Senator Mike Lee's Comments About SS (pension, beach, 2015, states)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm not so sure about money ever having been taken from SSDI to cover SS. I havent been able to find anything on the internet verifying that. So parts of his post might be correct.
Using a narrow definition of “reallocation” — one in which the total payroll tax rate remained the same but the split between OASI and DI changed —there have been six such instances (in 1970, 1980, 1983, 1994, 1997, and 2000). Three of those changes shifted funds from OASI to DI, and three shifted funds from DI to OASI.
Using a broader definition — one in which the total tax rate changed and the OASI and DI rates changed in opposite directions (one increasing and the other decreasing) — there were an additional five instances (in 1968, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984). Three of these shifted funds from OASI to DI, and two from DI to OASI.
The bill kills file and suspend. And one other claiming strategy. Social Security payments to beneficiaries will be reduced by $9.8 billion per year. That is what the Senator was referring to.
The bill kills file and suspend. And one other claiming strategy. Social Security payments to beneficiaries will be reduced by $9.8 billion per year. That is what the Senator was referring to.
Those came under "closing loop holes". The various ways to claim SS are all intended to give the same payout on average based on life expectancy. Because there were ways to game the system to get more and they were being exploited by so many, it made expense go up. So to reduce costs, they closed the loop holes. They do allow you to play the odds and defer collecting but if they do the math right that should be a zero sum game; the extra $ that people who defer and live a long time get should be offset by the people who defer and die without collecting. Right now, that math isn't quite right and slightly favors those who defer (as an average within the group). I would not be surprised to see an adjustment to the math in the future.
My take--and this is about file/suspend and restricted application--not the SSDI/SS issue
I think someone just realized that legalizing gay marriage conveyed millions more people who "could" claim spousal benefits but were never considered as claimants when the original policy was created decades ago or in 2000 when the file/suspend option really came into play but who "might" take advantage of that option going forward.
Those millions of unanticipated possible double-dipping claimants were a real threat to draining funds much sooner...but no one wants to mention that fact because it sounds anti-gay...
So cutting the file/suspend and restricted filing will prevent that option after 180 days and theoretically I guess contain the amount of damage that might be possible.
If all future applications force claimants to file for ANY benefits, then everyone has to pull from His/her own earnings record first and supplement from the spouse's earnings...
Since males are usually higher earners than females, I guess the powers that be anticipate much less money to supplement from the spousal benefit side since that capped at 50% of the the partner's own SS amount--likely comes out to 0 added to the claimant's own SS.
Lee's talking about the transfer of funds from the main SS trust to the SSDI trust. Without it, SSDI recipients would have seen up to a 20% cut in benefits next year.
This was briefly discussed in the thread titled New Social Security Regs.
From what I understand, shifting of funds back-and-forth between these two trusts has been done many times throughout the years.
EVERYONE wants to "CLOSE LOOPHOLES" and "ELIMINATE WASTE". However, each one of the loopholes and each wasteful program has people who support it and for which it is a sacred cow that cannot be touched.
Eventually, the government will print money to cover all social security obligations. While that will reduce the value of the US dollar (much like the Argentine currency), at least all the members of Congress will be able to say that they "preserved" social security and never cut it.
My grandfather opposed social security in 1932 and many of his criticisms are coming true in my lifetime.
Lee's talking about the transfer of funds from the main SS trust to the SSDI trust. Without it, SSDI recipients would have seen up to a 20% cut in benefits next year.
This was briefly discussed in the thread titled New Social Security Regs.
From what I understand, shifting of funds back-and-forth between these two trusts has been done many times throughout the years.
Paul Rand and 33 senators stood against this budget deal for the reasons mentioned between SSDI and SS. That is going out on FB in video taken during that vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFW46
Well, I'm not so sure about money ever having been taken from SSDI to cover SS. I havent been able to find anything on the internet verifying that. So parts of his post might be correct.
It is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01
EVERYONE wants to "CLOSE LOOPHOLES" and "ELIMINATE WASTE". However, each one of the loopholes and each wasteful program has people who support it and for which it is a sacred cow that cannot be touched.
Eventually, the government will print money to cover all social security obligations. While that will reduce the value of the US dollar (much like the Argentine currency), at least all the members of Congress will be able to say that they "preserved" social security and never cut it.
My grandfather opposed social security in 1932 and many of his criticisms are coming true in my lifetime.
I concur. DW and I would be recipients of that windfall if it were to stay but I am for the closing of that. I would have opposed the installing of SS back then and now would like to see it revamped into more of a 401k like trust fund.
A bigger portion of FICA will be shifted from the SS Trust Fund to the SSDI Fund for 3 years starting in January.
It's a bandaid, not a fix.
This was done to give Congress time to come up with a solution is what I read.
In reality..they had plenty of time. This is just kicking the can down the road.
And shaving time off of when the SS Trust Fund will go broke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.