Biden's platform calls for big changes to Social Security.

[left-of-center2012]

Biden’s Social Security platform includes key benefit increases. Eligible workers would get a guaranteed minimum benefit equal to at least 125% of the federal poverty level. People who have received benefits for at least 20 years would get a 5% bump. Widows and widowers could receive about 20% more per month.

Biden also proposes changing the measurement for annual cost-of-living increases to the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E, which could more closely track the expenses retirees face.

To pay for the changes and extend the program’s solvency, Biden would apply Social Security payroll taxes to those making $400,000 and up. In 2020, only wages up to $137,700 are subject to those levies.

Other Democrats have proposals that similarly expand benefits and raise taxes without implementing cuts.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/12/bidens-platform-calls-for-big-changes-to-social-security.html?recirc=taboolainternal

[regnaD kciN]

1. These are great proposals...

...but, unless we win the Senate, and probably get Manchin, Feinstein, and any other moderates to agree to abolish the filibuster, none of them will see the light of day.

[Staph]

2. I don't think Manchin will have any problem with that proposal.

West Virginia's aging population will strongly approve.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Manchin has already said he would not support killing the fillibuster...

[Lasher]

14. This being the case, McConnell will block everything including this SS legislation.

But there will be a huge advantage if we win the 2 GA runoffs to gain a Senate majority: Yertle would no longer decide what is brought before the Senate. That would be our call.

[karynnj]

27. If something like this is included in the budget, it only needs 50 votes

This is pasted under reconciliation.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. A Politically Shrewd Move

Make dems the protector of SocSec, and turns resistance into a 3rd rail.
That's aside from the facts that it's economically sound & it's the right thing to do.

[CousinIT]

4. I LOVE these plans. All the more reason to help Ossoff and Warnock win.

We MUST have the Senate and retain the senate (I'd like to see Dem control for a decade) to get anywhere with anything.

[yellowdogintexas]

34. FWIW, I have been making phone calls to Georgia this week.

Yes I get a lot of wrong numbers, answering machines, & no answers but when I do get a live person, the enthusiasm just leaps all the way up to Texas from Georgia. These folks are fired up down there...everyone is voting and taking the whole family - I had two ask me if a person could register and vote even if they did not vote in Nov.

I do not know what other volunteers are doing but when I thank them for voting I tell them that getting these two into the Senate is the most important thing we do to ensure this administration is successful.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. "20 years would get a 5% bump"

I don't quite understand this part. So, for the majority, if you are 82 you would give a 5% bump? Since most start drawing when they are 62, is that what is meant?

[Tommymac]

16. SS benefits also go to widows/widowers and those with some medical conditions

Not just retirees receive benefits.

[Traildogbob]

26. What about

Those that have been on SS for up to 10 years or 10-19 years? I am at 18 years and COL has been pennies each year. But, most importantly, just leave what I get alone, I live cheap, I will survive as long as no GOP cuts come. At least Biden will not cut us off at the knees. To me, that is great.

[karynnj]

29. Yes

The amount you get is based on the amount you earned when you worked. Someone who is 85 and lasted worked 20 years ago would have earned less in years used to compute average earnings.

[Captain Zero]

38. I'm not sure most people draw it at 62

That's the earliest. Most draw at 65 and beyond. I took it to mean after a person had drawn for 20 years they would get a boost. Maybe that's what you meant too.

[Ferrets are Cool]

44. I actually did the research

Surprisingly 48% start drawing at 62, as did I. I was quite surprised the number was that high.

[Doremus]

54. I'm surprised that many people either don't work anymore

or don't mind handing over half their earnings to Uncle Sam if they take early SS.

I'm holding out until full retirement age (next year). I can earn as much or little as I want without penalty.

[Ferrets are Cool]

55. For many of us, it makes sense to retire early AND keep working.

Especially if you are not a big earner.

[Doremus]

56. I did the math and it'll only take me 4 years to catch up.

Every month I live past 70 will be an extra $400 in my pocket that I wouldn't have had if I went out at 62. Plus no handing over half my paycheck for 4 years. Win-win.

[Ferrets are Cool]

57. Okay

[catrose]

58. So many people's bodies wear out by age 62, if their jobs require physical labor

It seems to me that the people wanting to raise the retirement age have desk jobs.

Others don't bet on their surviving to age 70 and want some retirement years, if they can afford them.

[Ferrets are Cool]

59. +1

[Xipe Totec]

6. I'll pay my share

Since I'm above the current $137,700 cap, it means I'll pay more...

GLADLY!

[groundloop]

35. I was able to get above the cutoff a couple of times, and certainly could have afforded to pay

I was able to get above the cutoff a couple of times in the past (with a shit-ton of hours working as a contract engineer - the cutoff was lower then also) and it wouldn't have hurt me one iota to keep paying the small amount that went to SS.

HOWEVER, the way I read this proposal is that the tax would cut off at the threshold and then come back only for pay that is over and above $400K.

[Captain Zero]

39. I think it means there are putting a hole in the cap.

From 137 to 400 no fica tax increase, but at 400k the tax starts up again. I have proposed a hole like this in it forever, but on the higher incomes it HAS to start up again. It should even make the program solvent in perpetuity which removes it from being a political football.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Great policy proposals

We need to overcome Senate resistance. Some Dems will view this as too much spending. But give us a few election cycles. While it appears at present Republicans did pretty well in the election, take Trump off the ballot, expose his angry base on conservative media, let a couple dozen of them do some hard time, and grow the economy - which it will, post-pandemic - and the country will continue its march to social and economic justice. But the power hungry must be defeated.

[Cha]

8. & the Orange Fuckhead Wants to Do

Away with our SS.

TY PE Biden!

[Wounded Bear]

10. Sounds like a pretty rational plan to bolster the program...

and such, won't get anywhere in a Repub Senate.

Go Georgia!

[Hulk]

11. Why there is a cap on earnings above $137,700 is beyond me...

If you are pulling in more than $137,700....you can afford an increase in taxes; especially if you are making over $400,000. Give me a break!

[dhol82]

13. I still remember my first job back in 1964.

I was making $60/wk. I was a general flunky and doing some bookkeeping. I remember being really pissed when I saw that I, making a whole $3,120/yr, had to keep paying SS for the whole year while one of the other guys, making $40,000/yr only had to pay SS up to May.
Didn’t understand it then, don’t understand it now.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. The thing with that is that

there is a maximum monthly amount that someone collecting SS would be eligible for, no matter how much their wages were. So even if you make a couple million or billion a year, you'll only get (for 2020 I believe) $3,895 per month if you retire and collect at age 70 or $3,113 if you retire/collect at age 67 (which I believe is the new age now), and some lesser amount in the age 62 (minimum eligibility age) to 67 range.

I.e., that max amount that is paid out would be for anyone who makes ~137K and up. So that's why they do that payroll tax cutoff because paying more payroll tax will not lead to any higher monthly benefit for those with that higher salary. Most (although not all) who are wealthy don't even bother applying for SS when eligible.

[dhol82]

20. Ok. And, so?

Everyone kicks into the kitty. Everyone can get a share when they retire. Why should there be a cutoff? The rich can afford to contribute more.
Make it a progressive payout. You make twenty million/yr and only get $40,000? Tough.

[RicROC]

24. remove the cap...

increase the benefits and there's still money coming in. so, decrease the % taken from the workers. Everybody gets something

[BumRushDaShow]

40. I don't disagree

Just noting what they are doing and the supposed reasoning.

I agree they should raise the cap and even add an additional x% (say in increasing increments of 0.01%) as a surcharge for salaries above the cap.

[KentuckyWoman]

21. The vast majority of (single or widowed) seniors are paid between $850 and $1300

I paid in for 52 years. My husband paid in for 58 years. My current monthly deposit after medicare deductions is $1296. I claim on his since it is about $120 more a month.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. My mother was a widow who got it for herself and us

when my dad (who was a federal worker who had paid into it before his federal career) died on the job, almost 50 years ago. My mom had enough quarters to get it under her own work history but my dad's amount was higher so she had been advised to get that (like in your case - this is where we see that damn gender pay gap) - along with his survivor's annuity. As kids, we had been eligible to get it and did so up to age 21 as college students, but eventually during the mid-'80s, Raygun forced that benefit to be cut off for any (survivor) children at age 16.

As a federal retiree myself who is in CSRS-Offset, I'll be applying for it in a couple years, which will supplement my annuity.

[marble falls]

48. My dad and I had a go around on this years ago. My folks had done very well and retired ...

... at 50, at 65 they started taking SS. By this time they were actually spending 200 or so days a year on cruises. At dinner one Christmas I happened to say that SS really wasn't designed for subsidizing cruises. My normally even tempered dad kinda popped his cork, saying he paid into it, he deserved it back. I said that the program was called Social Security Insurance and it was meant to keep him from dying in an SRO on skid row and eating dog food. And that his first year on SS had probably paid more than he put into it during his whole working career, at any rate.

I think SS should be needs tested, at least for retirement incomes over some high enough sum, say $200,000.

They cruised enough to be in two front page articles on cruising with photographs on USA today. Over thirty years they became most traveled passengers on two lines and even had 100+ days on several of specific ships with Carnival on Princess as well as holding significant stock in the company holding both lines.

SS, they just did not need.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. I think the "means testing"

is sortof being done via that cap and I expect if they do lift or even get rid of it, there would probably need to be some kind of means-testing to take into account any supplemental income (from other sources like stocks, dividends, etc).

[marble falls]

51. Oh absolutely. Their estate is substantial. I feel a bit guilty it was icreased from SSI.

[spooky3]

18. It's because the higher earners' benefits are capped also.

The maximum anyone can draw out, even if they earned well above the maximum every year and contributed the maximum, is about $35000 per year. When SS was designed and amended over the years, the philosophy was that it was to provide a minimum income that, together with savings, etc., would keep elderly and certain other recipients out of poverty. It was NOT intended to be a full pension program where both contributions while working and benefits when retired would be roughly proportional to income.

[dhol82]

22. Times change.

[spooky3]

28. and facts are facts. This is a factual answer to the questions that were asked. nt

[Hulk]

36. I understand all that.....and thanks for explaining...

It just seems to me in this age of extreme wealth gap in our society, taxing income without a cap seems to be one way to level the playing field and taxing those that can best afford it.
I understand they would only get $3K a month or so...and that's fine. That wouldn't need to be lifted, as most high earners don't rely on Social Security for their senior years anyway.
It would be a simple solution to make Social Security solvent for decades to come. Also, persons getting the modest Social Security as their sole income are in poverty. I think it could be increased, the base, so that no one would have to be poor in their last years in this "rich country" of ours. I know I could use a few extra grand a year.
And finally....if you make enough, with other income, you pay taxes on your Social Security income. That, to me, seems a bit insane...like double taxation, although I know it isn't exactly that.

[enid602]

12. defund

Too bad tRump largely defunded the Government with his mammoth tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.

[Layzeebeaver]

15. I'm 60

I want this.

I’ve paid into the system all my life to support everyone. Time to collect.

This is what social care should be.

[Lucinda]

19. KNR

[ailsagirl]

23. Love it!!!!!!

[I_UndergroundPanther]

25. Does any of this apply to disabled people?

It seems too often we are either scapegoated or forgotten about.

However I am very happy seniors are getting helped.

[JGladstone]

30. A little more on this I read a few weeks ago

https://money.yahoo.com/bidens-social-security-and-ssi-plan-would-lift-14-million-out-of-poverty-study-finds-200534985.html

(Snip)

Biden’s plan for Supplemental Security Income

Biden has also included changes to Social Security Income, which is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income and is funded by general tax revenues.

Single adults would receive benefits equal to 100% of the federal poverty level and also increase benefits for those married. He would also erase rules related to reducing benefits for those receiving non-cash help from relatives.

Both Biden’s Social Security and SSI changes would lift 1.4 million people out of poverty in 2021, if enacted immediately and 2.7 million people out of poverty in 2065, the study found.

[yellowdogintexas]

31. my favorite part is the Soc Sec tax applied to higher incomes!

That has been a very long time coming (it is one of the things Bernie Sanders has advocated for a long time.) It has always made me crazy that someone who makes $137,000 pays the same amount of SS taxes as someone who makes 4 x as much. It is a very good start

[Takket]

32. disability needs a bump too.

the disability benefit is quite pathetic.

[dflprincess]

33. Not sure why the 20% bump only goes to widows and widowers

while those of use who are single apparently get bupkis. It costs us just as much to live as it does a widow/widower.

[Grasswire2]

37. When will stay-at-home family caregivers earn SS work credits?

They've been shafted for decades now, whether moms or dads, or others.

[DeminPennswoods]

41. A nice gift for Warnock and Ossoff to use

in their campaigns.

[honest.abe]

45. I wonder if there will be a raise in benefits for those over $137,700?

If they pay in more will they get more back?

[Cicada]

46. Minimum 2020 soc security benefit $15950 if u worked 30 years

[wryter2000]

49. Perfect

If only we could get the Senate, eliminate the filibuster, and get this to pass.

[Fla Dem]

52. Good on him, but confused about why widows/widowers should get 20% more a month.

I understand they've lost their partner's income as a couple, but what about people divorced or never married. They never had that duel income to begin with and have to make do with the regular payment level. Now if the surviving member of the couple never received SS, then I can understand transferring their departed spouse's SS payment to the surviving spouse, but not the 20% increase.

[Number9Dream]

53. The COLA's don't even pay for the increases to cost of Medicare. COLA's need to increase

[BobTheSubgenius]

60. And it's not like many, if not most, seniors couldn't really use a "raise."

There is a human side to this, and any other story about SS, and it's keenly felt by those that are struggling every damned day. Not everything is pure politics.