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.
Go to the link, on page 22 there is a chart labeled B1, that summarizes the decreases in benefits. AIME does not mean how much in benefits you receive, it is the amount of annual wages upon which your benefit is based.
seems like the decreases are minimal...i might not be reading it right though
It is predicted that in the mid 2030's the Trust Fund will be empty. That is indisputable. Yes, the workers will continue to pay FICA taxes but those taxes will only cover about 79% of benefits due Social Security recipients. For at least the last ten years I have been hearing that Social Security only needs a few "tweaks". That may have been true ten years ago but IMO, that ship has sailed.
Why is a tax increase never on the table as a way to bolster social security?
Don't be so sure. They weren't talking about it on Meet the Press this morning. It's up to us to spread the word and if it doesn't become a fire storm, Congress will ignore us as usual.
Exactly right...this is not the old days when the 60+ age group was listened to. Things happen much more quietly and there is no legitimate journalism to cut through the political spin and objectively state what the impacts will be and who will hurt or benefit from it.
You must have missed the increase this year from 118,000 to $127,000 or something like that.
I'm talking about a general increase in payroll taxes. Perhaps, raising them a total of one percentage point in quarter point increments over maybe a 5 to 10 year period.
I read through the highlights of Sam Johnson's bill. I actually agree with some of what is in there. I think we need to gradually increase retirement ages and perhaps go to chained CPI as a method of computing benefit increases. However, a tax increase needs to be a part of it. That tax increase should perhaps fall most heavily on those in my age group (late 50's) that will be hitting retirement age in a few years.
If all you want to do is cut benefits without raising taxes, I can't go along.
"Social Security checks would be cut 11% to 35% for the worker who draws $50k in benefits. "
That, alone, won't touch very many people.
Raising the eligibility age will result in many people dying before they ever can collect a penny of what they put in for 30 years. This sets up the GOP scenario of privatizing the system to make it fair. So they make it unfair first -- then fix it the way they want it all along...in the pockets of bankers.
There never seems to be a realistic effort to raise the Social Security Cap on millionaires -- they pay at the same level as a guy making pizzas at Dominos. Once they hit about $120,000 in wages they stop paying into the OASDI account.
The government owes something like $2.8 trillion to the fund -- only on paper, that's not really a loan as commonly perceived and even if "paid back" the fund will still run dry in a couple decades. The solutions always seems to cut benefits rather than find a way to get more money into the fund....or cut people loose and privatize the program and the devil take the ones who can't make it ala 1931. Somebody gets rich on that solution and it isn't going to be the worker/retirees.
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.
