care during retirement. It seems the GOP only want retirement for the wealthy!
My 401(k) lost 40% in 2008/2009 due to the tanking of the economy. Let us not forget the biggest bank heist in the history of our country. So lets not talk about people being unable or unwilling to save. If I am not going to get SS or medicare then I am not paying out of my paycheck any more and I want a refund of all that I have paid into it for the last 30 years. PERIOD!!!!
Yes, but most employers do not offer pension plans now nor will they in the future. I agree people should save for retirement (I did) and that combines with my SS (as long I get it) will be fine. But I would not include pensions as part of retirement since most employers have opted out. Good for you that you got one.
My military pension is intact- my civilian got frozen a few years back-which means very little growth until I retire.
Means testing is just another Republican trick to get people to think about social security as a program for the underclass, rather than what it is, an insurance plan we pay into our entire lives with the expectation that when we are too old or too sick to work we won't be pushed to the gutter. Social security is a compact between people and their government that what we as a society desire is for older people to be able to spend their final years with dignity. What needs to happen, for 2037 and beyond, when we boomers who have paid into the program our entire working lives, stop paying into it and begin to collect from it, and it finally needs tweaking to meet the needs of those who follow us, is to raise the cap for higher earners. My employer and I pay payroll tax on ALL my income, not just part of it. Fair is fair.
Would you be willing to cap your benefits at the amount you & your employer contributed over your working lifetime?
GOP N BAGGER SS plan, work till you drop, if you get sick die! Nice.
Raise retirement age? Actually, retirement age should be lowered to 59. To be a productive American citizen should mean more than working until you keel over in order to assure that an elite few can make more money in one week than you could in a dozen lifetimes. It isn't that the programs are too expensive, free market, what the market will bear, conservative economics assure the nations wealth goes anywhere except to the nations people. Examples: Wage wars and borrow to fund them. And while waging the most expensive wars in the history of the world extend not one, but two tax cuts and borrow that too. And that was done by the same guys who always whine about leaving our grandchildren huge debts. Am I the only one that sees this?
It is a start in the debate to reform SS, needed due to the demographics of too many baby boomers coming into the system. But it seems political not to ask the wealthier baby boomers to give up some benefits beginning say around 2016. Why shld all the burden fall only on the generations behind the baby boomers? Perhaps these Senators feel they wld lose votes if they asked for some sacrifice from the "me generation"?
The GOP has been wanting to destroy Social security since the day it started. If it is means tested, it them becomes a welfare program and they will want to end that. We can solve the funding problem by raising the cap to at least $300,000. We can leave the employer match where it is now so the cost to any business will not increase. I maxed out social security the last 9 years of my working life -- got a small increase in my take-home pay around the end of October each year but -- it was no big deal.
But if you raise the tax on wealthy wage earners are you not still just charging more to the most successful folks. Why wld that be different than reducing some of their end benefits?
Same here, last 5 years I maxed out and I've often thought it should be on all my income. Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the bump in take home every year but for the system to work it needs to be funded. Good financial retirement planning always includes SS as part of your retirement income so to suddenly eliminate it or means test it would be wrong. I'm 54 not 34 so I see SS as something I will fight for and work to see it continue and not just blow it off as ill spent money.
Now the Part D prescription plan is something we need to address because only big Pharma and Insurance companies are the only ones making a killing.
Because they have a different stake in the game if they both pay in and draw something out. Also, I hate the use of the phrase "most successful folks." It implies that they have a higher moral authority than the less successful. It tends to be attached to the "it's my money, not the government's." Nobody is saying, not even Bernie Sanders, that it's not their money. Except that in an organized democratic society, the majority does have the power to decide who to tax and how much. Taxes aren't immoral, or even economically counter productive. But taxing the wrong people or taxing too much does have both adverse political and economic consequences.
This is why Michelle Bachman of all people has Ryan's program right when she calls it "Aspirational"-meaning effectively a goal to be worked for but not yet present and here and now. And you notice Bachman did not endorse it..instead she called it pioneering". Bachman is very much aware of Barry Goldwater's 1964 mistake..Besides if she doesn't make it and is redistricted in a new area with lots of seniors that now seems more likely than not-supporting Ryan could be the kiss of political death-and she don't wanna die.
She also realizes that the Iowa caucuses has lots of retirees and little old ladies who depend on it as a life line, That's why she made the point about the "55 and younger program" in the Today show interview this morning. She wants to draw thedistinction of affective younger voters-not those who always vote.
What will be interesting is what Sen Charles Grassely says about Ryan's plan, No one in the Senate has more clout with the AARP in the Senate than Grassely. It was Grassely who single Handel cracked down on prescription drug company fraud in 35 states thanks to the effort of his staff. Grassely is not happy with the TEA Party after they savaged Sen Ben net of Utah and he is suspicious of Ryan's hot shot knowingness.