GOP proposes details of disastrous Social Security Reform - Massive cuts etc

[Shadows]

Raise the normal retirement age for workers attaining age 62 in 2023, gradually increasing it from the current age of 67 to age 69 for workers attaining age 62 in 2030.

a $2 trillion decrease in revenue to the system by eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits of affluent retirees, and
a $13.9 trillion decrease in the total value of benefits paid, primarily due to changing the benefit formula, reining in cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for retirees and increasing the normal retirement age (the age at which people can begin drawing their full Social Security benefits) for workers attaining age 62 in 2023 or later.

Why on earth would you give a 2T$ cut in revenue & taxes going to Social Security if you worried about solvency? You think Social Security has a deficit & you address that by further cutting taxes & gutting the amount coming in?

Go through the details - The cuts on the long terms are massive. Republicans get more older voters - People have to work till 69 instead of 65 to get Social Security & the benefits have huge cuts.

If the Dems have any balls & some brains, they should go with this issue, filibuster it & campaign in every god damn state & specifically link it to Trump turning his back of a campaign promise & specifically for Senators & House people coming up for elections in 2018!

[Dr. Arch]

What. the. HELL!? I am not waiting until 69 to retire, holy sh**t. I won't be able to enjoy my life, and all to give a tax cut to the wealthy, YET AGAIN.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

the Democrats should propose a general strike. Paul Ryan is a smiling psycho who must be stopped.

[RI]

I'm extremely skeptical that this goes anywhere.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The GOP will never be able to do this to social security. The next Democratic President will have to. Medicare cuts are a joke though. If that goes through, we will never have Republicans in control of government ever again. If either is accompanied with tax cuts, that's it.

What. the. HELL!? I am not waiting until 69 to retire, holy sh**t. I won't be able to enjoy my life, and all to give a tax cut to the wealthy, YET AGAIN.

If you are dependent on social security to retire, you probably shouldn't be retiring anyway at that age.

[muon2]

I think some age changes would make sense to bring social security more in line with ERISA that governs other retirement plans. A typical IRA provides a window from a minimum age of 59 1/2 to begin collecting income to a maximum age of 70 1/2 to reach an end of deposits and mandatory withdrawal. I don't see a problem with moving to a social security early retirement age of 59 1/2 while moving the maximum with full benefits to 70 1/2. It would allow workers with both social security and an IRA to better plan for their retirement since both pieces would be working on the same schedule.

[Santander]

Social Security needs to be quasi-abolished and replaced with mandatory private savings. The problem with Social Security is not that the government is evil or corrupt, but that the government does not have the freedom to do what is best for the people. Any pension fund that is only allowed to invest in Treasury securities is doomed to mediocrity and failure. Other countries invest their public pensions in the market, but there are many reasons why that is a bad idea in the US. I'm not opposed to a payroll "tax" on businesses and individuals as part of the social contract, but we need to make sure this money actually helps secure Americans' retirements, instead of going into a program that has no chance of long-term success. For people with long-term disabilities or who face extreme financial hardship, we can find a way to take care of them without trapping everyone into a failed system.

[RINO Tom]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

[dead0man]

I don't know about the dollar numbers, but I have to agree with two of the last three previous GOPers that the age cut offs can certainly be altered upwards a bit.


(that said, the worst thing about turning 40 was realizing how many years left I have to work before I can retire.)

[Shadows]

So firstly this also proposes massive benefit cuts, people will be getting a lot less money while affluent people get tax cuts. The age criteria has no logical justification or calculation. 69 is downright steep. I also don't understand why they make the middle class suffer & give tax breaks to billionaires. Someone with 3M pays says a lot less as a % of income than say someone with 250K$

If you have read basic macroeconomics you will understand why a flat tax is disastrous - How a progressive tax shields the economy from over-heating, how it prevents from a collapse (in the US the consumption function of GDP has rarely fallen despite so many recessions, GDP = C + I + G + NX). This is not even a flat tax, you pay less as % of income the more you earn, a decreasing tax. This will be terrible for the economy in general. Lift the cap, make the billionaires pay same % of income as ordinary people - You could even expand Social Security...

How can people in good faith support these crooks? I understand you are concerned about solvency, but then why would you slash the revenue further - You don't cut taxes when you are not raising enough money & are cutting benefits.

This is just flat out violation of Trump's proposal to fully protect Social Security, he said he will not touch it when Rubio offered to raise the Retirement age - He was the only Republican to flat out say he will not touch Social Security!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I guess not understanding "basic macroeconomics" is something you have in common with the Republican Party after all.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Reduce Revenue? That doesn't make a program solvent. Some people clearly need to get their head out of the clouds.

[Comrade Funk]

America is overworked and over-stressed as it is.

[Dr. Arch]

The GOP will never be able to do this to social security. The next Democratic President will have to. Medicare cuts are a joke though. If that goes through, we will never have Republicans in control of government ever again. If either is accompanied with tax cuts, that's it.

What. the. HELL!? I am not waiting until 69 to retire, holy sh**t. I won't be able to enjoy my life, and all to give a tax cut to the wealthy, YET AGAIN.

If you are dependent on social security to retire, you probably shouldn't be retiring anyway at that age.

I am sure I won't be, but you never know what'll happen from here to then. I don't want to pay into SS for 50 years just to be able to start benefiting from it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, I believe the surtax that rich retirees pay on Social Security goes into the general fund along with all other income tax, so while repealing it would hurt government finances, it wouldn't hurt the Social Security trust fund.

Second, from a young age I assumed I wouldn't be getting Social Security until I was 70, so full Social Security starting at 68 and a fraction is actually better than I expected when I was young.

[pbrower2a]

Social Security needs to be quasi-abolished and replaced with mandatory private savings. The problem with Social Security is not that the government is evil or corrupt, but that the government does not have the freedom to do what is best for the people. Any pension fund that is only allowed to invest in Treasury securities is doomed to mediocrity and failure. Other countries invest their public pensions in the market, but there are many reasons why that is a bad idea in the US. I'm not opposed to a payroll "tax" on businesses and individuals as part of the social contract, but we need to make sure this money actually helps secure Americans' retirements, instead of going into a program that has no chance of long-term success. For people with long-term disabilities or who face extreme financial hardship, we can find a way to take care of them without trapping everyone into a failed system.

Social Security has a better pay-out than private savings when one considers SSDI.

Banks and insurance companies are bloated bureaucracies.

...Would you rather that the Social Security fund had invested in real estate in the Double-Zero Decade? Social Security, by ensuring that elderly people could live on what they got, may have mitigated the ensuing crash.

Mandatory savings are a form of tax. 

[Shadows]

I guess not understanding "basic macroeconomics" is something you have in common with the Republican Party after all.

You are not qualified or intelligent enough to question my understanding of macro-economics. But since you did, I would like a good rebuttal with strong points from a macro-economic point of view!

[Shadows]

The funny bit is that close to half of the families have no retirement account savings. And the median savings is 5000$ (while average is 60,000$) - Huge deviation showing absurdly low savings with some while huge savings with all - Incredibly income inequality!

[Santander]

I guess not understanding "basic macroeconomics" is something you have in common with the Republican Party after all.

You are not qualified or intelligent enough to question my understanding of macro-economics. But since you did, I would like a good rebuttal with strong points from a macro-economic point of view!

Rather rich coming from you.

...Would you rather that the Social Security fund had invested in real estate in the Double-Zero Decade? Social Security, by ensuring that elderly people could live on what they got, may have mitigated the ensuing crash.

Mandatory savings are a form of tax.  

I said that there were many reasons the government should not invest the SS Trust fund, and even if it did, alternative assets are the last place they should invest. Mandatory savings are not taxes. Taxes go towards the general good, whereas mandatory savings are for the direct benefit of the individual. I consider even mandatory savings to be an undesirable infringement of individual liberty, but privately-owned savings would at least be a step in the right direction compared to the status quo.

[Hermit For Peace]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

I just read where our life expectancy is going down. If it keeps going down then retirement age ought to decrease as well.

[dead0man]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

I just read where our life expectancy is going down. If it keeps going down then retirement age ought to decrease as well.

perhaps over weight baby boomers dying 10 years before their time are keeping the averages low?  We got a whole mess of fat geriatrics who smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years before quitting 20 years ago (nevermind the asbestos brake pads, lead paint, lead petrol, factory work, etc).  It will self correct as the herd thins.

[Sbane]

I'm extremely skeptical that this goes anywhere.

But if it does go anywhere, we can all stop wondering what the Democrats will be running on in 2018 and 2020. Unless the Democrats go along with this for some reason. After all, that party has show itself to be clueless.

I more or less support this, but don't agree with the tax cuts. If anything, they should increase the cap on the payroll tax, along with more modest increases in retirement age/benefits. It really isn't fair to the middle class (even though I benefited from it on the margins this year). If they pass this along with tax cuts for the rich...the GOP is stupider than I thought.

[RI]

I'm extremely skeptical that this goes anywhere.

But if it does go anywhere, we can all stop wondering what the Democrats will be running on in 2018 and 2020.

Well yes, this would be political suicide for the GOP. It really shouldn't be that difficult for them to put together a popular, populist reform package, but perhaps they're just too disconnected from reality to understand what's actually popular. Given that Trump's much better at getting the pulse of the country than most Republicans, I have some hope that he wouldn't go along with this type of thing.

[Hermit For Peace]

Here's another problem: people don't want to hire older workers and that's a fact. I went through it.

If you lose your job for whatever reason and you are 55, 60, etc. then employers just do not want to hire you. So increasing the retirement age will probably cause another problem: high unemployment rate. The govt will end up giving the money out one way or another.

[The_Doctor]

The average age of the retiree in 1933 was like 60-65. Obviously there's additional stresses placed on the system and that requires a raising of the retirement age ... mostly because people are dying at 85 now. Not the most illogical thing to do to raise the retirement age.

That said, the payroll cap should be lifted to finance the system in conjunction with the retirement age being raised. Excess funds could also be rolled over to make Medicare sustainable too.