The "rudest" social security reform proposal yet

[Jingthing]

No social security for you! You're too rich! Don't be such a piggy!

 

Prof G supports ending Social Security for 10-30%

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/prof-g-says-10-to-30-of-americans-who-collect-social-security-don-t-need-it-claims-us-seniors-are-richest-generation-in-history-get-1-2t-year-from-struggling-young-people-is-he-right/ar-AA1FrLqu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b80b125c4b134869a985a5a1e79f5687&ei=22

Quote

 

The New York University (NYU) professor, who is known for his controversial takes, said in an episode of his podcast that "somewhere between 10% and 30% of people who get Social Security right now should not receive it. Because they don’t need it."

He said, "I'll go as high as a third of senior citizens should not be getting Social Security."

Galloway suggests this not just as a way to reduce economic inequality in the U.S., but also as a potential solution to cuts costs in a program that faces insolvency issues due to shifting demographics. Without any reform, the Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2035. Benefits for all would be automatically cut at that point by 17%.

 

 

Certainly SOMETHING significant does need to be done and perhaps this idea is the best answer, but boy oh boy, it would be political dynamite to try to actually pass this.

 

I have mixed feelings about this for selfish reasons. 

If they do this, who decides where the cut off point is?

I doubt I would ever be judged "too wealthy" to be entitled to SS benefits, but you never know.

But then again certainly Jeff Bezos does NOT need a SS check!

[georgegeorgia]

Seems you Americans are always complaining 

 

Look at Australian social security,have to be 67 , can't have more than $300,000 in the bank ,so if you saved and worked all ya life too bad ,whilst some other bludger never worked in his life  gets it plus all the free benefits 

 

Count ya self lucky you get it at 62

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

Seems you Americans are always complaining 

 

Look at Australian social security,have to be 67 , can't have more than $300,000 in the bank ,so if you saved and worked all ya life too bad ,whilst some other bludger never worked in his life  gets it plus all the free benefits 

 

Count ya self lucky you get it at 62

We can opt in at age 62 but at severely reduced benefit levels.

Thanks for telling us that Australia does means test retirement funds there.

Very interesting.

300K is really not that much. I'm surprised the cut off point is that low.

I suppose lots of people anywhere near that simply spend it down to be eligible, don't they?

I have always thought that Australia has a lot of government policies that make a lot of common sense, such as mandatory voting.

[georgegeorgia]

I guess the only thing Australia has better than the USA social security system is for the unemployed who get their fortnightly cheques until they find a job in which I heard some people in Australia have never found a job in 20 years and still get social security,.....unlike in America where I heard the cut off point is 6 months .

 

But let's face it....some people are unemployable 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

I guess the only thing Australia has better than the USA social security system is for the unemployed who get their fortnightly cheques until they find a job in which I heard some people in Australia have never found a job in 20 years and still get social security,.....unlike in America where I heard the cut off point is 6 months .

 

But let's face it....some people are unemployable 

 

 

 

I was thinking more in terms of things like mandatory voting and ending the use of pennies. 

[kwonitoy]

In Canada old age security OAS is income related, If your annual income is over 152,000 then any payments made the year before will be clawed back, along with any other benefits except for Canada Pension Plan, CPP.

 

I know this directly, I had to pay back about 40G last year due to my income (got very fortunate on some stocks)

 

I agree with the system, if you make 150+ Grand a year you don't need government help

 

What is the maximum income to avoid OAS clawback?

AI Overview

 

In 2025, you can avoid the OAS clawback if your net income before adjustments (as shown on line 23400 of your tax return) is $93,454 or less. For every dollar you make above this threshold, your maximum OAS pension is reduced by 15 cents. If your income reaches $151,668 (for ages 65-74) or $157,490 (for ages 75 and older), your OAS benefits will be fully clawed back. 

[Jingthing]

Interesting about Canada.

This would be new to the USA for SS if it ever happens.

There is also the question of income vs. net worth assets that could or should come into play in any means testing plan. 

[kwonitoy]

It's strictly income based in Canada, not net worth.

They determine it by your CRA tax filing for the previous year.

I sold a bunch of stock, had a high income so no government handouts.

This year if I don't sell stock but still have seven figures in investments, then I will qualify for the government payments I'm eligible for

Seems fair to me

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting about Canada.

This would be new to the USA for SS if it ever happens.

There is also the question of income vs. net worth assets that could or should come into play in any means testing plan. 

 

The Canadian method is fair. The key is that the Canadian Pension (or Quebec pension) plans are  not involved, although they are treated as general income and subject to income tax on the  sliding scale. At the highest income tax level, (depending on  region), people still keep  approx. 50% of their  pension income. Canada Old Age Security, like that of many  European countries is intended to assist old people of limited financial means, which is why it is subject to income thresholds.

 

I am not a fan of looking at a person's assets, because it punishes people for being responsible and saving. it rewards not saving, and the sacrifice that often goes along with it. 

 

The US change to increase the deduction for  residential mortgage payments is the  worst move. It encourages people to take on more debt. Too many deductions and loopholes. It would be best for everyone to reduce deductions and to adjust the tax rate accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tug]

13 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

I guess the only thing Australia has better than the USA social security system is for the unemployed who get their fortnightly cheques until they find a job in which I heard some people in Australia have never found a job in 20 years and still get social security,.....unlike in America where I heard the cut off point is 6 months .

 

But let's face it....some people are unemployable 

 

 

 

You guys aught to vote the rite people in and fix that 300,000 is not much! Especially used to deny someone’s pension that sucks BIG TIME!!!

[TedG]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I was thinking more in terms of things like mandatory voting and ending the use of pennies. 

 

Mandatory voting is a dumb dumb idea. 

[TedG]

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

The Canadian method is fair. The key is that the Canadian Pension (or Quebec pension) plans are  not involved, although they are treated as general income and subject to income tax on the  sliding scale. At the highest income tax level, (depending on  region), people still keep  approx. 50% of their  pension income. Canada Old Age Security, like that of many  European countries is intended to assist old people of limited financial means, which is why it is subject to income thresholds.

 

I am not a fan of looking at a person's assets, because it punishes people for being responsible and saving. it rewards not saving, and the sacrifice that often goes along with it. 

 

The US change to increase the deduction for  residential mortgage payments is the  worst move. It encourages people to take on more debt. Too many deductions and loopholes. It would be best for everyone to reduce deductions and to adjust the tax rate accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I favor ending the mortage interest deductoin and the SALT deductoin. 

[still kicking]

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

 

Mandatory voting is a dumb dumb idea. 

HAha we have in OZ

[EVENKEEL]

If you pay into SS you should get it, no matter what. I took mine at age 62. I could survive without it but I paid into it for 47 yrs, I deserve it.

 

 

[bendejo]

Mandatory voting in Brazil, and everyone takes it seriously.  Or at least they did 20+ years ago when the minimum wage was US$80 per month.  I would suspect the right-wing guy tried to quash it, fascists don't like elections.

I like the Thailand thing where if the election turnout is too low the results are thrown out.  If gives the electorate a means of saying "we don't want any of these."

 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you pay into SS you should get it, no matter what. I took mine at age 62. I could survive without it but I paid into it for 47 yrs, I deserve it.

 

 

That's missing the point of social security.

[EVENKEEL]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That's missing the point of social security.

If you're self employed you don't pay into SS and no benefits for you. That's fair. A guy works hard all his life and contributes money to SS  and does well for himself........sorry sir but you worked too hard and were too successful..... no benefits for you. That is totally wrong.

[EVENKEEL]

21 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Seems you Americans are always complaining 

 

Look at Australian social security,have to be 67 , can't have more than $300,000 in the bank ,so if you saved and worked all ya life too bad ,whilst some other bludger never worked in his life  gets it plus all the free benefits 

 

Count ya self lucky you get it at 62

Have to complain or else the Man will take advantage of you. That simply takes away the motivation of people to work hard and succeed.

 

Been to Australia several times, great visits. Too bad socialism is taking hold.

[fredwiggy]

21 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Seems you Americans are always complaining 

 

Look at Australian social security,have to be 67 , can't have more than $300,000 in the bank ,so if you saved and worked all ya life too bad ,whilst some other bludger never worked in his life  gets it plus all the free benefits 

 

Count ya self lucky you get it at 62

Most people don't have 300K in the bank, and yes, some can get SS in Australia without working but it's from a disability, taking care of children, caring for someone with a disability, people taking care of children who have lost both parents, and a few others. It isn't luck we receive benefits. We paid into them while we were working all the years.

[John Drake]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If they do this, who decides where the cut off point is?

I doubt I would ever be judged "too wealthy" to be entitled to SS benefits, but you never know.

 

Maybe they count your 800k in a Thai bank account against you.

[cdemundo]

7 hours ago, TedG said:

 

I favor ending the mortage interest deductoin and the SALT deductoin. 

I can understand the mortgage interest deduction, noting that it is a deduction, not a credit.

But I can't understand why the mortgage interest deduction is applicable to multiple homes.

 

Again seems like reverse Robin Hood, giving more to the rich for no reason.

[cdemundo]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you pay into SS you should get it, no matter what. I took mine at age 62. I could survive without it but I paid into it for 47 yrs, I deserve it.

 

 

Yes, I agree, but since you say "I could survive without it" I don't think you are in the category of super rich that is being thought of for exclusion.

 

Taking someone who is super rich and fairly well-liked by the public, does Warren Buffet "deserve it"?

He probably does, he paid in right?

The max SSA benefit is $4018 per month at full retirement age.

Would that make any difference at all to Warren Buffet's quality of life?

If cutting off the very rich allows SSA to continue for you, are you for this change?

 

People are not looking to make changes just to screw with people, they are looking for ways to keep SSA viable.

[EVENKEEL]

40 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Yes, I agree, but since you say "I could survive without it" I don't think you are in the category of super rich that is being thought of for exclusion.

 

Taking someone who is super rich and fairly well-liked by the public, does Warren Buffet "deserve it"?

He probably does, he paid in right?

The max SSA benefit is $4018 per month at full retirement age.

Would that make any difference at all to Warren Buffet's quality of life?

If cutting off the very rich allows SSA to continue for you, are you for this change?

 

People are not looking to make changes just to screw with people, they are looking for ways to keep SSA viable.

Would taking away from super rich really make a difference?  That's where they start. How far down the food chain will they go?

 

No one knows. I'm firmly against it.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you're self employed you don't pay into SS and no benefits for you. That's fair. A guy works hard all his life and contributes money to SS  and does well for himself........sorry sir but you worked too hard and were too successful..... no benefits for you. That is totally wrong.

Not true.

Self employed Americans are required to pay both the employer and employee SS payroll tax parts.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Would taking away from super rich really make a difference?  That's where they start. How far down the food chain will they go?

 

No one knows. I'm firmly against it.

Not only the super rich.

According to the referenced proposal as high as 30 percent of potential benefit collectors. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

That's missing the point of social security.

It may be missing the point that's true.

It's much more of a social insurance scheme against severe poverty mostly for the aged. However the reality is that for better or worse most Americans do view SS as more of a pension account that they own because they paid into it. Politically it would be extremely difficult to buck those perceptions. That's why I think the US passing means testing for SS is very unlikely.

[GarryP]

No idea if there is a ceiling on savings for UK citizens, but all my savings are in Thailand, so not sure they could check up on me anyway. 

[EVENKEEL]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not true.

Self employed Americans are required to pay both the employer and employee SS payroll tax parts.

I didn't realize the business owner had to pay for himself. OK so guess everybody who paid in is better. 

 

But taking it away based on income sets a whole new chapter in this. Where does it stop. 

[jas007]

For years, people have floated different plans to limit or restrict Social Security Benefits, or to entirely privatize it. And most such schemes have gotten nowhere.  Critics claim the privatization programs are simply a devious attempt to place the retirement money of millions into the hands of Wall Street. 

 

As for the plans to have some sort of income test?  That sounds problematic, unless they set it up with a sliding scale.  For example, a slight reduction in benefits would be made at some threshold level, gradually increasing with the recipient's income.  

[EVENKEEL]

31 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not only the super rich.

According to the referenced proposal as high as 30 percent of potential benefit collectors. 

Scary thought.  If I make a substantial withdrawal from 401k, my 1099R's could put a smuck like me in crosshairs.  Or a good majority of retirees.