Just as Republicans are too fucking dumb to figure out that the raising the debt ceiling is about paying for things already done, and not about incurring new debt for new programs, they also fail to understand that Social Security is not welfare. It’s not an “entitlement.” It’s a “return on investment” made by working people throughout their working lives, to provide retirement income so we don’t have massive poverty among the elderly as was the case before 1935.
Yes indeed. The CAP should be raised. The other thing to remember is that before you get your SS payment, a Medicare amount is deducted from your gross amount. So, in effect the SS recipient is also making a payment to Medicare from SS. The reality is, the gop has wanted to gut Social Security and Medicare for as long as you state - 1935. There has been something really wrong with this cast of malfeasants for too many years to count. I think the long term goal is to impoverish more and more people so they don't have time to deal with watching out for democracy. After all, why shouldn't the stock market get all this "free money"?
The Medicare premium is also tiered to your prior years income. I had a capital gain last year that pushed me into a higher tier. I'm collecting less social security this year than last. Managing IRAs (the RMD) and inheritance can be tricky.
That being said, I remember back in the early 70s being told that social security wasn't going to be around for my retirement. That spurred my spouse & I to get into IRAs early on.
'Sanders, Warren introduce bill to increase Social Security benefits and extend solvency'
Mon, 02/13/2023 - 2:58pm --
'Vermont Business Magazine Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), along with Reps Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore) in the US House of Representatives, introduced legislation that would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure Social Security is fully funded for the next 75 years – all without raising taxes by one penny on over 93 percent of American households that make $250,000 or less.'
'These estimates reflect an analysis of the legislation conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders. The analysis was also released today in a letter(link is external) from Chief Actuary Stephen Goss.'
'Joining Sanders, Warren, Schakowsky, and Hoyle on the Social Security Expansion Act are Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as well as 25 cosponsors in the House including Reps. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Troy A. Carter (D-La.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Jesús Chuy García (D-Ill.), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (D-N.J.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).'
“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50 percent of our nation’s seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security,” said Sen. Sanders. “Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need. The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system. Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year. Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty.”
“Social Security is an economic lifeline for millions of Americans, but many seniors are struggling with rising costs,” said Sen. Warren. “As House Republicans try to use a manufactured debt ceiling crisis to cut the Social Security that Americans have earned, I’m working with Senator Sanders to expand Social Security and extend its solvency by making the wealthy pay their fair share, so everyone can retire with dignity.”
“Social Security lifts more people out of poverty than any other program in the United States. In 2021 alone, Social Security lifted over 18 million seniors out of poverty,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “Instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. I am proud to introduce the Social Security Expansion Act with Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, and Congresswoman Hoyle, to protect the national treasure that is Social Security. This bill will extend the Social Security trust fund’s solvency and expand benefits so that everyone in America can retire with the security and dignity they deserve after a lifetime of hard work.” Link to this article in Vermont Business Magazine is below.
This is important as it changes the conversation back to how to pay, not where to cut, chisel, weedle, and distract with claims of entitlement (a distraction without distinction).
Wouldnt it be entertaining to hear Repubs explanation why they wont support this? No surprises - but this question should be asked every time one of them shows up in front of a microphone!
Thanks for this TC. I try not to think too much about this as I am getting ready to retire. 67 in March but still not yet collecting SS. I'm getting all my finances in order to see how much I'll have coming in (all you mentioned combined) and just went thru a years expenses to truly get an idea of where I'm at. Living in Northern NJ is not the best area to retire in but family is still here. Every time someone mentions cutting SS, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. But, I did enjoy reading this with all of your colorful language and the laughs provided. Thank you.
If you can avoid starting to collect Social Security benefits until you're 70, it's worth the wait in the increased payout. That said, the age requirement may change in the next three years but every year you wait increases what you get when you start.
Senior citizens must make the decision based on their personal circumstances. When my younger sister was deciding to delay her social security benefits until age 70, she asked for my advice. I advised her not to delay until 70. She had already had a major stroke, was not able to work, and needed the money then, not later. She took my advice. As often happens in these situations, many seniors do not live long enough to file at 70. She made the right decision to file when she was first eligible.
Andrea, I retired as soon as I could, and haven’t regretted it for a second. I was fortunate that, as an academic, I had been contributing to an annuity fund for 35 years. Income for life. I’m by no means wealthy, but I’m secure, can pay my bills with a little bit left over, and enjoying myself far more than I would have if I were still working. In some cases, too much is made of working as long as you can. It’s not for everybody. I hope everything is going well for your sister.
Great read, TC .Agreed Warren/Sanders ++ Social Security Expansion Act is the way to save SS
And we need to keep calling out Repubs !My Freedom Caucus Rep has sent 2 identical emails stating “ no current proposals to change Social Security”. Responded back that I’ve read his Blueprint to “ Save” America.
Too funny Rescue-Not Rick Scott is doing the backward, two-step.🕺🕺
Net worth =269 million providing for his( non SS taxed ) passive income.
He’s probably pissed now that he has to pay (almost)throughout the year with his 174k Senate salary.
🤞Former US Rep( and J6 Committee member) Stephanie Murphy runs against him. This is one we can flip in Florida !
The GQP loves flogging dead horses, don’t they? I’ve heard that Social Security running out of money malarkey ever since the 60s when I was in high school and LBJ had just launched his Great Society programs. Same old tired rhetoric and same old false talking points…yawn…
I keep recommending "Invisible Hands" by Kim Phillips-Fein. she traces the bullsshit we're hearing every day back to (at least) the 1932 presidential campaign. it's amazing: same rhetoric (often in the same words) from the same players.
What really pisses me off is the claim that we should raise the retirement age because we’re all living longer. Tell that to the bricklayer, the warehouse worker, or the nurse whose body is worn out and done by age 60, if not sooner. If anything we should be lowering the age of eligibility for benefits and raising them across the board. It the idea that everyone can just keep working until they are 70 is insulting to the vast majority of workers who don’t sit behind a desk all day.
Life expectancy at birth for women in the United States dropped 0.8 years from 79.9 years in 2020 to 79.1 in 2021, while life expectancy for men dropped one full year, from 74.2 years in 2020 to 73.2 in 2021. The report shows the disparity in life expectancy between men and women grew in 2021 from 5.7 years in 2020 to 5.9 years in 2021. From 2000 to 2010, this disparity had narrowed to 4.8 years, but gradually increased from 2010 to 2019 and is now the largest gap since 1996."
And this does not even touch the MAGA base out there, blissfully unaware that the hated federal gubmint is the entity keeping many of them alive. It's like the far-right people years ago screaming to kill "Obamacare" but "you leave your cotton-picking hands off my ACA health insurance"..... They just do not know how the system works or whom it benefits. Note that the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge led by Ammon Bundy was done largely by men who were on government "disability" and getting checks every month. Maybe we could save some money there.....
I absolutely planned on working till I was 70. then it became obvious that my immediate boss was out to get me (this is NOT paranoid), which was adversely affecting my health (the school nurse told me that if I stayed, a stroke was in the cards). and then my back made driving impossible, so I had to leave at 62. and there are plenty of people like me.
when Bloomberg overhauled the NYC Board of Education and turned school principals into mini-CEOs, making real training inessential (and ultimately nonexistent), the handwriting was on the wall and a LOT of people had to split who hadn't planned on doing it that early.
"Social Security is not welfare. It’s not an “entitlement.” It’s a “return on investment” made by working people throughout their working lives, to provide retirement income so we don’t have massive poverty among the elderly as was the case before 1935." I have been explaining this to co-workers for years, people who thought Social Security was a hand out to Grandma. I would tell them to look at the box that reads, FICA on their paycheck. FICA is a U.S. federal payroll tax. It stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and is deducted from each paycheck. Your nine-digit number helps Social Security accurately record your covered wages or self- employment. As you work and pay FICA taxes, you earn credits for Social Security benefits. Your explanation should be included on every payroll direct deposit statement, in America.
Never ever trust the GOP to do anything for ordinary Americans, the folks who don't have wads of cash to contribute to the GOP campaign funds, because they have already labeled such bills as socialism. It is their refrain for everything that doesn't enrich the already rich.
Sure the cap should be raised. But it also seems far too few (even politicians) understand that FICA is NOT a tax - its simply our contribution towards OUR retirement & medical expenses during that retirement. Its being called a payroll TAX - but it not! That little fact should be cleared up somehow.
Excellent analysis, as usual..... Let the stupid SOBs kill Social Security and Medicare, and then figure out who will be the next Herbert Hoover. Repealing or eliminating Social Security would have the US in depression within two years, and disrupt the entire economy. Seniors would have to move back with their children or move to refrigerator boxes under the local bridges. Taking those billions of dollars out of the economy suddenly would result in at least a recession if not a depression, as discretionary spending by families dropped because they had to budget to support their destitute parents at home.
We'd see three, perhaps four, generations under one roof because the young have to go into a mortgage to pay for higher education and then another mortgage if they're ever able to leave home. They can't afford to have children. (We will become like Japan where the largest demographic is the elderly.)
Look for the GOP to pit the young against the old. And they will do nothing for either.
Really good one TC. Semantic quibble first, Social Security is indeed a return on investment for everyone who has paid into it during their working years and they are, in fact, "entitled" to receive the return.
Although I like Senator Warren's proposal, I'm with Mim in preferring that the cap just be eliminated while maintaining the current payout structure, and don't understand why you say it's more equitable to create a gap between the current cap and the point where payments would start again. Seems more complicated to me but I'm happy to hear reasonable arguments in favor of it.
It's "as equitable as you can get" given politics. I too would love to see the cap gone, but that won't happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Agree with you on this, Dave, but Biden would be dead monkey meat if the current cap is eliminated totally since he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. That's why continuing the payments after the $400,000 threshold makes political sense.
OK, I can live with that much better than the alternative choices for POTUS. In that case, it's time to start writing and calling to get some action early in this Congress while the Republicans are still playing clown car games.
Agree, David. I think that the "entitlement" argument is a distraction to keep us talking about the nonsense rather than the economics and, here I want to shout, the social contract our government has made with its citizens. Social Security is a social contract funded and paid for in the form of an insurance program against impovrishment for seniors, in the same way every law passed is a contract to protect, defend, help, ensure, and advance the benefits for Americans for health, opportunity, and rights as a citizen. Once established, the attention should be to how to pay for it, not how to chisel responsibility or assurances away because it now costs more than it did in 1948. That promise, that social contract, by the way, must NOT be taken away from the younger generations. They are no better off at saving or investing for their retirement than we were in our 20s, 30s, and 40s which is when most of us now with other retirement assets finally figured out how to pinch pennies and squirrel away whatever it is that we kept our employer contributing to in a pension (now long gone for most) and in our coin jars, deferred annuities, and mutual funds.
Thank you, Fred. Very well put, especially your comments on the younger generation. I'm working with one of them now (my daughter) who seems to think that Dad will be here forever to make sure she's OK.
really brilliant summary of things I usually find too "complicated."
but as soon as I see anything about a "means test," I reach for the revolver I wouldn't know how to shoot if actually had it. the reason for this is my lifelong familial commitment (eventually unsuccessful) to retaining free tuition in CUNY schools. I remember Rockefeller's own hostility to the whole system very well, and his "solution," which involved means testing. means testing turns a positive, universal benefit into something like welfare, which is inherently humiliating. I know that "entitlement" is now sort of a dirty word, but 35 years ago, when I was in Social Work School at Hunter (a CUNY school that's considered better than any one of the eight or nine in NYC, and one which didn't require me to go into hock forever), "entitlements" was sort of the "term of art," although, now that I think about it, we pretty much never dealt with SS or Medicare. that was a roundabout way of apologizing for using it to cover these universal benefits when I've discussed them in the past.
obviously, raising the cap and having it kick in for the folks making over $400,000 makes excellent sense.
I have one of my small quibbles, though. I don't think that the majority of Repugs are quite as stupid as you think they are, Tom. putting aside this new bunch of profoundly moronic scumbags who understand pretty much NOTHING, I think the major Repub talking points are an advanced (and, alas, often successful) exercise in The Higher Disingenuousness (I wanted to use "disingenuity," but deferred to Grammarly, even though I think it's an excellent coinage). I think a whole bunch of them know exactly what the deal is and want to give an even larger slice of the pie to the Wall Street types to whom they've always been in thrall. and it's also perfectly true that there are any number of Democrats in thrall to the same motherfuckers.
How right you are, there are more magpies cawing the same tune, all in concert and geared toward any number of schemes to do in the middle class. They (most) are not stupid, just self-delusional and multiplying as we post. They have had 40 years to grow their army and an army it is. It’s why there was a continuous siege during chump’s hellacious term and it has barely slowed. Most Dems just pretend that it’s politics as usual, a fatal miscalculation. Same for MSM, the final nail in the coffin. Is anybody awake (woke). Better hope…
And this from people who get taxpayer funded pensions and health care. The level of hypocrisy is breathtaking (and not entirely one-sided).
Yes indeed. The CAP should be raised. The other thing to remember is that before you get your SS payment, a Medicare amount is deducted from your gross amount. So, in effect the SS recipient is also making a payment to Medicare from SS. The reality is, the gop has wanted to gut Social Security and Medicare for as long as you state - 1935. There has been something really wrong with this cast of malfeasants for too many years to count. I think the long term goal is to impoverish more and more people so they don't have time to deal with watching out for democracy. After all, why shouldn't the stock market get all this "free money"?
The Medicare premium is also tiered to your prior years income. I had a capital gain last year that pushed me into a higher tier. I'm collecting less social security this year than last. Managing IRAs (the RMD) and inheritance can be tricky.
That being said, I remember back in the early 70s being told that social security wasn't going to be around for my retirement. That spurred my spouse & I to get into IRAs early on.
'Sanders, Warren introduce bill to increase Social Security benefits and extend solvency'
Mon, 02/13/2023 - 2:58pm --
'Vermont Business Magazine Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), along with Reps Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore) in the US House of Representatives, introduced legislation that would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure Social Security is fully funded for the next 75 years – all without raising taxes by one penny on over 93 percent of American households that make $250,000 or less.'
'These estimates reflect an analysis of the legislation conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders. The analysis was also released today in a letter(link is external) from Chief Actuary Stephen Goss.'
'Joining Sanders, Warren, Schakowsky, and Hoyle on the Social Security Expansion Act are Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as well as 25 cosponsors in the House including Reps. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Troy A. Carter (D-La.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Jesús Chuy García (D-Ill.), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (D-N.J.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).'
“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50 percent of our nation’s seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security,” said Sen. Sanders. “Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need. The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system. Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year. Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty.”
“Social Security is an economic lifeline for millions of Americans, but many seniors are struggling with rising costs,” said Sen. Warren. “As House Republicans try to use a manufactured debt ceiling crisis to cut the Social Security that Americans have earned, I’m working with Senator Sanders to expand Social Security and extend its solvency by making the wealthy pay their fair share, so everyone can retire with dignity.”
“Social Security lifts more people out of poverty than any other program in the United States. In 2021 alone, Social Security lifted over 18 million seniors out of poverty,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “Instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. I am proud to introduce the Social Security Expansion Act with Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, and Congresswoman Hoyle, to protect the national treasure that is Social Security. This bill will extend the Social Security trust fund’s solvency and expand benefits so that everyone in America can retire with the security and dignity they deserve after a lifetime of hard work.” Link to this article in Vermont Business Magazine is below.
https://vermontbiz.com/news/2023/february/13/sanders-warren-introduce-bill-increase-social-security-benefits-and-extend
This is important as it changes the conversation back to how to pay, not where to cut, chisel, weedle, and distract with claims of entitlement (a distraction without distinction).
Wouldnt it be entertaining to hear Repubs explanation why they wont support this? No surprises - but this question should be asked every time one of them shows up in front of a microphone!
thanks for quoting this stuff, Fern.
good to see you, David.
back atcha.
Thanks for this TC. I try not to think too much about this as I am getting ready to retire. 67 in March but still not yet collecting SS. I'm getting all my finances in order to see how much I'll have coming in (all you mentioned combined) and just went thru a years expenses to truly get an idea of where I'm at. Living in Northern NJ is not the best area to retire in but family is still here. Every time someone mentions cutting SS, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. But, I did enjoy reading this with all of your colorful language and the laughs provided. Thank you.
If you can avoid starting to collect Social Security benefits until you're 70, it's worth the wait in the increased payout. That said, the age requirement may change in the next three years but every year you wait increases what you get when you start.
Senior citizens must make the decision based on their personal circumstances. When my younger sister was deciding to delay her social security benefits until age 70, she asked for my advice. I advised her not to delay until 70. She had already had a major stroke, was not able to work, and needed the money then, not later. She took my advice. As often happens in these situations, many seniors do not live long enough to file at 70. She made the right decision to file when she was first eligible.
No question about it Andrea. The one caveat in every piece of advice is that one must decide for oneself because no one knows us better.
Andrea, I retired as soon as I could, and haven’t regretted it for a second. I was fortunate that, as an academic, I had been contributing to an annuity fund for 35 years. Income for life. I’m by no means wealthy, but I’m secure, can pay my bills with a little bit left over, and enjoying myself far more than I would have if I were still working. In some cases, too much is made of working as long as you can. It’s not for everybody. I hope everything is going well for your sister.
Thank you Camilla. She passed away two years later, but she was financially comfortable to the end.
❤️💔❤️
I've been waiting. Only a handful of months to go.
It's a secure feeling once you start getting it! Or will be as long as the Repugnants don't take it away.
Great read, TC .Agreed Warren/Sanders ++ Social Security Expansion Act is the way to save SS
And we need to keep calling out Repubs !My Freedom Caucus Rep has sent 2 identical emails stating “ no current proposals to change Social Security”. Responded back that I’ve read his Blueprint to “ Save” America.
Too funny Rescue-Not Rick Scott is doing the backward, two-step.🕺🕺
Net worth =269 million providing for his( non SS taxed ) passive income.
He’s probably pissed now that he has to pay (almost)throughout the year with his 174k Senate salary.
🤞Former US Rep( and J6 Committee member) Stephanie Murphy runs against him. This is one we can flip in Florida !
Remember, he committed enough Medicare fraud to get a $2 billion fine. Dear Senator Skeletor.
I used to call him Governor Voldemort. Now it’s Senator Skeletor. Unfortunately for Florida, both names fit this fraud of a man.
🗽
They do indeed.
Why isn’t his arse in Jail. Never mind, rolling in the dough.
The GQP loves flogging dead horses, don’t they? I’ve heard that Social Security running out of money malarkey ever since the 60s when I was in high school and LBJ had just launched his Great Society programs. Same old tired rhetoric and same old false talking points…yawn…
I keep recommending "Invisible Hands" by Kim Phillips-Fein. she traces the bullsshit we're hearing every day back to (at least) the 1932 presidential campaign. it's amazing: same rhetoric (often in the same words) from the same players.
Oh yeah - Some. things. Never. Change.
Same people believing it, sadly . . .
What really pisses me off is the claim that we should raise the retirement age because we’re all living longer. Tell that to the bricklayer, the warehouse worker, or the nurse whose body is worn out and done by age 60, if not sooner. If anything we should be lowering the age of eligibility for benefits and raising them across the board. It the idea that everyone can just keep working until they are 70 is insulting to the vast majority of workers who don’t sit behind a desk all day.
It appear that we're not really living longer, that life expectancy has declined in the past couple of years and not due only to Covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/202107.htm (July 2021)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220831.htm (Aug 2022)
"Other findings documented in the [2022] report:
Life expectancy at birth for women in the United States dropped 0.8 years from 79.9 years in 2020 to 79.1 in 2021, while life expectancy for men dropped one full year, from 74.2 years in 2020 to 73.2 in 2021. The report shows the disparity in life expectancy between men and women grew in 2021 from 5.7 years in 2020 to 5.9 years in 2021. From 2000 to 2010, this disparity had narrowed to 4.8 years, but gradually increased from 2010 to 2019 and is now the largest gap since 1996."
Lots of information AND a lot of laughs - thanks TC - both are needed - desparately!!
And this does not even touch the MAGA base out there, blissfully unaware that the hated federal gubmint is the entity keeping many of them alive. It's like the far-right people years ago screaming to kill "Obamacare" but "you leave your cotton-picking hands off my ACA health insurance"..... They just do not know how the system works or whom it benefits. Note that the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge led by Ammon Bundy was done largely by men who were on government "disability" and getting checks every month. Maybe we could save some money there.....
I absolutely planned on working till I was 70. then it became obvious that my immediate boss was out to get me (this is NOT paranoid), which was adversely affecting my health (the school nurse told me that if I stayed, a stroke was in the cards). and then my back made driving impossible, so I had to leave at 62. and there are plenty of people like me.
when Bloomberg overhauled the NYC Board of Education and turned school principals into mini-CEOs, making real training inessential (and ultimately nonexistent), the handwriting was on the wall and a LOT of people had to split who hadn't planned on doing it that early.
"Social Security is not welfare. It’s not an “entitlement.” It’s a “return on investment” made by working people throughout their working lives, to provide retirement income so we don’t have massive poverty among the elderly as was the case before 1935." I have been explaining this to co-workers for years, people who thought Social Security was a hand out to Grandma. I would tell them to look at the box that reads, FICA on their paycheck. FICA is a U.S. federal payroll tax. It stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and is deducted from each paycheck. Your nine-digit number helps Social Security accurately record your covered wages or self- employment. As you work and pay FICA taxes, you earn credits for Social Security benefits. Your explanation should be included on every payroll direct deposit statement, in America.
Never ever trust the GOP to do anything for ordinary Americans, the folks who don't have wads of cash to contribute to the GOP campaign funds, because they have already labeled such bills as socialism. It is their refrain for everything that doesn't enrich the already rich.
So said HST in the 40’s. Still true
Sure the cap should be raised. But it also seems far too few (even politicians) understand that FICA is NOT a tax - its simply our contribution towards OUR retirement & medical expenses during that retirement. Its being called a payroll TAX - but it not! That little fact should be cleared up somehow.
Sematics Antics.
Excellent analysis, as usual..... Let the stupid SOBs kill Social Security and Medicare, and then figure out who will be the next Herbert Hoover. Repealing or eliminating Social Security would have the US in depression within two years, and disrupt the entire economy. Seniors would have to move back with their children or move to refrigerator boxes under the local bridges. Taking those billions of dollars out of the economy suddenly would result in at least a recession if not a depression, as discretionary spending by families dropped because they had to budget to support their destitute parents at home.
We'd see three, perhaps four, generations under one roof because the young have to go into a mortgage to pay for higher education and then another mortgage if they're ever able to leave home. They can't afford to have children. (We will become like Japan where the largest demographic is the elderly.)
Look for the GOP to pit the young against the old. And they will do nothing for either.
Really good one TC. Semantic quibble first, Social Security is indeed a return on investment for everyone who has paid into it during their working years and they are, in fact, "entitled" to receive the return.
Although I like Senator Warren's proposal, I'm with Mim in preferring that the cap just be eliminated while maintaining the current payout structure, and don't understand why you say it's more equitable to create a gap between the current cap and the point where payments would start again. Seems more complicated to me but I'm happy to hear reasonable arguments in favor of it.
It's "as equitable as you can get" given politics. I too would love to see the cap gone, but that won't happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Since the politics are unavoidable, I'll take what I can get.
Smart man.
Years of practice.
Agree with you on this, Dave, but Biden would be dead monkey meat if the current cap is eliminated totally since he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. That's why continuing the payments after the $400,000 threshold makes political sense.
OK, I can live with that much better than the alternative choices for POTUS. In that case, it's time to start writing and calling to get some action early in this Congress while the Republicans are still playing clown car games.
Agree, David. I think that the "entitlement" argument is a distraction to keep us talking about the nonsense rather than the economics and, here I want to shout, the social contract our government has made with its citizens. Social Security is a social contract funded and paid for in the form of an insurance program against impovrishment for seniors, in the same way every law passed is a contract to protect, defend, help, ensure, and advance the benefits for Americans for health, opportunity, and rights as a citizen. Once established, the attention should be to how to pay for it, not how to chisel responsibility or assurances away because it now costs more than it did in 1948. That promise, that social contract, by the way, must NOT be taken away from the younger generations. They are no better off at saving or investing for their retirement than we were in our 20s, 30s, and 40s which is when most of us now with other retirement assets finally figured out how to pinch pennies and squirrel away whatever it is that we kept our employer contributing to in a pension (now long gone for most) and in our coin jars, deferred annuities, and mutual funds.
Thank you, Fred. Very well put, especially your comments on the younger generation. I'm working with one of them now (my daughter) who seems to think that Dad will be here forever to make sure she's OK.
really brilliant summary of things I usually find too "complicated."
but as soon as I see anything about a "means test," I reach for the revolver I wouldn't know how to shoot if actually had it. the reason for this is my lifelong familial commitment (eventually unsuccessful) to retaining free tuition in CUNY schools. I remember Rockefeller's own hostility to the whole system very well, and his "solution," which involved means testing. means testing turns a positive, universal benefit into something like welfare, which is inherently humiliating. I know that "entitlement" is now sort of a dirty word, but 35 years ago, when I was in Social Work School at Hunter (a CUNY school that's considered better than any one of the eight or nine in NYC, and one which didn't require me to go into hock forever), "entitlements" was sort of the "term of art," although, now that I think about it, we pretty much never dealt with SS or Medicare. that was a roundabout way of apologizing for using it to cover these universal benefits when I've discussed them in the past.
obviously, raising the cap and having it kick in for the folks making over $400,000 makes excellent sense.
I have one of my small quibbles, though. I don't think that the majority of Repugs are quite as stupid as you think they are, Tom. putting aside this new bunch of profoundly moronic scumbags who understand pretty much NOTHING, I think the major Repub talking points are an advanced (and, alas, often successful) exercise in The Higher Disingenuousness (I wanted to use "disingenuity," but deferred to Grammarly, even though I think it's an excellent coinage). I think a whole bunch of them know exactly what the deal is and want to give an even larger slice of the pie to the Wall Street types to whom they've always been in thrall. and it's also perfectly true that there are any number of Democrats in thrall to the same motherfuckers.
How right you are, there are more magpies cawing the same tune, all in concert and geared toward any number of schemes to do in the middle class. They (most) are not stupid, just self-delusional and multiplying as we post. They have had 40 years to grow their army and an army it is. It’s why there was a continuous siege during chump’s hellacious term and it has barely slowed. Most Dems just pretend that it’s politics as usual, a fatal miscalculation. Same for MSM, the final nail in the coffin. Is anybody awake (woke). Better hope…
Keep the people uneducated and misinformed by Faux News and they will
vote against their own benefits.
Plus the freaking electoral colleges.
And the gerrymandering.
And two senators per state,
California: population 40 millions: 2 senators
Kentucky: population 4.5 millions: 2 senators
yup, Republicans always foam at the mouth about how victimized they are? plueezzz!
The irony of our so called democracy and this imperfect union
Pass the wine...