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.
Thought you might want to see what most of the presidential candidates say about Social Security all in one place so you can more easily compare them. This issue impacts people in this forum right now, the most, which is why I'm posting it here.
Push Back The Retirement Age - Jeb Bush
"Jeb Bush wants to push back the retirement age for Social Security by as many as five years. Instead of allowing Americans to collect full benefits at age 65, Bush suggested that it should be pushed back to 68 or 70: "I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from 65 to 68 or 70," he added. "And that, by itself, will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40." At the same time, Bush said that he would be open to cutting back benefits for wealthy people and their beneficiaries, a reform proposal known as means testing. "I think it ought to be considered, for sure," Bush said."
"'We can't balance a budget without entitlement reform. What are we, kidding?' Kasich said when asked about his opponents who say they won't touch entitlements. Kasich said he was part of the effort to reform Medicare and Medicaid in the '90s, and that he also had a plan to change Social Security so that initial benefits were lowered for individuals not yet near eligibility. Kasich did not go into full detail on what his plan would be, saying he would roll it out soon after some number crunching. But he noted that in the past, his cuts would have started with baby boomers. He asked audience members to raise their hands if they were far from receiving Social Security, asked them if they knew yet what their initial benefit would be and then asked them if they would be bothered if it were a little lower for the good of the country. One person said it would be a problem. "Well, you'd get over it, and you're going to have to get over it," Kasich joked."
"Social Security faces a problem: 77 million baby boomers set to retire. Now I know there are some Republicans who would be just fine with allowing these programs to wither and die on the vine. The way they see it, Social Security and Medicare are wasteful "entitlement programs." But people who think this way need to rethink their position. It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth--that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves. Social Security is here to stay. To be sure, we must reform it, root out the fraud, make it more efficient, and ensure that the program is solvent." Donald Trump
Phase In Raising The Retirement Age - Chris Christie
"We'd raise the retirement age two years, and phase it in over 25 years, that means we'd raise it one month a year for 25 years when we're all living longer, and living better lives. Secondly, we would needs-test Social Security for those who are making over $200,000 dollars a year in retirement income, and have $4 to $5 million dollars in liquid assets saved. They don't need that Social Security check. Social Security is meant to be--to make sure that no one who's worked hard, and played by the rules, and paid into the system grows old in poverty in America. If we don't deal with this problem, it will bankrupt our country, or lead to massive tax increases, neither one that we want in this country." Chris Christie
"There is no question that people need pensions, particularly given the extended lifespan we are now experiencing. By changing Fed policies to allow interest rates to rise and encouraging people to put aside some of their earnings, we can hopefully reestablish the idea that each individual is responsible for their own pension and that government programs like Social Security are only supplemental in nature. Each individual needs to determine for themselves how much is enough based on their lifestyle expectancy. The age at which benefits are distributed should be gradually raised. I stress the word gradually because people must be given a chance to adjust their plans and expectations. It must be forbidden by law for government to use any of the money that has been set aside for Social Security." Ben Carson
"I think there are loads of great ideas on how to make Social Security more financially solvent. I do not think there is a prayer of implementing a single one until you get a leader in the Oval Office who's prepared to challenge the status quo. And I am not prepared to go to the American people and talk to them about how we're going to reform Social Security and Medicare until I can demonstrate to them that the government can execute with excellence, perform its responsibilities with excellence, serve the people who pay for it with excellence." Carly Fiorina
Raise Age, Eliminate Payroll Tax for Seniors and The Retirement Earnings Test - Marco Rubio
"The retirement age would stay the same for workers over the age of 55. But for younger workers, he proposed gradually increasing the retirement age, though he did not provide details as to how high he would raise it. Reduce benefits for wealthy seniors. He did not provide details as to how the benefit changes would work or what income levels would be affected. Eliminate payroll tax for older workers: Today, all workers (and their employers) are subject to a 12.4% payroll tax that is used to fund the Social Security system. Nix the earnings test for early claimers: Under current rules, anyone who claims Social Security before their full retirement age but keeps working is subject to a "Retirement Earnings Test" that reduces benefits significantly for anyone who earns more than $15,000 a year. The test is intended to discourage people from claiming Social Security early, but Rubio claims it can have a reverse effect and discourages seniors from staying in the workforce. He proposed nixing the test entirely." Marco Rubio
Tie Growth of Benefits To Inflation and Personal Accounts - Ted Cruz
"No changes whatsoever" for those in or near retirement. Second, tie the growth of benefits to inflation (an apparent endorsement of a policy known as Chained CPI). Personal accounts. "I think it is transformative to allow younger workers to put a portion of their taxes into a personal account that they own, that they control, and that they can pass onto their heirs." Ted Cruz
Instead of cutting Social Security COLAs or raising the retirement age, there is a much fairer way to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years. Right now, an American who makes $106,800 a year pays the same amount of money into the Social Security system as a millionaire or a billionaire. That is because today, all income above $106,800 is exempt from the Social Security payroll tax. As a result, 94% of Americans pay Social Security tax on all of their income, but the wealthiest 6% do not. That is wrong and that has got to change. Bernie Sanders
Raise the Cap On Amount For Taxing and Raise Taxes on Wealthiest - Hillary Clinton
"Responding to a question from the audience at a community college about the fact that the wealthy and upper middle class don't pay Social Security taxes on anything they earn above a certain amount. That limit is $118,500 this year. "I can understand why you'd think that was unfair," the former U.S. senator and secretary of state said, before suggesting an increase in the limit. If the cap were raised, anyone pulling down six figures this year would have to pay taxes not only on their first $118,500, but also on any money they made above that amount, up to the new limit. Clinton then described an approach similar to Sanders's -- raising taxes only on the wealthiest earners to avoid an increase for people who consider themselves upper middle class." Hillary Clinton
The key phrase they use is "We have to take a hard look at entitlements...." Several candidates, from a particular party, have used that phrase already. Never the tax loopholes that corporations manipulate to pay less into society need to be "looked at", always the "entitlements" for older & working class citizens.
I don't like the government coercing me into paying any taxes like social security but now that I am about to start collecting I am glad they did.
For many working raising the retirement age to 68 or 70 is just about as stupid an idea you could get but then this does come out of our political "leaders".
A professional roofer climbing ladders up steep roofs carrying bundles of shingles? Yeah, that would be brilliant.
Unlike political leading elites how about most people that actually work and get their hands dirty? For many 68 or 70 is simply to hold.
Pipe fitters. That is what we do where I work but lucky for me I am in the office at a computer pounding the keyboard purchasing materials and estimating jobs. I can do it, I am 67 and plan to work until 68 at a minimum and 70 if I can make it. But if I had to do what the guys "in the field " have to do there is no way I could have worked beyond 65. Let me put it this way, it is simply to dangerous.
I like social security as it is but I would like to see a voluntary two tier system where if a worker elects to he can contribute an extra 3% over a 30 year period and retire with the same benefits at 65 he would have got at 68 for example. 3% isn't much; it's $30 for someone earning $1,000/week.
Bernie Sanders the idiot? Oh boy, if you think the economy was rough under Carter just wait and see if Bernie gets it.
Thought you might want to see what most of the presidential candidates say about Social Security all in one place so you can more easily compare them. This issue impacts people in this forum right now, the most, which is why I'm posting it here.
.........
Funny as conservative as the Republicans I think the Democrats have the right idea. Yeah some rich people will not like it but I don't care. There also should be a cap as to how much you can get from the system as well. If you paid more than you got then I am sorry.
Oh by the way this is a great post. Thanks LC. I took the stances out to make the thread shorter.
Last edited by oldsoldier1976; 10-12-2015 at 02:12 PM..
Reason: to say thanks
I am not sure who made the comment "Jeb Bush wants to push back the retirement age 5 years from 65 to 70." News flash, it already is being phased in, under current law, as most of you know, to 67. The 66's are now through 1954 year of birth, and then those born 1955 or later, it begins increasing again by 2 month increments to 67.
To me, that is already too old. I retired after 35 years of work. That was plenty. These scenarios have you working ~ 50 years until you get a full benefit.
Raise the cap during the period where we have a severe case of "the snake eating the pig" (demographically speaking) then lower it when things reverse later, after cohorts born prior to the early 1960s are gone.
Raise the cap during the period where we have a severe case of "the snake eating the pig" (demographically speaking) then lower it when things reverse later, after cohorts born prior to the early 1960s are gone.
And just where do you think we are going? Wait - don't answer that...
I am not sure who made the comment "Jeb Bush wants to push back the retirement age 5 years from 65 to 70." News flash, it already is being phased in, under current law, as most of you know, to 67. The 66's are now through 1954 year of birth, and then those born 1955 or later, it begins increasing again by 2 month increments to 67.
To me, that is already too old. I retired after 35 years of work. That was plenty. These scenarios have you working ~ 50 years until you get a full benefit.
I'm certainly not a mathematician but crunching and crushing a few numbers for the median wage earner I think retiring with full benefits at 63 would be possible IF the worker contributes just 2% to 3% of his earnings.
This, the additional contribution, is what we need to implement on a voluntary basis. On a salary of $52,000 3% would be an additional $1,560/year for say 40 years would would total $62,400. By putting in the extra amount if the worker elected to work to say 68 he would simply get more, a lot more.
In my view we need to change social security from the supplement that it once was to a full retirement system.
Before everyone jumps on me I am well aware we would need adjustments for inflation just like social security works now. Of course 3% of the median wage is going to be much higher in 40 years than it is now.
Those that don't pay the extra can work longer or live on a lot less, it's their option and should be their choice.
But with private pensions going the way of the dodo bird I feel we need to build social security up, make is stronger, for future generations.
Future generations, not me. My wife and I will be getting around $4,000 monthly in social security because I apparently earned more than the median during my lifetime and I am working longer... 67 and still not collecting so my benefits are going up by about $48 every quarter I don't collect. We also have pensions that are a little more than $1,000/month and I know we are very, very fortunate to have that and it needs to be recognized future generations won't have the pensions we enjoy.
So we are set, I could retire today and we would be just fine but what about the 20 somethings of today?
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.
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.
