Most Excellent Bill Proposed to Boost Social Security $2,400

[GinBoy2]

10 hours ago, Wrwest said:

My wish list would include raising the cap on required contributions, top down military realignment which would reduce both the global policing stance and the accompanying budget, and treating earned civilian Medicare on the same basis as earned retired military (currently military retirees get global coverage while civilians get no coverage outside U.S. territory).

I'm with you on, why treat Medicare differently to Tricare.

 

You'd think they would be happy since treating someone outside of the US costs less.

 

But then again, covering zero costs even less!

[mrwebb8825]

20 hours ago, mania said:

Ah the age old answer to everything...And if the rich say screw it I'm outa here?

 

How about something easier like cutting the insane Military expenditures per year?

How about shutting down some of the 700 US bases worldwide?

 

US military spending amounted to $801 billion in 2021 there is the elephant in the room

You want to cut some spending and shift some spending to those that deserve it and worked for it try starting here:

The welfare budget of the federal government is comprised of 13 unique programs as shown below. Federal Spending in Fiscal Years 2019, 2020, and 2021 in Billions: The federal budget increased from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to $6.8 trillion in 2021.

 

Main benefit increases On 1 July 2021 All main benefits will increase by $20 per adult per week.

Kind of dwarfs your "Elephant" to a mouse. 

A solution 'could' be to instate a "draft" and all people between 17-35 who are unemployed, not in school and physically able be required to enlist in the military for a minimum of 6 years followed by reenlistment or job placement. They'd learn a trade and still be getting all the services (medical, housing, food, etc.) that they get for doing nothing.

 

On Topic: I hope they put a cap on who would get the extra $$ per month and limit it to people receiving less than $3,000 a month now. Wouldn't bother me if they just made that the minimum benefit amount. There are a LOT of people that worked faithfully all/most of their lives that didn't earn tons of money but WERE crucial to keeping the country running.

My 1st job that paid into SS earned me a whopping $300 a month (and YES, at the end of the 60's that was taxable)

[mrwebb8825]

14 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Reminds me of the Parable of 10 men in a bar... 

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:...

https://thewealthnavigator.com.au/the-parable-of-10-men-in-a-bar/

 

 

 

Your Parable cheats the small business owner for being nice.

Before the deduction he was receiving the full $100 for the drinks but after his generosity in giving the men a $20 discount he was actually only receiving $79.

1+3+7+12+18+59=100

2+5+9+14+49=79

[ThailandRyan]

7 hours ago, 1FinickyOne said:

you don't need the 200 more to qualify... the 200 is on top of medicare and social security and all the spending programs... people live a long time now and the lifetime benefits are enormous... add in military pensions and disability... you may not think it is being rich, but ask a coal miner or steel worker who retired 200 years ago... 

Must be a walking mummy coal mine worker if they are from 200 years ago, the COLA since then would have quintupled their SS by now.

[1FinickyOne]

4 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Must be a walking mummy coal mine worker if they are from 200 years ago, the COLA since then would have quintupled their SS by now.

4x zero is ???

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You want to cut some spending and shift some spending to those that deserve it and worked for it try starting here:

The welfare budget of the federal government is comprised of 13 unique programs as shown below. Federal Spending in Fiscal Years 2019, 2020, and 2021 in Billions: The federal budget increased from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to $6.8 trillion in 2021.

 

Main benefit increases On 1 July 2021 All main benefits will increase by $20 per adult per week.

Kind of dwarfs your "Elephant" to a mouse. 

A solution 'could' be to instate a "draft" and all people between 17-35 who are unemployed, not in school and physically able be required to enlist in the military for a minimum of 6 years followed by reenlistment or job placement. They'd learn a trade and still be getting all the services (medical, housing, food, etc.) that they get for doing nothing.

 

On Topic: I hope they put a cap on who would get the extra $$ per month and limit it to people receiving less than $3,000 a month now. Wouldn't bother me if they just made that the minimum benefit amount. There are a LOT of people that worked faithfully all/most of their lives that didn't earn tons of money but WERE crucial to keeping the country running.

My 1st job that paid into SS earned me a whopping $300 a month (and YES, at the end of the 60's that was taxable)

I totally agree that people getting unusually large SS checks don't need relief but for weird political reasons I don't see means testing ever being applied to this program.

 

The reason is this  SS is not a welfare program. The level of benefit us directly tied to a person's pay in. As inevitably the income cap for SS payroll taxes get higher and higher, to limit what higher income people get in benefits except for a maximum check level would be political poison. 

[BangkokReady]

Quote

Most Excellent Bill

Someone's been watching a little Bill and Ted...

[GinBoy2]

I think we need to clarify 'welfare'

 

SS, and Medicare are NOT welfare. We've paid into them all our working lives, I expect to get that money back.

 

Never equate those programs to real welfare, which I'm not opposed to helping those who fall on hard times, within reason

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

I think we need to clarify 'welfare'

 

SS, and Medicare are NOT welfare. We've paid into them all our working lives, I expect to get that money back.

 

Never equate those programs to real welfare, which I'm not opposed to helping those who fall on hard times, within reason

Right.

Not welfare.

But to be clear the system relies on many people never getting any or all of their money back!

They are not IRA accounts.

Like if you die before claiming, move abroad and can't use Medicare, etc. etc. etc.

Heck if they wanted to be really fair which they don't they would let demographic groups with lower life expectancies claim earlier..

[ericthai]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Right.

Not welfare.

But to be clear the system relies on many people never getting any or all of their money back!

They are not IRA accounts.

Like if you die before claiming, move abroad and can't use Medicare, etc. etc. etc.

Heck if they wanted to be really fair which they don't they would let demographic groups with lower life expectancies claim earlier..

My dad died at 56 so never received a dime of what he paid into. 

[mrwebb8825]

7 hours ago, ericthai said:

My dad died at 56 so never received a dime of what he paid into. 

No but you and/or your mom could/should have been able to.

[bendejo]

On 6/18/2022 at 10:47 AM, ericthai said:

dont worry they will raise the medicare part B premium to take most of the 8% back!

Thanks for bringing this up.  This happened last fall courtesy of that nice Sinema lady, among others.  It did not get much mention in the media.  Sometimes I wonder if the real anti-democracy force in the US is the pharmaceutical industry. 

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Like if you die before claiming, move abroad and can't use Medicare, etc. etc. etc.

Heck if they wanted to be really fair which they don't they would let demographic groups with lower life expectancies claim earlier..

Agree, the Medicare should be treated exactly like Tricare and cover everything, everywhere.

 

My earlier point about lower vs higher wage earners and check size is that only the higher wage earners can keep living as they were accustom to. People who are 100% necessary to keep the country moving but work at low paying jobs all their lives suddenly find themselves in poverty and then get penalized because they paid off their house making them ineligible for assistance due to assets.

If it weren't for laws prohibiting taxation of inheritance, they'd die at their desk.

[mrwebb8825]

5 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Thanks for bringing this up.  This happened last fall courtesy of that nice Sinema lady, among others.  It did not get much mention in the media.  Sometimes I wonder if the real anti-democracy force in the US is the pharmaceutical industry. 

 

 

Agree - There should be NO 'premium' for something you've already paid for all your life.

[Wake Up]

On 6/18/2022 at 5:30 PM, Jingthing said:

People on social security are retired. They paid into the program while working.

Social security was never meant to be the source of income to sustain your life after retirement.  It was meant to make sure some people had some money to eat.  You were expected to save enough money for retirement. Social security was a good idea Especially for those that never saved anything else for retirement. For those that live solely from social security and have no other funds then that is a tough life and of course you want more. But you made your bed and the government does not owe you anything extra. And politicians that want to give away borrowed money to get votes are doing a disservice to those that have to pay back those borrowed funds.  

[Jingthing]

49 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

Social security was never meant to be the source of income to sustain your life after retirement.  It was meant to make sure some people had some money to eat.  You were expected to save enough money for retirement. Social security was a good idea Especially for those that never saved anything else for retirement. For those that live solely from social security and have no other funds then that is a tough life and of course you want more. But you made your bed and the government does not owe you anything extra. And politicians that want to give away borrowed money to get votes are doing a disservice to those that have to pay back those borrowed funds.  

Your post was preachy and here is my response.

 

You are correct that the program wasn't designed to provide full support.

 

However for various reasons it is used that way by many people. One big reason is the phasing out of company pensions. As you imply sometimes people could have built an adequate nest egg but chose not to. In other cases poverty or ruinous personal events precluded that possibility.

 

So the morality preaching you made your own bed may be apt for some but not all.

 

As far as SS funding it is not a welfare program. As this bill suggests funding can be tweaked with changes such as raising the income cap.

 

Boosting checks 200 isn't such a big change after all.

[Wake Up]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Your post was preachy and here is my response.

 

You are correct that the program wasn't designed to provide full support.

 

However for various reasons it is used that way by many people. One big reason is the phasing out of company pensions. As you imply sometimes people could have built an adequate nest egg but chose not to. In other cases poverty or ruinous personal events precluded that possibility.

 

So the morality preaching you made your own bed may be apt for some but not all.

 

As far as SS funding it is not a welfare program. As this bill suggests funding can be tweaked with changes such as raising the income cap.

 

Boosting checks 200 isn't such a big change after all.

200 dollars times a lot of humans at 6 percent interest is a lot of money. Not meant to be preaching. And there certainly are people who have had terrible things happen to them financially and rely solely on social security. My mother was one of them and our family helped her financially. 
 

My Point is simply that if you live only on social security it is a tough life and it is a benefit you paid for. But to borrow money to boost the benefits and have people think they deserve it or are entitled to it and have to rely on it is financially irresponsible way of government and the people that depend on it. You can live on any amount of money and your whole adult life you chose how to spend your money. There are now consequences to our actions. 
 

thinking 200 dollars is not much money is one reason you don’t have excess money. Not meant to be a personal attack or preaching or judging just trying to be factual about life. Take care 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Wake Up said:

200 dollars times a lot of humans at 6 percent interest is a lot of money. Not meant to be preaching. And there certainly are people who have had terrible things happen to them financially and rely solely on social security. My mother was one of them and our family helped her financially. 
 

My Point is simply that if you live only on social security it is a tough life and it is a benefit you paid for. But to borrow money to boost the benefits and have people think they deserve it or are entitled to it and have to rely on it is financially irresponsible way of government and the people that depend on it. You can live on any amount of money and your whole adult life you chose how to spend your money. There are now consequences to our actions. 
 

thinking 200 dollars is not much money is one reason you don’t have excess money. Not meant to be a personal attack or preaching or judging just trying to be factual about life. Take care 

Social security funding is borrowed money? Its supposed to be funded directly by SS payroll taxes, yes? The proposed bill addresses how to fund the 200 as well.

[Wake Up]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Social security funding is borrowed money? Its supposed to be funded directly by SS payroll taxes, yes? The proposed bill addresses how to fund the 200 as well.

Good discussion. You have valid beliefs and we simply have a small disagreement. You could be 100 percent correct. I don’t see it as anything more than people becoming dependent on government to solve the problems they created over a lifetime. That makes government become a horrible beast. Just like all those adults that borrowed money for college and now demand the debt be forgiven or reduced. When does it end? Why does  everyone think they deserve additional money from the government other than what has already been agreed to? 
 

I don’t want anyone to have a hard life but I also don’t want the government to continually increase handouts of cash that they don’t have. And I am a firm believer of saving for a rainy day and almost every American could have done that but many chose to not do that and are now unhappy with their past choices.  So it is easier for them to blame others or life circumstances or ask for an “entitled” handout. Take care. I admit I could be wrong in some cases and I am happy I saved and wish I had a government that spent less money than they make and saved money also. ????

[Jingthing]

How SS is funded.

 

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/how-is-social-security-funded.html

 

Mostly from SS payroll.taxes.

That is NOT borrowed money.

[mania]

On 6/18/2022 at 12:33 PM, mrwebb8825 said:

You want to cut some spending and shift some spending to those that deserve it and worked for it try starting here:

 

Read John Quincy Adams 1821 speech & get back to me ????

https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1821secofstateJQAdmas.pdf

 

Quote

A solution 'could' be to instate a "draft" and all people between 17-35 who are unemployed,

555 yeah read above & head on over to your draft board or send your kids

 

[ericthai]

16 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

No but you and/or your mom could/should have been able to.

Not possible, I was 24 at the time and my mom worked. When my mom retired she did collect on his SS as it was higher than hers.

[Jingthing]

Expanding on the topic.

Changing COLA formulas.

 

 

[Wake Up]

On 6/20/2022 at 12:53 PM, Jingthing said:

How SS is funded.

 

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/how-is-social-security-funded.html

 

Mostly from SS payroll.taxes.

That is NOT borrowed money.

It is clear the social security fund will be losing money in 2032 or 2034 ( and borrow money for the future ) as the taxes will not be enough to pay current benefits. That means the future will be borrowed money. I understand Biden has a tax plan for the 200 dollars but it is also clear that social security is quickly running out of paid in money.  I can read but this is just a trick to kick the cab down the road to others. 

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

It is clear the social security fund will be losing money in 2032 or 2034 ( and borrow money for the future ) as the taxes will not be enough to pay current benefits. That means the future will be borrowed money. I understand Biden has a tax plan for the 200 dollars but it is also clear that social security is quickly running out of paid in money.  I can read but this is just a trick to kick the cab down the road to others. 

No.

Its not Biden's proposal.

Benefits won't need to be cut if the income cap for the tax is raised adequately.

[Wake Up]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No.

Its not Biden's proposal.

Benefits won't need to be cut if the income cap for the tax is raised adequately.

Yes Social Security is majorly underfunded and running out of money. I know what the bill says but reality is the social security system without more taxes or loans or both goes broke in the next ten to twelve years. Look at the forest and not just one tree. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

Yes Social Security is majorly underfunded and running out of money. I know what the bill says but reality is the social security system without more taxes or loans or both goes broke in the next ten to twelve years. Look at the forest and not just one tree. 

Raising the income cap is the obvious solution. I can't predict the future though. Many republicans want to "trim down" Social Security and Medicare at the very least and failure to pass increased income caps would indeed lead to future benefit cuts. Breaking a social contract for sure.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Emphasizing the last point, forgetting the idea of a 200 a month bump and readjusting the COLA formula to better reflect reality (which will tend to result in higher COLAs) IF steps are not taken most vitally raising the income cap for payroll taxes, the system WILL NOT pay by borrowing. It will cut benefits! Given how many people rely on SS checks just to barely survive, I don't see how that would be OK at all. 

[2baht]

On 6/18/2022 at 8:44 AM, mania said:

And if the rich say screw it I'm outa here?

 

[JimGant]

On 6/22/2022 at 5:40 PM, Jingthing said:

Raising the income cap is the obvious solution.

One of them. Another is having FICA taxes on all income, not just wages. Thus, cap gains, rents, dividends etc would get a  FICA hit. But since these elements of income aren't large with the poor, but with the rich, the poor will be little affected. But, their FICA rate can be reduced due to the added revenue from the rich. And, better yet, just get rid of the separate FICA line item and fund SS payments strictly from the general revenue pot. Right now the FICA fund, funded for years with over collection of FICA taxes (and being issued IOU's), is finally being drawn down as outlays exceed FICA tax collections. Thus, all those years of the Treasury borrowing the excess collections from the FICA fund, to help pay for aircraft carriers and such, has finally reversed and SS benefit payments are now having to use some of those IOU's to make full payment to beneficiaries. Come 2032, or whenever, when the IOU's run out, the Treasury and its general tax collections will have to pay in full to beneficiaries -- assuming politics doesn't make the FICA fund into something of value, and not just a holder of Treasury IOU's and thus an accounting gimmick, not something of value (like if it held gold or foreign government notes).

 

Quote

Given how many people rely on SS checks just to barely survive

So another necessary change is means testing. Yes, this will make SS moreso a welfare system, not a paid-into pension entitlement of sorts. But already the least well off SS beneificaries have a much higher return on those FICA taxes they've paid, than do the richer folks. So, already it's a welfare system. So why not make it moreso....?

 

My Australian neighbor is comfortable, but I wouldn't say rich. However, he gets no Australian equivalent of our SS, as his income and assets are means tested -- and he's deemed not needy. And, as I understand it, there is no separate line item in Australia for taxes collected toward eventual SS equivalents. Thus, he can't scream, "But I paid into this fund!" So, maybe the US not having a separate FICA line would mute the right wing screams of "entitlement."

 

Anyway, we got close in 2013, with Simpson-Bowles -- back when bipartisanship existed -- to implementing both raised tax caps on FICA taxes and means testing. But of course, Congress being self serving, ignored it. Certainly don't see any similar bipartisanship re SS reforms in any near, or far, future.