Into Perpetuity. I like the sound of that!

[winetourdriver01]

[brush]

1. Voila! Not complicated at all.

[winetourdriver01]

2. Yes

An easy fix. If the Republicans would get on board (I know) it would take the issue off the table. In fact the repubs would be able to campaign on "Fixing" Social Security. Just a thought.

[Lonestarblue]

4. The Republicans' corporate donors/owners would have a major fit if the cap were completely removed.

SS is one tax they have no loopholes to avoid paying.

[Grins]

11. Been saying "REMOVE (not lift) the cap!" since Reagan.

They robbed Social Security to pay THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS of government because the Reagan administration Republicans REFUSED to RAISE TAXES to pay for it!

It's spelled out in the book “Showdown at Gucci Gulch” and in the books by David Stockman.

The general obligations of government benefit us all, but those on the upper end of the are not paying for it; lower income people bear the burden.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Anytime someone says "simple" is almost is never. Not a tax

It's more complicated than you indicate.

The SocSec deductions (payments) are explicitly NOT a tax. They are a form of enforced savings.

If you take the cap off the top incomes, then you also have to take the cap off the payouts, which is fair, since it is NOT a tax.

[republianmushroom]

3. Do it, just do it

[rsdsharp]

5. The cap is currently $160,200, but it should still be lifted.

[patphil]

12. Lift it to whatever it needs to be to make Social Security solvent for decades to come.

Perhaps $500,000, or maybe even $1,000,000.
I would need to see the math to see how much more that would bring in.
This is the most logical, and simplest solution.

[Rebl2]

21. Yep

If Democrats had the senate and house, oh wait they did and they did nothing to try to change it as far as I know. It never seems to be a priority until republicans hold the house or senate. Wonder why that is.

[Nululu]

8. Worst President except for Trump

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2023, 05:07 PM - Edit history (2)

Filing for SS at 62 after the year 2000 means you receive far less than those who retired before 2000. Thanks to Reagan's 1983 law.

Posted a quote below.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2023/02/27/social-security-full-retirement-age-increased-by-2-years-while-life-expectancy-decreased-0-4-years/

[former9thward]

9. The law that Congress passed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Got a link to support that statement? Nt

[Nululu]

18. I have trouble putting links thru my phone.

It cited a recent study on impact of Social Security cuts enacted under Reagan with the 1983 act.

[Nululu]

19. Copied a section

What this actually meant was not that the age at which people could retire and start drawing Social Security benefits changed—that remained at 62. Instead, by raising what’s called the full retirement age (FRA) by two years, the law effectively cut benefit levels across the board, regardless of the age that any particular individual began claiming Social Security benefits. The result is that those retiring at 62 today face a 50% greater penalty for retiring before the change than they would have before 2000.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Fun with statistics

Yes, the 1983 law had the effect of reducing lifetime benefits for early retirees, but it didn’t cut monthly benefits in half for 62 year olds who retired in 2000 compared to those who retired prior to 2000, which was your original claim. The total reduction of benefits would depend on a number of factors, including lifespan, which has been decreasing in the US.

Words (and numbers) matter.

I took my SS at 62, and the trade off between reduced benefits and getting to retire 3-8 years earlier was totally worth it to me, and since moving to Canada 10 years ago, my lifespan has potentially increased, further justifying my decision.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. Then just name the site you read the information. Nt

[wnylib]

20. It's true. I had to wait until age 67 to get the full amount.

I worked a year past that before retiring.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. That's not what was claimed

The poster claimed that someone taking SS at 62 after the year 2000 would get half the benefits of someone who took SS at 62 before 2000.

Original quote (before edit):

Filing for SS at 62 after the year 2000 means you receive approximately half of what people got before 2000.

That is clearly false.

It’s not even true that someone taking SS at 62 gets half the monthly benefits of someone at 67 or 70.

[wnylib]

25. It doesn't say "half" the amount. It says "far less."

It used to be possible to retire at 62 for less than the full benefits. I'm not sure how much less but I know that it was measured as a percentage. At that time, you could retire for full benefits at 65. But that was changed. There are people younger than I am who have to wait longer for full benefits.

I think it is true that if you retire at 62 now you get less than people in the past who retired at 62. I know that it's true that you only get partial benefits if you retire at 65 now. When I signed up there was a chart that showed the benefits by percentage according to age at retirement, but I don't recall now the exact percentages and ages.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Check the edits

Original quote that I responded to:

Filing for SS at 62 after the year 2000 means you receive approximately half of what people got before 2000.

Full retirement age used to be 65, but after the 1983 law, it was gradually increased to 67, and early retirement benefits were reduced as the full retirement age increased.

[wnylib]

27. OK. Thanks.

[Nululu]

28. Sorry about that. My mistake.

I did not label my edits which was also my mistake.

[former9thward]

10. In school they used to say "show your work" when doing math.

The OP should show their work.

[Evolve Dammit]

13. Why a cap in the first place? Jeebus. I smell rich Goopers..

[grantcart]

35. Because to there is a cap on benefits and SS was sold as a retirement plan

and not as a wealth redistribution plan.

The idea of a cap is fine but should be raised to 500k

[Evolve Dammit]

36. bu they still collect SS Medicare benefits. Why not make it commensurate with your wealth?

[grantcart]

38. Because there is no means testing for SS/Medicare

The people agreed to SS/Medicare as retirement income and retirement health insurance.

For the retirement income (SS) your benefit is based on contribution, not on need.

The reason that SS/Medicare is so successful is because it has broad based consensus and agreement on the basic principles.

You have the mistaken opinion that it is something else, a plan to address the inequalities of assets in the country. It was never designed or intended for that.

[Evolve Dammit]

39. Well maybe since GOP wants to kill it altogether, it's a good time to see who should qualify based

on income. Clearly millions don't need it at all. The rest of the lower, middle income families need it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. This is only partially true

It assumes the cap in maximum benefits would not be lifted.

While I agree the cap on withholding should be lifted, lifting it without some sort of increase in maximum benefits would fuel the push to privatize/dismantle SS.

Increasing the maximum benefits would defuse the outcry, but it also would likely erase the claim that SS would be solvent in perpetuity.

[Johnny2X2X]

16. This

They'd have to raise the cap for benefits too, but if they were smart they could raise it only partially in a phased manner. Say the cap is $160K now, you could raise that to $200K with full proportional benefits, but then $200-250K a smaller % increase and so on, until it's solvent.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Yes. People make a mistake thinking it is a tax. It is NOT. . . . nt

[Warpy]

17. A better way to make it solvent is to raise the minimum wage natio nationwide

to a living level (if people are careful) instead of keeping it at a starvation wage so marginal workers have to live in shelters or on the street or in their cars.

At the same time, businessmen will find their business increased well beyond the increase in wages and OASDI payments they're responsible for. No one has ever called for a roll back of the minimum wage except Republican blowhards who have never been in the position of having to pay it.

When people start to see the multiplier effect of money at the bottom, maybe we'll get more enthusiasm for a progressive tax structure to hit the wasted money at the top.

I would rather support Social Security from the bottom and benefit the many at the same time rather than try to support it at the top and making the few even more hostile to it than they are now.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. +1. Much better for multiple reasons. . . . nt

[Trailrider1951]

37. Perfect! And beautifully said. When we all do better,

we all do better. Higher wages means higher Social Security payments from everyone. $7.25 per hour these days is unconscionable with prices the way they are. No wonder some of these "joB crEAtors" cannot find the people they need. Minimum wage needs to be at least $15 per hour.

[flashman13]

29. Lets look at the big picture. if we were to tax the high income earners at a fair rate

there would be no need to borrow, thus we would no longer add to the national debt. Of course then Republicans would not have that perennial favorite to whine about.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Social Security has separate accounting from the rest of the budget

Technically it is not part of the debt, but it is a national INDEBTEDNESS paid for by investing in the good faith and credit of the USA government. As I understand it, the rest of the budget has borrowed from SocSec trust funds, but I'm not an accountant or political economist.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. OP graphic is flat out wrong. It is NOT a tax

Because it is NOT a tax, you would have to take the caps off the benefits if you take the caps off the payments in.