How Ronald Reagan Republicans Cut Benefits GOP Screwed Social Security

[mitty14u2]

The Reagan-O'Neill Social Security deal was a bad deal - This should be contested in a class action Lawsuit going back to 1983!


The reforms enacted under the 1983 act worked well if one was only concerned with Social Security's finances. The number of people mandated to participate was expanded, creating a larger pool of participants. Revenues increased faster than expenses after the deal was made, creating a huge surplus to raid for other purposes. But make no mistake; this wasn't a good deal if you're someone who planned on retirement in relative comfort.

The regressive payroll tax was increased, which hits lower-income people especially hard. The retirement age was raised by two years, to 67. Let there be no doubt, raising the retirement age is cutting benefits. The "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed. The new law introduced taxation on Social Security benefits for "windfall" earners. While Social Security may have looked great from 50,000 feet after these reforms, on the ground the situation was nothing more than a tax increase and a benefit cut.

The regressive payroll tax was increased, which hits lower-income people especially hard. The retirement age was raised by two years, to 67. Let there be no doubt, raising the retirement age is cutting benefits. The "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed. The new law introduced taxation on Social Security benefits for "windfall" earners. While Social Security may have looked great from 50,000 feet after these reforms, on the ground the situation was nothing more than a tax increase and a benefit cut.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/2/20/947379/-

This should be contested in a class action Lawsuit going back to 1983!

Republicans loved Ronald Reagan and put his name and Lincolns in the same sentence, Abe still spins in his grave every time they put the so call GOP Profit in the same category. Screwing the masses does not come to the forefront until you need the benefits, one thing even this article doesn’t tell, you also have to pay back any workman’s comp that was paid out during a lengthy hospital stay or medical bill acquired during a disability. So say if you received money from a lawsuit for neglects and received workman’s comp it comes off the top of your settlement. Workman’s compensation and Social Security are two different insurance polices, one is private and one is government. This should be contested in a class action Lawsuit going back to 1983!

[PoliticAverse]

1. A class action suit would likely go nowhere as Fleming v Nestor established Congress could change

the rules on Social Security whenever it wanted.

See: https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[mitty14u2]

3. That was 1960, the new law did not exist, People should be aware and appalled!

[dmr]

5. It's not the rules, it's the theft.

Instead if putting the money in a trust, they put it in the general fund.

After the tax cuts for the rich, they were running out of money.

The extra money we paid into the system should be paid back into the trust. If they have to raise taxes on the rich, so be it.

I believed the government back then. I supported the need to protect the possibly smaller next generation from footing the bill for the larger baby boomer generation.

It was a scam. It was theft. They don't care.

Argh ......

[former9thward]

2. The House was Democratic at the time.

Could not have happened without their full support.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

4. And?

[former9thward]

8. I think it was pretty clear.

[mitty14u2]

6. Ronald Signed the bill and still makes it WRONG!

I had to pay back $83,000 with two kids, they cut my benefits in half. Try going from $2000 a month to $1000 in 1983. Class action law suit would be my choice!


Federal officials hired before January 1984 were given the choice of staying in the former system or joining Social Security. For that reason, according to the Social Security Administration, there are still some folks in Washington who aren't paying into Social Security.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Yep. People post a lot here about how the "Third Way" has "taken over" the Democratic party,

but the fact that over 30 years ago a Democratic Congress worked with Ronald Reagan and voted to reduce Social Security benefits shows that this is not exactly a new thing.