Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:05 AM Jun 2013

NYT Editorial: What’s Next for Social Security?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/opinion/whats-next-for-social-security.html?_r=0

The system needs to be restored to long-term health, but policy makers must realize that broad-based benefit cuts are not really a viable option. For most people, the ability to finance a secure retirement has been ruined by stagnating wages, repeated stock market busts, diminished home equity and weakened or nonexistent pensions. Social Security, whose average monthly retirement benefit is $1,268, is pretty much all that is left. Most people age 65 and older get two-thirds to all of their income from Social Security.

And yet, in the deficit-obsessed, anti-tax world of Washington, closing the shortfall in Social Security has come to mean broadly cutting benefits. That would be a mistake. Targeted cuts — like lower payouts for upper-income recipients who live longer and draw larger benefits — could improve the system’s finances and fairness.

But those who promote across-the-board cuts are not interested in strengthening the system. They want to reduce the budget deficit. And even though Social Security is not a cause of today’s deficits, they would rather cut benefits than improve the system’s finances by imposing tax increases on higher-income taxpayers or phasing in a modest payroll tax increase over decades.

The focus on benefit cuts also conveniently ignores the fact that benefits are already shrinking. Under current law, benefits are being reduced by the higher retirement age, which has been gradually rising from 65 to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. That translates into lower monthly benefits for those who retire at 65 or fewer years of benefits for those who work until 67. For example, a worker entitled to a $1,000 monthly benefit upon retirement at age 67 will get only $867 if he or she retires at 65.



Seems like in Washington, we have one party that legislates only to help the wealthy and another that legislates only to help the very wealthy. Meanwhile, the people who created all that wealth are kicked to the curb.
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT Editorial: What’s Next for Social Security? (Original Post) Scuba Jun 2013 OP
Remove the cap, solve the problem Freddie Jun 2013 #1
Or just apply the same rules to capital gains as to payroll. Scuba Jun 2013 #3
K&R MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #2

Freddie

(9,231 posts)
1. Remove the cap, solve the problem
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:25 AM
Jun 2013

I'm a payroll admin and in this business you get immune to what the highly-paid earn, but when they get a *mid-year raise* on top of that because of the cap, I see red. I've even had people who go over the cap comment that it's not fair.
Keep the max earnings for benefits calculations but dedicate the over-the-cap $$ paid to Medicare. 2 problems solved.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
3. Or just apply the same rules to capital gains as to payroll.
Mon Jun 10, 2013, 09:28 AM
Jun 2013

Why should money "earned" by owning be taxed at a lower rate than money earned by working? Clearly allowing the wealthy to keep more and more of their wealth hasn't created any jobs.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYT Editorial: What’s Ne...