There is another solution, given that we are putting more and more money into healthcare, and yes life expectancy is going up I believe, we start raising the age for social security. And, no I do not need it myself, and I am at 60 already.
will need/want Soc.Sec./Medicare at some point in their lives.....actually, I hope any and all you fucking Repubs here DO LOSE Soc.Sec./Medicare $$ - you’ll get what you wished for (fucking Repubs in Congress and a Repub president, and hence lost “entitlements. Maybe you’ll get a voucher for a few $$$!
Analyst Reports
Search News
Search
Back to News Overview
UPDATE: The next Republican targets: Social Security and Medicare
Today 3:19 PM ET (MarketWatch)
By Paul Brandus, MarketWatch
Trimming entitlements is a longtime policy goal
Republicans haven't cared about deficits and the debt for years. When he was vice president, Dick Cheney famously said deficits didn't matter, and for all the criticism about the debt soaring on President Obama's watch, it's important to remember that (1.) Congress, not the president, controls the purse strings, and (2.) Republicans controlled Congress for the last six of Obama's eight years in office. Their hands are stained in red ink just as much as, if not more than, his.
The tax deal that's about to land on President Trump's desk is more of the same: another $1 trillion, probably more, for our kids and grandkids to pay off.
But the GOP's spendthrift ways are about to change, and the target for their soon-to-be frugality will be your Social Security and Medicare.
Don't take my word for it. Just ask House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been salivating at the prospect of whacking entitlements for years. "I think it's important that you do comprehensive health-care entitlement reform, other kinds of entitlement reform," he said back in 2011 (https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/ryan-takes-aim-medicare-medicaid-049352). Nothing was done about it, he claimed, because of then--President Obama. He made a vow: "We plan to step in the breach and provide that kind of leadership by showing the country how we would do things different."
But isn't there another president now, Donald Trump, who also promises to preserve entitlements? "I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid," he tweeted in 2015.
(https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/596338364187602944)
And Trump can be trusted, right? Look no further than the tax deal that's nearing completion in Congress for the answer to that one. If you earn less than $75,000, your federal tax bill will go higher over the long run--after a short-term, upfront and minor tax cut. It's this short-term cut that Trump sold--as part of his larger plan. Trump also claimed that he won't benefit at all from tax reform--even though his own kids will get a huge new break on the estate tax (the House plan would ditch it entirely by 2024). The plan also offers, among other things, tax breaks for owners of golf resorts and private jets (gosh, who might benefit from all that? I'm drawing a blank).
When Trump says he won't allow entitlements to be cut, well, judge for yourself whether he's truthful.
Read:This is who gets the biggest tax cuts under the Senate's bill (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-who-gets-the-biggest-tax-cuts-under-the-senates-bill-2017-12-04)
So that's where we are. What happens next?
I've written before about how Social Security can be preserved (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/warning-social-security-faces-a-23-cut-2017-11-27). The three big ways are (1.) raising the retirement age, (2.) raising payroll taxes and (3.) raising--or eliminating--the cap on taxable wages. The first is a de facto benefit cut because it delays payments; Options 2 and 3 are outright tax hikes. All three mean pain for voters, so Trump, Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must calculate politically how much they can inflict.
As for Medicare, cuts are looming, thanks to the Senate and House tax-overhaul bills. Here's where it gets a bit complicated. Back in 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the "Pay-As-You-Go Act" (or "Paygo"), which automatically cuts spending if deficits reach a certain threshold. The worry is that since both the Senate and House tax bills jack up that deficit, federal spending cuts could begin as early as next year. (Social Security is exempt from Paygo.) Estimates vary, but there's no question we're talking billions in Medicare cuts, perhaps tens of billions. Both Ryan and McConnell vowed last week to prevent these cuts, saying there are legislative gimmicks (my word, not theirs) they can deploy if necessary. But again, Republicans like Ryan have made no secret of their long-term desire to trim entitlements.
The window for these Scrooges to act is now. A solid economy--and that's what we have today--is the perfect distraction; people have jobs, wages are rising, consumer confidence is high. It's easier to ask voters to give something up when they're doing well--and that's if they're even paying attention. Such cuts could be packaged and sold as common-sense reform to preserve these important programs for the long term. This isn't unreasonable, by the way, given that entitlement spending is galloping along at growth rates that exceed that of the economy itself. Such a pace is unsustainable.
But 2018 is also a big election year. Trump is weak in the polls; recent Democratic sweeps in Virginia and New Jersey give them hope that they can deal Republicans a setback. Some analysts even think the Democrats can retake the House itself, ending Ryan's dreams. Entitlement cuts will unquestionably be an issue--Democrats will make sure of this.
If Republicans want to move on Social Security, Medicare (and Medicaid), they've got a year to do so; after that, all bets are off.
-Paul Brandus; 415-439-6400; [email protected]
RELATED: When less Social Security is more (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-less-social-security-is-more-2017-12-05)
and no it didn't have anything to do with Carter, POS POTUS that he was. It's just that I already knew the math didn't add up, even way back then.
Quite frankly I am rather surprised the system didn't collapse long ago. BTW the last time someone tried to have a serious talk about fixing SS, it was GW Bush way back before the bubble burst and he was literally laughed off the stage.
Since I have already resigned myself to never getting a penny of the money I have put in, I am all for both "means testing" and or raising the retirement age. I predicted "moving goal posts" way back when I realized I was one of the last of the baby boomers, there simply aren't enough new "suckers" replacing the ones who are supposed to die before draining the system, but the longer we live, the less kids we have, the worse shape these entitlement programs end up, just like all Ponzi schemes.
Let me ask you, which do you favor? Do you think its less unfair for those of us who paid into the system for a lifetime to accept the fact our money is gone? Or do you think it's even less fair to saddle the young people of today with Trillions of dollars of unfunded obligations to pay to keep us old fuckers alive until we finally start dying off in our nineties? It's one thing to pay into a system for forty years and then draw from it for ten, it's quite another to pay into it for forty years and then draw from it for thirty plus years before croaking. Math isn't "mean" math is just math.
You do not want the government, "The Left", "The Right", or anybody for that matter, to look at your non-SSA income and making arbitrary decisions on you making too much. A lot of people make really bad decisions in life, especially financial. My compassionate meter only goes so far, but "means testing' is just theft. Plus you are going to give politicians the ability to determine which current income or how much current income will be used in their criteria. The Obama Administration did a version of that in determining subsidies for ACA. If your income was just $1 over a certain threshold, your premium was not only the "FULL" rate, but a rate that has doubled since 2014.
SSA is already a progressive tax system. Maybe, just maybe I would agree on raising the yearly cap, but I do not want the cap completely removed. SSA was devised as just one component of someone's retirement plan. And as I write that last sentence, I realize the Federal Govt and the State of California devised a MY IRA program. The so called 2nd leg of a retirement plan. I don't think they were a smashing success.
for the next hundred years.....the sad truth is that 1/3 of people have no savings and live totally on Soc.Sec.
There’s a simple fix to funding Soc.Sec./Medicare: Don’t cap Soc.Sec. tax at $127K. Raise it to $200K or more. (Hillary suggested,I think, that no tax on between $127K and $200K and then tax on 200K+
Why not just let SS be the "safety net" it was sold as?
Those people that need SS should receive it. Not even a heartless righty like myself want to see old people thrown out in the street after a lifetime of hard work. But why should I be on the hook for millions more dollars in "contributions" just to allow people who are already comfortable receive SS on top of their other savings/investments/pensions?
Is it really fair for a self employed person who busts his ass to make lets say a million dollars a year to have to pay $150,000 dollars into SS just to augment the income of people who are already retired comfortably?
Someone is going to get screwed, why is your knee jerk reaction ALWAYS to tax the rich people? Why not just not allow rich people to draw from the system? I don't mind giving up my SS as long as I am not in need of it, but with the caveat that if I do go broke someday that I will be able to draw from the system just like any other poor person, but ONLY if I am in need of it.
Why should someone making millions a year only pay SS taxes on the first $127K or so? It's all about the ability to pay.
There is another solution, given that we are putting more and more money into healthcare, and yes life expectancy is going up I believe, we start raising the age for social security. And, no I do not need it myself, and I am at 60 already.
Or not letting rich people collect Soc.Sec. is essentially the same thing. The problem with your solution is that “rich” comes and goes. I doubt that you or hardly anyone is/was rich at age 25 or 30 - unless you’re related to Trump etc. So, I guess you’re saying pay into Soc.Sec. When your young and not rich, and stop paying into Soc>Sec. when you’re making a lotta money, and, if your biz fails and you start making not a lot of money, then, start paying intoSoc.Sec again. And, when you get to age 65ish then start collecting what’s fair
Good-Luck with this whacky proposal!
but just in case you really are that dumb, let me say it again.
Taxing the rich without limits is hardly the same as not allowing them to draw from the system. EVERYONE who has earned income pays into the system, regardless of age or how "rich" they are, Only an idiot would claim otherwise, and you are not an idiot, are you?
Lets suppose you are a successful, self employed doctor, lawyer, or even plumber and by hard work and good decision making you make a million dollars a year, do you really believe it's fair that on top of all the others taxes you pay that you should be slapped with another $150,000 a year just in fucking payroll taxes. That's not social security, that's socialism
What I propose is that everyone who has earned income continues to pay into the system at generally the same rate as they pay today, but that only the people who actually need SS are allowed to draw from the pool. If a person is still making several hundred thousand a year at any age, they certainly don't need an extra few grand a month from SS to make ends meet. They are still getting screwed, but not as badly as making other people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year into the system to support this Ponzi scheme we call SS.
(Your arithmetic in your last paragraph stinks....bad....real-bad. Unless you don’t make multi-millions you don’t pay “hundreds of thousand s of dollars per year into SS.” SS percentage is ~8% (15% if you’re self-employed). With no cap - the cap is ~$125K now - you would hafta make $2 million per year self-employeed to pay $300K or make $3 million per year as an ee to pay $240K. Those “making several hundred $K per year ain’t paying ‘hundreds of $thousands to SS.” What’s your physical address Gambler? - I wanna send you a calculator)
Seems to me, you’d hafta means test by totaling everyones’ lifetime earnings if you wanna DQ someone from collecting SS - you can’t means test based on the last 5 years or 10 years.
Not having rich people collect Soc.Sec. Is essentially the same as taxing rich people above the cap and letting them collect Soc.Sec.
I prefer the latter because there are degrees of rich, meaning, a person making $1-2-3 million or more per year should pay more into SS than someone making $500K per year seems to me. There’s no cap on federal tax - why should there be cap on SS??
Yeah, it’s a Ponzi scheme.....due to the glut of baby boomers due to WWII and due to raiding $2.6 trillion - that’s trillion with a “T”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/#52e8c3004947
Steal from the payroll tax paying public and give it to the rich.
What I don't understand is, Social Security and Medicare is not a handout, it is paid by the workers all through their working life. How is this not theft?