What sort of cuts to Social Security could you support, and why?

[Marr]

There's obviously a lot of discussion about Social Security on the board right now, with arguments and accusations being tossed in different directions. Some say the Obama Administration is setting up political cover for making Social Security cuts after the election. Some say that's paranoia.

The one thing all sides claim to have in common is that they regard cuts to Social Security as unacceptable, so I'm wondering how many people are willing to go on record now, ahead of the elections, and state as much. On the other hand, if you consider some cuts to be practical, this would be a great time to say it.

[FooshIt]

1. Take it away from those with over 100K in liquid assets

The rich who don't need it shouldn't get it

[Warren Stupidity]

2. U HAS NO CLU

'100k' - the interest from that lump sum is 2-3,000 a year, so you certainly cannot live on the interest.
'100k' - spread over 20 years is 5,000/year + some interest, call it 5500.

Please explain how these 'rich' you speak of are expected to live on far less than ss pays?
Should we also be denied medicare?
In addition to paying in for around 40 years and get nothing back, how else would you like to stick it to everyone who actually saved anything during their working life?

[FooshIt]

8. once you go below 100K you'd be eligible for ss so no worries there

just saying that ss is a social safety net, why should it be around to supplement the income of those who don't need it

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It is not welfare.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Bing Go. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

21. It is a program to assist people to retire. It is there to supplement the income of those who paid

into the system. Between myself and my employers that totals almost $300,000 in 'principle'. Social Security benefits will make up about 1/3 of my retirement.

[DrDan]

23. it goes much further than that . . . many are collecting that are not retired

[sinkingfeeling]

Yes, there are two programs for the disabled plus payments to children.

[county worker]

74. A retired person with 100K in assets still needs social security.

Say the asset was a paid off house. They would have to sell the house to get money to live on and not have a roof over their heads.

Also if you had to live on $100K for a number of years that would put you below the poverty line.

[Carolina]

18. BS, they paid into it, too

My Dad worked all his life, sold his home to live in a retirement facilty. Yes, the house sale yielded more than 100K liquid, but according to you, now he shouldn't get his SS?!!!!!!! Get real.

[DrDan]

20. $100K in liquid assets is "rich"? . . . . now that is rich

[Statistical]

33. ROFL. If you think $100K is rich then the real rich are just laughing all the way to the bank.

$100K in assets is hardly rich. Also why the dubious distinction of liquid vs illiquid.

So someone with $100K cash = no social security

Someone with takes $1 million in cash buys a house then gets reverse mortgage on it providing a lifetime of revenue = gets social security.

Also someone w/ no cash but a pension paying $3,000 a month has a present asset value of roughly $380,000 (if an annuity indexed to inflation) = gets social security

Person A: net worth $100,000 = no SS
Person B: net worth $1 million = gets SS
Person C: net worth $380,000 = gets SS

See the problems with your foolproof plan.





Given life expectancy is high (and growing higher) there is a greater than 50% chance that in a couple at least one spouse will live to be over 80. A 1 in 3 chance that one will live to be over 90. When planning to make your assets last over decades $100K is a trivial amount.

$1 million won't even be enough when I hope retire (2030 I hope). Remember inflation makes all numbers look big eventually. At 3% inflation over next 40 years in 2050 Milk will be $4.80 a gallon, Gasoline $13 a gallon. Average home in the $1.1 to $1.3 million range.

[readmoreoften]

150. +1

[backwoodsbob]

36. take ss away from anyone with 100k?

100k isn't rich...not even close.

Hell,I'll retire with 7 to ten times that from my 401(k) .you think i should pay in all my life then get nothing because I saved my money instead of buying toys and going on vacations?

ANY politician who proposed a 100k and you're out threshold would commit political suicide.

[FooshIt]

53. buying toys and going on vacations is not what the poor do

[backwoodsbob]

75. I never said it was..and I never mentioned the poor

I mentioned me...mr blue collar working stiff.Follow and try to keep up.Me...mister working stiff has been socking away 9% in my 401(k) while many others in my position have been buying toys and such.now because I saved my money you want to take away my ss that I have payed into all my life because I saved money?

[CTyankee]

49. Howard Dean is against means testing SS. He says that then it becomes a program for the poor

and the Republicans are very good at finding a way to cut the programs for the poor. It's different when more of the income earners in the country have a stake in SS. Then they defend it politically.

[Hannah Bell]

56. lol. try $100 mill in liquid assets if you want to hit the "rich".

[JoePhilly]

111. 100k in liquid assets makes one "rich"??

Wow are you off.

You need to reconsider what you think it means to be "rich".

The "rich" have far more liquid assets than 100k.

Middle class retired couples who worked for decades to get to the point where they had 100k in additional retirement funds fall under your model. Your proposal would kill them.

The super rich would not blink at your proposal. They have MILLIONS in LIQUID assets. Stocks, bonds, property, etc.

[Radical Activist]

146. Maybe if they have 100K a year in retirement income.

If someone owns a house then 100K that could be all of someone's assets.

I agree with you in principle but how to measure a persons wealth in retirement would take a little work.

[FooshIt]

154. a house is not liquid, so it wouldn't be counted

everyone needs a house but they don't need 100K. It would take some extra work to figure out how much wealth retirees have but think of how much would be saved by not having to support the rich even more than we already do.

[EFerrari]

3. No.

:)

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Cut the SS retirement age to 60 and medicare to 0. nt.

[Morning Dew]

22. Cut retirement to 55 and I'm right with you!

Speaking as a 53 year old, that is.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. I actually agree but we should phase that in over two years. nt.

[Mudoria]

95. I wish... I'm 55 now

My ass would be retired in a heartbeat lol

[Greyhound]

70. And cut the contribution cap entirely to fund the other cuts. n/t

[grasswire]

5. means test and remove the cap

simple.

problem solved.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. why do you think ss is welfare?

It isn't. It is an old age pension program that everyone pays in for and everyone gets benefits from when they retire. Benefits are already means tested in that you pay taxes on them if your annual income exceeds defined levels.

[Radical Activist]

148. SS is much more regressive than welfare.

At least welfare takes from the wealthy and middle class and gives to the poor. Social Security takes from even the lowest income workers who are struggling to get by and gives it to wealthy retired people who have no need for it. Absolutely ridiculous. It's welfare with an unjustifiable taxing mechanism.

[DrDan]

24. nope - no means test

[Statistical]

34. yes on cap, no on means test.

[Hannah Bell]

57. 1) there is no problem. 2) ss is already means-tested via taxation, thanks to ronald reagan.

3) the cap exists for a reason; to keep ss from becoming a welfare program funded mainly by upper-income workers. 4) lifting the cap now would only give the fuckers more money to "borrow".

[newspeak]

61. I see nothing wrong with doing away with the cap

at one time, when my hubby had a decent job, we paid into SS until about three or four months before the end of the year because of the cap. We didn't miss the money--I think there's nothing wrong with getting rid of the cap. If you don't want to get rid of it, then raise it.

[Hannah Bell]

63. it's raised nearly every year. to cover 90% of total wages. the banksters

want the cap raised to keep a surplus coming into the trust fund so they don't have to pay back what they "borrowed".

also, it gives them more ammo & constituency for their campaign against ss.

[newspeak]

59. remove the cap

nothing else needs done. Oh, and allow the tax bill to expire on the rich and infamous. They don't seem to be using that extra tax mullah on creating jobs anyway. They've had over eight years for job creation, they've actually made it worse. So, tax the SOB's! They should be appreciative that they won't see the taxes installed at 66% before Reagan's FUBAR, so they should be grateful!

Then with the tax increase to pay for the deficit, we won't have those repukes falsely whining about the deficit--the one that they helped create. So, maybe they won't be able to use the "we need to cut benefits" because of the deficit excuse.

[Hannah Bell]

72. nothing needs to be done, period, except for the top 1% to have their bush tax cuts rescinded

& pay back what they "borrowed" from SS.

social security taxes tax WORKERS. They don't tax the truly rich, because the truly rich don't get most of their money from paychecks.

Raise their INCOME & CAPITAL GAINS TAXES.

[Radical Activist]

147. Yep.

100% There's nothing just or progressive about a regressive tax on low-income workers that's used to subsidize the retirement of wealthy people. Absolutely unjustifiable.

[gratuitous]

6. I am absolutely in favor of cutting . . .

The amount of income currently exempt from Social Security withholding by removing the cap on earnings subject to that withholding.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Very simple, painless solution. Which our "steal from the poor and middle class to give to the rich"

government will never do.

[LWolf]

7. NONE. nt

[Brickbat]

9. None. Remove the cap.

[Carolina]

17. Ditto

remove the cap

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Cuts? None. Period.

I am also against a raise in eligibility age - in fact, I think it is ridiculously high as it is.

[denverbill]

11. First, eliminate ALL congressional and Presidential pensions.

Starting with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.

[Carolina]

19. exactly!

[onethatcares]

43. then allow folks that want to opt out of the system, do so, but

they make a one time deal. Once out, they can't come back in. They can invest as much as their net income as they want to, but if the stockmarket or their mutual funds take that big dip eating half or a third, they have to stfu and eat it. They do not get the opportunity to become the whiners.

Peace

[BlueJac]

14. Just remove cap and quit talking cuts.......

that is Republican talk and does no good to talk about. Fuck what will you stand for if I take some of your income, how much would you take, 10%, maybe 20% cut, come on let's talk about it. We must be able to come up with some solution that will fuck you over, come on. Let's talk cuts!

[Hawkeye-X]

15. Anyone that earns over 100k a year and above

should be able to retire without Social Security as their net. If they lose it after their retirement, then they'll have to learn how to be truly destitute.

Hawkeye-X

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Then give me back the money my employers and I have paid into it.

[Statistical]

27. Nice of you to decide what other people do or don't need.

So someone who has financial situation wiped out caring for a sick child or a partner dying from cancer just deserves to be "truly destitute".

Thankfully SS isn't welfare. You pay into it and you get SECURITY. The ultimate fallback no matter what unexpected thing happens in life that derails "the best laid plans of mice & men". Hence the name Social SECURITY.

[DrDan]

28. no way - they contributed the max

[backwoodsbob]

38. yep...give me back what I and my employer have payed in

as a matter of fact just roll that into my 401(k) so I can start earning on it.

SS ISN'T WELFARE! WHO THE HELL ARE YOU to decide those who saved instead of blowing their money should be screwed because they didn't blow their money?

I put 9% of what I earn in a 401(k)I don't take expensive vacations and don't buy lots of toys.Instead I save.For that I should lose my ss?

[juajen]

159. No, that is not enough money. For instance, it would be small potatoes

in high cost of living states, like Washington, California and New York, not to mention Connecticutt, etc. No caps, as someone upthread said, they pay in income taxes anyway.

[Crystal Clarity]

16. NONE. nt

[steve2470]

25. None

Every strategy besides cuts has to be explored.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. Leave it alone.

No cuts. Period.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Hmm... let me think about that.

How much of a cut for the elderly and disabled is appropriate to reduce a hypothesized shortfall based on highly speculative projections, the unspoken purpose of which is to avoid raising taxes for the lucky few who got rich(er) from the excess taxes paid by workers for the last three decades?


No. Nope. None.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. Not a god damned penny.

Stop the wars.

Reduce military spending.

Put progressive taxation back in place.

IOW: Take the money back from those who took it in the first place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. NONE.

Social Security does not require cuts in benefits, whether by reducing current payments or by raising age of eligibility.

Raise the cap paying into it and all its problems are solved. Since those who would be paying a slight amount more get all their wealth from the labor of persons who will depend upon SS - as they themselves never will - it is only fair. If they'd been paying fair wages over the past 30 years, SS would not be facing any shortfall at all today.

[old mark]

39. Absdolutely NO cuts - eliminate the cap on deductions completely, lower the minimum age to

55, and medicare to everyone.
Nothing less.

mark

[Marr]

41. I don't see any of the people who regularly dismiss claims of coming SS cuts.

Why is that? I'll admit that I'm not a celebrity around here, but still.

[NorthCarolina]

133. LOL... strangely absent from the discussion.

:shrug:

[juajen]

160. Probably because O did not do anything to Simpson for those horrible remarks, so, thinking

people are smelling a rat. Can't blame them, as that smell is wafting this way, too. Poor judgment, and it will bite him on the ass, but, mainly, it will bite the democrats on the ass for I'm sure plenty did not agree with O.

[Stoic]

42. None. Period. n/t

[HuckleB]

120. +1

[DailyGrind51]

44. The cap must be removed!

[Vinca]

45. No cuts and raise the cap.

[Hansel]

46. Raise the cap on income that you pay FICA taxes on

Tax anyone with a yearly net income of over 100,000 90% for social security that they draw. Allow people to opt out of it or Medicare.

[OmahaBlueDog]

47. Lift the Cap. Raise the Retirement Age

The age raise should be from 67 to 75, and phased in over 15 years

[newspeak]

64. oh make it to 75 so that maybe only half (if they're lucky)

will receive it? People in their fifties and early sixties are losing their fekkin decent jobs, what are they going to do before 75? You just keep people in a depleted job market longer. How in the hell does that help?

Or maybe the government will get lucky and more will die before 75 because they'll be on the street dumpster diving.

[OmahaBlueDog]

87. Even if the retirement age stays exactly where it is now, that's a great question

..and it's an area where the government has failed miserably. People in their fifties should be abe to get the resources they need to train for a late second career..by which i do not mean flipping burgers or stocking shelves at Wal Mart.

[Caretha]

101. I don't want a second career

or in my case a 24th career, thank you very much.

[newspeak]

114. that's so funny

my state has over 14% unemployment, hundreds come out for one position--now who do you think gets the job? Someone in their twenties, thirties or someone who is fifty or sixty. And, there's just all of these jobs to go around, so that we may all work until we're in our seventies.

Yes, some love their job and have kept their job, but not everyone. And, some have worked in jobs that were hazardous to their health-like asbestos-you think they want to work longer after they are all used up?

[readmoreoften]

151. See now, I consider you as much the enemy as any Republican.

You're out of touch and out of your mind. "Train for a second career." Um, have you noticed anything about the state of the economy? Do you live in a box?

[juajen]

161. I don't want a second job. I am exhausted from the last one I

had where I took care of a disabled husband for 25 years without pay. I couldn't work and take care of him at the same time, so was not able to put more into ss to increase my benefits as I should have been able to do.

[scarletwoman]

65. Fuck that! Who the hell is going to have a job that will keep them 'til they're 75?

Who the hell is going to stay healthy enough to keep working until 75?

How are younger people going to move into the work force if their elders are still hanging on to jobs into their 70s?

The working class isn't a bunch of middle managers sitting at their desks in comfy offices.

Fuck raising the retirement age! :grr:

[OmahaBlueDog]

85. How is SS going to stay solvent if recepients are collecting for three decades?

As stated upthread, it't isn't an entitlement program. It's a pension. We pay in, actuaries guess how long we will all live, and the system pays out. If life expectancy continues to rise (and I think it will - especially if HCR really goes into effect), I don't see how it stays solvent at the current retirement age.

[scarletwoman]

93. SS is already solvent until 2037. Raising the cap will extend it.

Making people work longer isn't the answer, creating more jobs with actual living wages is.

Your faith in HCR is touching, however forcing people into buying insurance with unaffordable deductibles and co-pays isn't likely to have much of an effect on life expectancy.

[juajen]

163. Boy, you are right on that one. I can't even go to the specialists my

GP wants me to go to because I can't afford the co-pay. I haven't even checked into the deductible, but have probably met it for this year.

[LSK]

144. HOW? BY LIFTING THE CAP, EASY!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[readmoreoften]

152. How about stop using it to pay for Blackwater/XE Contractors...

[MilesColtrane]

76. Yeah, old people can retire only when they get that terminal disease...

from doing the same, dangerous job for 50+ years.

I hear hospitals are nice and restful, and people bring you food.

You don't even have to get out of bed when you're on chemotherapy.

Just sit back and watch TV!

Until then...back to work you wrinkly slackers!

[OmahaBlueDog]

84. Miles, the wrinkly slackers I know who are working at 75+ are happier and healthier

...than the ones who retired.

If the President is re-elected, and HCR becomes a reality, I anticpate that many people who currently don't receive maintenance/preventative care will, and life quality and expectancy should rise accordingly.

[MilesColtrane]

102. So we should just tell them, "Put your back into it. It's for your own good"?

I'll match your anecdotal evidence with some of mine.

My dad got to enjoy a little over a year of retirement, after working his ass off his entire life, before being diagnosed with cancer.

If SS benefits were still a couple of years away he never would have had that brief time to enjoy some of what he had worked for his entire life.

It would have been straight from the chemical plant to surgery and chemotherapy, and eventually the hospice.

You see, not everybody wants to work or can work all the way to the age of 75.

Delaying benefits until then should be optional.

[Caretha]

103. How old are you?

Be honest, just tell us how old you are.

[OmahaBlueDog]

118. Old enough to know not to tell anyone how old I am

Jimi Hendrix was alive sometime during my lifetime, as was Harry Truman. I've seen men walk on the moon, and I've done the Hustle. I drank champagne when Nixon resigned, but I was underage at the time.

[Caretha]

122. Then you should be old enough

to know better than to post the crap your posting....Wrinkled slackers??? You should be ashamed.

[OmahaBlueDog]

123. The "wrinkled slackers" comment was a reference to Miles Coletrane's post #76

I was quoting him.

Sorry ... no shame here. Even if I live to be 100, life's too damn short for that.

(on edit)...and Miles was simply getting on my case -- which is fine -- and he has no reason to be ashamed either.

[newspeak]

115. well, my father-in-law was forced to retire

and a good thing. He worked around asbestos for years and now has health problems from it. So what some people enjoy their work and are able to continue that work, while others are used up or have gotten the shaft by their company. Just because some of you're friends are happy doesn't make it everyone's experience.

[readmoreoften]

153. You're out of your mind.

[InkAddict]

130. Of course, you're talking about Hugette Clark?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38469210

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38719231/ns/business-small_business

[Hell Hath No Fury]

81. Said by someone who must have a desk job.

I work for a living -- I get dirty and sweaty, and I use my body every day in ways desk jockeys don't have a clue about. It is going to take everything I have to make it to the current retirement age.

[OmahaBlueDog]

82. And you figure that what you do now is the only thing you're going to do?

In today's job market, that would be unusual.

Typically, even jobs that get people very dirty and sweaty have activities at the lighter duty end of the spectrum: trainers, quality control inspectors, drivers.

You will also note - I said phased in over a long period. Life expectancy (especially if HCR becomes a reality) may be average in the mid to upper 80s in 20 years, and life spans to 115 will not be uncommon.

[scarletwoman]

98. And if you get laid off or downsized? You think you're going to find someone else to hire you when

you're 65? I mean sure, maybe if they can get you real cheap because you're so desperate -- on the other hand, there might also a dozen 20-somethings competing for that same job who'll work even cheaper and won't cost as much in medical benefits.

[Caretha]

100. Is that You Alan?

so you would like to work until the day before the grave diggers are making a 6 ft hole for your worn out corpse. How about this, you work until you're 75, and don't ever ever ask for a return on your SS taxes a day before then, less we all come spit on your grave.

[scarletwoman]

105. I'll stand in line with you. "Wrinkled slackers", indeed.

Punk.

[Caretha]

106. Punk

is to kind of a word. You should see the posts I wrote to this ...this, whatever that I didn't post.

[scarletwoman]

107. Yeah, well, I didn't want my post to get deleted is all.

;)

:hi:
sw

[TheKentuckian]

48. Cutting the eligibility age to 55 is the one I can live with.

[DireStrike]

50. I would cut the amount of social security money

That can be spent on things that are not social security. I would cut this to zero.

All of us should go to washington tomorrow and demand the heads of everyone who ever voted to spend SS trust fund money.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. Should we pile it up in a warehouse?

How about we invest it in good solid T-bills? Would that be ok with you?

[DireStrike]

128. Yes, either of those would be fine.

[Warren Stupidity]

131. 'piling it up in a warehouse' is stupid.

SS funds are and always have been invested in t-bills.

[DireStrike]

132. So what's this about "raiding the SS treasury" then?

Just a stupid talking point? Lies?

[Warren Stupidity]

135. yes it is bullshit and always has been

[DireStrike]

142. Oh wow. That's definitely good to know.

Thanks!

[RoseMead]

51. No cuts, no means test

Raise the cap.

[CTyankee]

52. Eliminate the cap. It will take care of the "problem" long term.

That was easy.

No cuts, no raising retirement age.

Extend Medicare to 50+ years, just as a "start" on our way to universal health care.

[Hannah Bell]

54. none.

[JustAnotherGen]

55. None at all

No cuts and I don't want the age raised.

[SharonAnn]

58. None! No cuts! Not now! Not ever! It's a R-W theft plan to cut SS.

You know, they stle the surplus "fair and square" and they don't want to give it back.

[scarletwoman]

60. No cuts. Raise the cap. Next question. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. Here's a couple

Raise the level of taxability so that above certain income threshholds, Social Security is 100% taxable as income. If you're living off a six-fiture income from your investment portfolio, you really don't need have tax-free income courtesy of the government. I believe that currently only 85% of your Social Security is taxable, even if you're Warren Buffett.

Offer a refundable tax credit to encourage people to hold off collecting their benefits until they are older.

This one may have already been addressed, but it used to be that the annual Cost of Living Adjustment was computed in a way that was actually higher than the actual Cost of Living Increase. Even a small tweak to that figure could yield very large benefits. But this may have already occured and I didn't hear about it.

[dajoki]

66. None n/t

[newspeak]

67. some here want to increase the age

so how about if they increase the age, it also includes those who have worked over forty years can retire-an either/or. Some have been working since they were fifteen-sixteen years old, that means those who have been working over forty years can retire between the ages of fifty-five and sixty.

[DavidDvorkin]

68. I would accept negative cuts.

[pitohui]

69. there are no acceptable cuts to social security

every worker who has paid in should be able to take out, EVERY WORKER

if you live long enough you WILL get old and if you live long enough to get old, you find out in a hurry that your body and mind can't work as well as they once did

if we value a productive workplace we need to have social security so that elders can retire with dignity, yes, that means that even HIGHLY-PAID workers can and should get social security

no cuts to nobody nohow

EVERYONE should be invested in seeing soc. security succeed, EVERYONE

we don't want a society where the most highly compensated (hence most friendly to politicians hence most influential) workers do not see a benefit to social security for then it will be taken away from ALL of us

highly compensated, highly achieving people often have a psychiatric problem or lack in their soul that makes them have this high drive to earn lots of money, they are selfish, they are about their own ego, so we CANNOT appeal to their decency, we MUST make it where they have skin (cash) in the game -- this is a mad generalization but it's right enough often enough that we CANNOT rely on the decency of the high income worker

once we take soc. security away from the high income worker he will make sure it is taken away from all us, at least all of us in the middle class

[scarletwoman]

78. Well said! nt

[shimmergal]

134. Don't take it away from all

high income workers, but perhaps from those who are hell-bent to destroy it?

How this could be accomplished I don't know, but those extremely wealthy people who keep bleating about "personal responsibility" for everyone else should have the chance to opt out. With the proviso that since they no longer have any skin in the game, they have to shut up and stop trying to influence other Americans' basic security.

Yeah, I know, how does one square this with the First Amendment? Hmmm...I welcome creative thinkers on this point!

[Ganja Ninja]

71. None! Do away with the cap, lower the retirement age and increase benefits.

This party needs to learn how to fight. You don't do that by being reasonable before you sit down to negotiate. They demand cuts, you demand increases. That's how you start a negotiation.

[DiverDave]

73. Means test!

You cant tell me that someone with a 6 figure retirement a year needs that 1324 a month.

Yep they paid in, but really, do they NEED it?

[scarletwoman]

77. NO! SS isn't welfare. And high earners get taxed on their SS benefits. nt

[juajen]

164. Maybe they'll donate it, or give it to a grandchild for school expenses, etc.

They still deserve what they pay for.

[MilesColtrane]

79. No cuts, no means test, just raise the cap.

The Catfood Commission is going to have to be pretty stealthy if they want to cut benefits.

It will have to cleverly couched as something else, or they'll never get the changes through Congress.

Any Congressman who votes for cuts is signing his or her own political death sentence.

[ipaint]

80. No cuts, no raise cap, no raise age.

There is not a problem with social security. The rich seem to have a problem with paying back what they owe the fund.

Too bad, they need to pay it back pronto, a nice little tax increase specifically to settle the debt they owe workers would be fine.

Lifting the cap gives the rich fuckers an out on a debt owed and once they start paying more they will claim ownership of the program and we can all kiss it goodbye for good.

[Dawson Leery]

83. Raise the FICA cap to cover all incomes on the higher end of the spectrum

[cleanhippie]

86. Cuts of payments to those that make more than 60K per year.

Thats slightly above the median income of American households. Anyone that earns more than that, IMO, does not need the safety net of social security and should not get a payment.

[scarletwoman]

94. Wrong. SS absolutely can NOT be means tested. Those over a certain income already pay taxes on their

SS benefits. Those taxes could possibly be raised, but as soon as you institute a means test on receiving SS benefits, it becomes welfare. And once it becomes welfare, it becomes subject to destruction by those who are determined to screw the working class in any way they can.

By keeping SS means neutral it means that EVERYBODY has bought in and has a stake in keeping it.

[cleanhippie]

96. Perhaps.

I see your point. Do we agree that there is no need to give benefits to those that do not need them though?

[scarletwoman]

97. It's not a matter of "need". If you pay in, you collect - period.

You can't tell someone, "Too bad, you paid in but you don't get anything back because you're too rich." That turns SS into a welfare program instead of the insurance program it was designed to be.

The tax on SS benefits for high income people is already in place to take into account the fact that those with high incomes don't need SS exclusively in order to survive.

[cleanhippie]

99. I didn't know that.

I will take you at your word that your info is correct, I have no reason to think otherwise. Are the taxes paid enough to offset the payment?

[scarletwoman]

104. Off the top of my head, I think I've seen that they go as high as 80 or 85%.

I know I've seen some advocacy for raising them to 90% recently.

My apologies for not having any links handy - I've been doing so much reading on this subject lately that I can't really remember where I've read what. :blush:

sw

[cleanhippie]

124. It is a lot of info. Thanks for getting smart on it and sharing your knowledge

:toast:

[L0oniX]

88. Raise the mutha fucking cap!

[City Lights]

89. None.

But I'm all for cutting the "defense" budget. I'm also in favor of cutting pensions to Congresscritters. And I'd love to be able to freeze their wages. I'd even consider outsourcing them.

[Liberal In Texas]

90. Raise the benefits, double them. Lower the retirement age to 55.

Tax the rich. Tax outsourcing jobs. Tax imports that can be made here.

Bingo...the economy would turn around in a few months.

[Starry Messenger]

91. I wouldn't.

Not at all.

[Quantess]

92. None.

[underpants]

108. Means test it, raise the payment cap, raise benefits slightly, tax weed

[Better Believe It]

109. Means testing Social Security is the first step toward turning it into a "welfare" program.

[underpants]

110. I meant means test it upwards

If you don't need it you don't get it - BUT you will pay for it

[Warren Stupidity]

126. As stated that will kill support for the program.

You want to kill SS dead, make it welfare for poor people.

[JoePhilly]

113. Ok ... this is my solution ...

1) No means test. I know it sounds good, but the super rich will always be able to hide wealth. Plus, I don't think that you can tell people who paid in that they get "nothing" ... So let's skip that.

2) The CAP has been rising. So let's keep doing that every year. You can't just end it in a single move because for folks who are not WEALTHY, the hit is large and immediate. But by staging it over time, they can plan for it.

This part is key ..

3) Raise the FLOOR. Exempt the first 20k of income from SS tax, while shifting the range UP as described in #2. Raising the FLOOR is a break that everyone with a paycheck would get ... even the super rich who draw an income. But the cap, per #2, would be rising. So, everyone would get a break on the first 20k (or so), and then you start to pay in above that ... with a CAP that is rising in a managed way.

In this model, the debate would shift as to what the FLOOR should be .... and where the CAP should be ... folks who are making above the FLOOR, but below the CAP ... would get a break. And ... Those making above the cap, who also get the break on the low end would have to argue as to why they deserve a better break.

[Radical Activist]

149. It is a welfare program with a very regressive tax mechanism.

It know it wounds the pride of some people to call it welfare, but it is. The fact that it has a creative, unfair way of taxing people doesn't change the reality that it was created as a welfare program.

[Better Believe It]

112. None. Period. The retirement age to receive full benefits can and should be reduced to 60 years

Take the tax cap off and we can easily do that.

[newspeak]

116. if they want to talk about cuts

first they find the 1.2 trillion unaccounted for in the Pentagon, then they slash defense (my god have you seen the chart?), then heavily regulate wall street, allow the tax on the rich and infamous to expire-then maybe we will talk, but it won't include cutting benefits to already poor seniors or raising the age.

[HooptieWagon]

117. Increase the interest Congress pays for SS funds they borrow. nt

[HuckleB]

121. Now, that is a great idea!

:yourock:

[HuckleB]

119. None.

[Locrian]

127. cuts? are you freaking kidding?

Put back the 2.5 TILLION that was stolen (8.4T with interest). THEN we can talk.

http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/07/17/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything.

That is how the largest theft in the history of the world was carried out. 300M people worked and saved their whole lives to set aside $2.5Tn into a retirement system that, if it were paying a fair compounding rate of 5% interest over 40 years of labor (assuming an even $62Bn a year was contributed), would be worth $8.4Tn today

[sabrina 1]

129. There should be no cuts, there should be increases if anything.

There is no need for cuts, it should not even be a topic of conversation.

And if there are, I am done with this party forever. We have put up with having no prosecution of War Criminals, not even a Public Option, no restoration of Habeas Corpus, privatization of Public Schools, no end to torture and rendition. And much much more we've been asked to swallow from this party.

Now it's the last of the great Social programs given to the people by FDR and the Right has been after it forever. If Obama let's them have it, then there is no more reason to be a Democrat than there is to be a Republican. That is my final line in the sand. I will start looking for a third party at that point.

[David Zephyr]

136. Cut out making wars, cut the defense budget by 60% and raise the death tax.

And you'll never need to cut Social Security at all.

[dflprincess]

137. None. I will however, support cuts

in the pension Members of Congress collect and raise the age they'd be eligible to collect those pensions to 75.

[GoneOffShore]

139. Oh yes.

[GoneOffShore]

138. None at all.

Time to lower the retirement age to 60, increase the number of people who pay into the system, and have NO ONE be able to opt out of Social Security. Also all earnings, be they bonuses, stock options or whatever should be subject to Social Security taxes.

And cut the contribution cap.

[Faryn Balyncd]

140. Republicans want DEMOCRATS to means test the MIDDLE CLASS out of SS -> -> a DOUBLE WIN for the GOP

They DESTROY SS and the Democratic majority at the same time.

That is what Paul Ryan is pushing on Simpson's Theft Commission (but if it passes it will be the DEMOCRATS who get blamed!)




:kick:

[Warren Stupidity]

156. no shit. And a cohort of our 'leaders' are up for it.

[mbee]

141. People on Social Security can only make a certain amount

if they work which is outrageous! You would pay more into the system if you could make as much as you want. They penalize a person for making over a certain amount of money. I don't understand this at all. The government would take in more tax money if they lifted this restriction.

[LSK]

143. NO CUTS ARE NEEDED, NONE!! JUST SAY THOSE 3 DIRTY WORDS

TAX THE RICH!

:grr: :grr:

[Edweird]

145. None.

[Chisox08]

155. None nt

[Samantha]

157. It is not paranoia -- it is the Corporations that don't want to pay the payroll

taxes. They have complained about this for decades. So we get the argument that social security is going broke as an excuse to suffer through whatever changes the commissions recommends to be made that Congress votes in, well, the whole slate of changes, if Congress votes it in. I have worked for many businesses over the years in DC, and I have heard the complaints. And as many do agree here, the Corporate World does run these United States these days, and our politicos simply do their bidding in exchange for the political campaign contributions. That is not paranoia; that is the reality of the situation.

Just ask the Koch brothers.

[juajen]

165. New hires are always told that their low wages are actually

higher because of these ss benefits that employers pay for, that and the benefits package. This is their excuse to pay less money than they should be paying. A lot also pay for UI, or some of it, and this is touted as a great benefit also, excusing low salaries. They can't have it both ways.

[juajen]

158. Absolutely NO cuts to SS. Not needed and reprehensible.

Instead, raise our benefits and watch the economy get better simply because we spend all we get. There is rarely a SS recipient who has enough money to save. Just leave the most successful program in US history ALONE.

[Wolf Frankula]

162. I support cutting all talk of cutting Social Security

If we must cut something, let's cut off the oxygen of the Rethuglicans who say we must cut Social Security.

Wolf

[entanglement]

166. "Would you like to be beaten with a baseball bat or a 9-iron? Which one would you choose, and why?"

You realize that's the kind of question you're asking, don't you?