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.
1) Whether in the next 2-3 (or 4 or 5, or ever) the income limit on whether Soc Sec taxable is increased?
2) Whether the Medicare age will be lowered to match the age 62 Soc. Sec. age?
- Also, what changes have your heard that lawmakers are working on putting forward?
- Anything coming down the pike we should keep and eye and ear out for?
- For example, Is there something for example you've heard that AARP is lobbying for?
Any inside scoop out there?
1) The income limit or the tax will likely be increased to help get rid of the shortfall that will occur in a few years. My guess is that they will do both.
2) Medicare age lowering is very unlikely because will be too expensive and will benefit mostly those that have the assets so they can retire early.
3) The Secure Act 2.0 will pass - probably in the next year.
...
Both political parties are intransigent. One Political party more so than the other at any time.
It seems to me that these two parties like to exchange places from time to time. With one administration one party will be very intransigent. But then with the next administration the other party takes the stage as the most intransigent.
Quote:
... 1. FRA for SS, will need to rise.
I do not see that happening, nor do I see anyone presenting a 'need' for it to happen.
So long as people on SS stay above the federal poverty line, nothing is going to happen.
So long as retirement remains as a multi-legged stool. SS is only one leg among other legs. You are not expected to be able to support yourself exclusively from SS.
<snp>
I thought it was clear, but I see I had a dropped word. It should have read: the income limit on whether Soc Sec is taxable is increased?
Hard to say. BUT, at the time the law was passed, it was known that the income limit would eventually hit most retirees. I read that it was intentional and if true, it was a genius move.
New revenue from other sources going into social security. 4 decades ago candidate John Anderson proposed gas tax revenue, unlikely to become law. More States setting up worker retirement plans for those whose employers do not offer one. Will it become national? Not likely.
2) Medicare age lowering is very unlikely because will be too expensive and will benefit mostly those that have the assets so they can retire early.
Surveys always show a gap between average age of when people expect to retire and when they actually do retire. There are an awful lot of early retirees in their late 50s and early 60s who lost their job and can't find a new one due to age or being physically incapable of doing their job anymore. I'd assume a lot of these would switch to ACA and get subsidies, which I'm not sure is any cheaper for the government than them being on Medicare.
Not saying I advocate lowering the Medicare age since it is a program built for retirees, just questioning whether most who would take it between 55-65 would usually be heavy asset folks who retired on their schedule instead of a few bad hands of cards dealt their way.
... Not saying I advocate lowering the Medicare age since it is a program built for retirees, just questioning whether most who would take it between 55-65 would usually be heavy asset folks who retired on their schedule instead of a few bad hands of cards dealt their way.
In the last couple of years, I have been hearing from among my neighbors, there is a growing sentiment who want medicare to be open to everyone. regardless of age.
As a spectator to all of the political debates that have been going on. I suspect that Medicare will get opened to everyone a long time before they decide to tweak SS.
I agree that SS does need to be tweaked. But the far-left has not been making speeches for SS to be fixed. They want a guaranteed minimum income, free healthcare, and free housing.
Things will change. When, how and so forth likely won't play out until circumstances force a change *now*. That is the only way the government seems to act on anything major nowadays.
First and foremost number of workers supporting those on SS is going down, down, *down*. Currently about 2.3 current workers support each person receiving SS bennies.
Social Security more and more is becoming most or sole income for many seniors and elderly. That number is only going to increase.
Changes in family dynamics including same sex marriage legalization means SS as now designed to protect "weaker spouse", not automatically means female.
Then there is all the rest; longer lifespans, yada, yada, yada..
Lone among many western developed nations USA has yet to deal with changes by adjusting if not revamping Social Security.
Each successive presidential administration and Congress keeps kicking can down the road saying there is light at end of tunnel. What no one seems to realize that often that light at end of tunnel is an oncoming train.....
Main problem with "reforming" Social Security in USA is that unlike other developed countries with vast national social programs that can be tapped for seniors/elderly. SS is pretty much it for USA, as such loud cries to turn the thing into something it was never supposed to be; a sort of welfare system.
SS in this country was designed to replace part of a worker's income in retirement. Not all or even half, but more like one-third. If someone never earned more than $30k for most of their working career, that's it then. Except it isn't far as some are concerned. They would have others pay more (in taxes) in order that those getting less in SS can receive more.
Main problem with "reforming" Social Security in USA is that unlike other developed countries with vast national social programs that can be tapped for seniors/elderly. SS is pretty much it for USA, as such loud cries to turn the thing into something it was never supposed to be; a sort of welfare system.
SS in this country was designed to replace part of a worker's income in retirement. Not all or even half, but more like one-third. If someone never earned more than $30k for most of their working career, that's it then. Except it isn't far as some are concerned. They would have others pay more (in taxes) in order that those getting less in SS can receive more.
I guess it's lucky that those that earn less die faster so you need to consider that too. And if we didn't have these people, who would be taking care of our older folks like you? And why do they work harder for less money?
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.
) the income limit on whether Soc Sec taxable is increased?
