There are a lot of very real very serious things to worry about, both personally and globally.

But SS benefit cuts if you're already close is probably not one of them.

Feel better?

A very level-headed analysis of the fast approaching cash flow problem for SS benefits.

My preference would be to adjust several of the levers available to allow SSA to meet future benefit obligations:

• increase payroll taxes a small amount....to perhaps cover only 5% of projected shortfall

• increase the FRA (full retirement age) by one year gradually...maybe over a span of 12 years

• remove the cap on wage income subject to payroll taxes... most people earning really high incomes are not receiving most of it as wages anyway

• partially undo the recent elimination of WEP and GPO penalties... their original intent was reasonable but perhaps too onerous... reduced penalties are acceptable to me (I benefitted substantially from the WEP removal)

Introduce some needs testing. It doesn't make sense for someone at the low end of SSA benefits to get, for example, the same 3 percent Cola raise on $1400 to $1800 as someone bringing in the max at $5100. The person at the low end will never catch up with true inflation, while the one at the max end will live the life of Riley.

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Introduce some needs testing. It doesn't make sense for someone at the low end of SSA benefits to get, for example, the same 3 percent Cola raise on $1400 to $1800 as someone bringing in the max at $5100. The person at the low end will never catch up with true inflation, while the one at the max end will live the life of Riley.

That about as fair as the tax code, penalize those that what to earn more by taking more. Now you want to give them less, even though they pay in the same % of income, and contribute quite a bit more overall.

Y'all need to understand the meaning of fair ...

... it's not earn more take more

... it's not contribute more, get less

Stop stealing other's money to subsidize those who prefer not to make the effort to be earn and produce more income & taxes.

Sooner or later, run out of other people's money.

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Now you want to give them less, even though they pay in the same % of income, and contribute quite a bit more overall.

I'm talking about needs testing the cola, not taking away money from anybody. I think it's perfectly acceptable to double the cola at the low and allow the high end to remain untouched. In raw dollar amounts, the high end would still get double the amount, at least, as the low end.

25 minutes ago, John Drake said:

I'm talking about needs testing the cola, not taking away money from anybody. I think it's perfectly acceptable to double the cola at the low and allow the high end to remain untouched. In raw dollar amounts, the high end would still get double the amount, at least, as the low end.

There's no way to spin that as a fair disbursement of SS. Simple wealth redistribution, from those that earned it, to those that didn't.