A group of bipartisan senators are discussing raising the retirement age on Social Security to about 70.
According to Semafor, the group of senators led by Angus King (I-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are considering raising the retirement age.
The Senators insisted there are no cuts for Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits.
¡°This is an example of two leaders trying to find a solution to a clear and foreseeable danger,¡± Cassidy and King spokespeople told Semafor in a statement. ¡°Although the final framework is still taking shape, there are no cuts for Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits in our plan. Indeed, many will receive additional benefits.
A group of bipartisan senators are discussing raising the retirement age on Social Security to about 70.
According to Semafor, the group of senators led by Angus King (I-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) are considering raising the retirement age.
The Senators insisted there are no cuts for Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits.
¡°This is an example of two leaders trying to find a solution to a clear and foreseeable danger,¡± Cassidy and King spokespeople told Semafor in a statement. ¡°Although the final framework is still taking shape, there are no cuts for Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits in our plan. Indeed, many will receive additional benefits.
A bipartisan group led by Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Bill Cassidy, R-La. is considering gradually raising the retirement age to about 70 as part of their legislation to overhaul Social Security, Semafor has learned from two people briefed on their efforts.
Other options on the table include changing the existing formula that calculates monthly benefits from one based on a worker¡¯s average earnings over 35 years to a different formula that¡¯s based instead on the number of years spent working and paying into Social Security.
The plan also includes a proposed sovereign wealth fund (as previously reported by Semafor) that could be seeded with $1.5 trillion or more in borrowed money to jumpstart stock investments, the people said. If it fails to generate an 8% return, both the maximum taxable income and the payroll tax rate would be increased to ensure Social Security stays on track to be solvent another 75 years.
In a brief interview Monday evening on Capitol Hill, Cassidy said he¡¯d been meeting with stakeholders for the past two years on the proposal, but that its details were still in flux. ¡°You could really take a fund and, with certain assumptions, take all your revenue from there,¡± he told Semafor.
0
A bipartisan group led by Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Bill Cassidy, R-La. is considering gradually raising the retirement age to about 70 as part of their legislation to overhaul Social Security, Semafor has learned from two people briefed on their efforts.
Other options on the table include changing the existing formula that calculates monthly benefits from one based on a worker¡¯s average earnings over 35 years to a different formula that¡¯s based instead on the number of years spent working and paying into Social Security.
The plan also includes a proposed sovereign wealth fund (as previously reported by Semafor) that could be seeded with $1.5 trillion or more in borrowed money to jumpstart stock investments, the people said. If it fails to generate an 8% return, both the maximum taxable income and the payroll tax rate would be increased to ensure Social Security stays on track to be solvent another 75 years.
In a brief interview Monday evening on Capitol Hill, Cassidy said he¡¯d been meeting with stakeholders for the past two years on the proposal, but that its details were still in flux. ¡°You could really take a fund and, with certain assumptions, take all your revenue from there,¡± he told Semafor.
That isnt equitable unless the payout is commensurate, so if the cap is raised then SS has to pay out for the full taxed ammt and that is never going to happen.
To me the age should be 70 that seems reasonable but the benefits need to be capped and phased out based on retirement income and assets, since SS pays out way more than it takes in thanks to the glut of retirees who paid in so little before the ramp started and they insist on COLA increases even though they didnt pay in COLA increases, and since politicians let that demographic bully them the answer is phase outs over median income.
So someone taking SS once you earn in retirement income more than the median income, a phase out starts and ends at a certain level. If SS retirees really want to help the most needy people and are not selfish with their taking, phase outs are the only answer.
Problem is phase outs will kick the hornets nest of retirement takers...even though the phase out levels would be MEDIAN income of those actually paying IN to the system, to me that is the solution not to endless tax income with no intentions to pay it back down the road.
0
@skoda
That isnt equitable unless the payout is commensurate, so if the cap is raised then SS has to pay out for the full taxed ammt and that is never going to happen.
To me the age should be 70 that seems reasonable but the benefits need to be capped and phased out based on retirement income and assets, since SS pays out way more than it takes in thanks to the glut of retirees who paid in so little before the ramp started and they insist on COLA increases even though they didnt pay in COLA increases, and since politicians let that demographic bully them the answer is phase outs over median income.
So someone taking SS once you earn in retirement income more than the median income, a phase out starts and ends at a certain level. If SS retirees really want to help the most needy people and are not selfish with their taking, phase outs are the only answer.
Problem is phase outs will kick the hornets nest of retirement takers...even though the phase out levels would be MEDIAN income of those actually paying IN to the system, to me that is the solution not to endless tax income with no intentions to pay it back down the road.
So someone who saved for retirement instead of spending all their money on whatever should get less from SS than someone who may have spent their money on blow instead of retirement? I understand the need to help the poor and needy but I dont want to subsidize someone's life style who has a similar income as I do.
0
@wallstreetcappers
So someone who saved for retirement instead of spending all their money on whatever should get less from SS than someone who may have spent their money on blow instead of retirement? I understand the need to help the poor and needy but I dont want to subsidize someone's life style who has a similar income as I do.
The origin of the SS program was for the lower income, over time it has turned into a political vote grab and people think that SS is a tax when it really is not. If SS is a tax then it should be tossed in with all other taxes not separated in its own fund.
The history of pay-ins also shows that the large majority of SS takers now paid in at capped much lower levels over the 50s 60s 70s and 80s, only in the last 30 years have the caps gone up up up up and so those paying in now, those working have borne the brunt of the SS pain, not the takers who expect COLAs and think it is their money when it isnt. SS was not ever a retirement savings program for middle and upper class retirees, it was formed to help low income people.
What I also dont get is that the last 30 years which for SS takers are the savings years of a workers life were the greatest stock market increases in history, housing market increases...yet people didnt properly plan for retirement and think SS is some entitlement, well it isnt and cant be, the program pays out more than it takes in and that wont last for the current generation of payees.
0
@Wilbur22
The origin of the SS program was for the lower income, over time it has turned into a political vote grab and people think that SS is a tax when it really is not. If SS is a tax then it should be tossed in with all other taxes not separated in its own fund.
The history of pay-ins also shows that the large majority of SS takers now paid in at capped much lower levels over the 50s 60s 70s and 80s, only in the last 30 years have the caps gone up up up up and so those paying in now, those working have borne the brunt of the SS pain, not the takers who expect COLAs and think it is their money when it isnt. SS was not ever a retirement savings program for middle and upper class retirees, it was formed to help low income people.
What I also dont get is that the last 30 years which for SS takers are the savings years of a workers life were the greatest stock market increases in history, housing market increases...yet people didnt properly plan for retirement and think SS is some entitlement, well it isnt and cant be, the program pays out more than it takes in and that wont last for the current generation of payees.
Since the mid-1980s, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of about $2.9 trillion, and the excess income is invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.Mar 4, 2022
So why not just use the amassed combined trust funds of 2.9 trillion to keep the governments end of the deal rather than continually changing terms.
The average SS payment was 1550 a month as of 10/22. That's 18,600 a year. So if you live and collect for 15 years that is 279,000.
On retirement at 62, I will have worked 45 years paying in 12.4% ( employee 6.2, employer 6.2), Average income $45,000 = 5580 a year*45=251,100
So that is practically a life long interest free loan to the govt, so hell yes you DESERVE it, if you have worked all your life. The money we get back, in real dollars is worth far less than the money we will receive, in real dollars. There is a reason the govt has been able to take 3 trillion surplus from SS since 1980.
Now if they want to kick off some guy who has been collecting since he was 21 because he has some stupid ass ailment, I'm ALL for that.
1
From Google
Since the mid-1980s, Social Security has collected more in taxes and other income each year than it pays out in benefits and has amassed combined trust funds of about $2.9 trillion, and the excess income is invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities.Mar 4, 2022
So why not just use the amassed combined trust funds of 2.9 trillion to keep the governments end of the deal rather than continually changing terms.
The average SS payment was 1550 a month as of 10/22. That's 18,600 a year. So if you live and collect for 15 years that is 279,000.
On retirement at 62, I will have worked 45 years paying in 12.4% ( employee 6.2, employer 6.2), Average income $45,000 = 5580 a year*45=251,100
So that is practically a life long interest free loan to the govt, so hell yes you DESERVE it, if you have worked all your life. The money we get back, in real dollars is worth far less than the money we will receive, in real dollars. There is a reason the govt has been able to take 3 trillion surplus from SS since 1980.
Now if they want to kick off some guy who has been collecting since he was 21 because he has some stupid ass ailment, I'm ALL for that.
Mostly republicans favor controversial plan to raise retirement age to fix social security. Many countries are gradually raising retirement age to reflect longer life span. For example, Denmark 72 years. Old age pensions began in the 1930s when average lifespan was shorter. Retirement age of 65 years is maintained by a few countries where increasing taxes is preferable.
0
Mostly republicans favor controversial plan to raise retirement age to fix social security. Many countries are gradually raising retirement age to reflect longer life span. For example, Denmark 72 years. Old age pensions began in the 1930s when average lifespan was shorter. Retirement age of 65 years is maintained by a few countries where increasing taxes is preferable.
Lol, your new socialist democratic party.....Keep voting democrat and you have no right to complain not saying you do Danny because I feel you have more common sense.....I took at age 62 because dams are coming after everything you have....I personally hide everything I can this day and time from government...Lol, why do you think dems want to arm 97, 000 new irs agents....Keep trusting fox, cnn, ABC, nbc and all in between, they all play you like a fiddle...Good luck young people but keep voting democrat and that's who you'll work for....I worked for the federal government for 35 yrs and wife 33...We get the benifis working for the government, most of you will not but you're working for the government....All I have to say but America is the biggest drug cartel now and most propaganda country in the world but most will say I'm wrong...Borders wide open with all the drugs you want and America just pushed more drugs on America than any cartel in the world....You figure the average of $120 a Jab and some with 4 of more.....Lol, they didn't push a drug on you no one liable for....Keep trusting your media and government!!!!!!!!! Have a great day and thankful to God for allowing me to be born before internet.....Have a great day and my opinion only and give a rats butt what anyone else thinks....I'm just not scared to speak out anywhere anytime like most coward Republicans....Truth, dems are bullies and Republicans are the ones who shut up as long as you don't pick on me.......Senator tillis hears from me once a month here in NC but his chicken wimp ass is going into hiding now and why you never see him.....He's still sending emails to everyone for donations and not running for anything.....Wake the bump up or keep saying thank you sir may I have another...I'm a rebel though and independent!!! I live by my own rules and trust no-one but myself and Dad who died of dementia a year ago at age 89........Sorry for ranting but it's so sad seeing America brainwashed and giving their rights and country up by the day!!!!!! Knock!
1
@Danny9999
Lol, your new socialist democratic party.....Keep voting democrat and you have no right to complain not saying you do Danny because I feel you have more common sense.....I took at age 62 because dams are coming after everything you have....I personally hide everything I can this day and time from government...Lol, why do you think dems want to arm 97, 000 new irs agents....Keep trusting fox, cnn, ABC, nbc and all in between, they all play you like a fiddle...Good luck young people but keep voting democrat and that's who you'll work for....I worked for the federal government for 35 yrs and wife 33...We get the benifis working for the government, most of you will not but you're working for the government....All I have to say but America is the biggest drug cartel now and most propaganda country in the world but most will say I'm wrong...Borders wide open with all the drugs you want and America just pushed more drugs on America than any cartel in the world....You figure the average of $120 a Jab and some with 4 of more.....Lol, they didn't push a drug on you no one liable for....Keep trusting your media and government!!!!!!!!! Have a great day and thankful to God for allowing me to be born before internet.....Have a great day and my opinion only and give a rats butt what anyone else thinks....I'm just not scared to speak out anywhere anytime like most coward Republicans....Truth, dems are bullies and Republicans are the ones who shut up as long as you don't pick on me.......Senator tillis hears from me once a month here in NC but his chicken wimp ass is going into hiding now and why you never see him.....He's still sending emails to everyone for donations and not running for anything.....Wake the bump up or keep saying thank you sir may I have another...I'm a rebel though and independent!!! I live by my own rules and trust no-one but myself and Dad who died of dementia a year ago at age 89........Sorry for ranting but it's so sad seeing America brainwashed and giving their rights and country up by the day!!!!!! Knock!
No. You are wrong. The government borrowed from this fund many times with IOU¡¯s which never were paid back. I believe it was over a trillion $. Not because of a glut of retirees who under paid. Do your due diligence on this. Don¡¯t let your emotions and extreme political beliefs get in the way of facts. Ty.
2
@wallstreetcappers
No. You are wrong. The government borrowed from this fund many times with IOU¡¯s which never were paid back. I believe it was over a trillion $. Not because of a glut of retirees who under paid. Do your due diligence on this. Don¡¯t let your emotions and extreme political beliefs get in the way of facts. Ty.
Fact: The Social Security trust fund has no money in it.
In 2014, the Social Security Administration (SSA) took in $786 billion through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax¡ $73 billion short of the $859 billion needed to pay claims.
In plain English, Social Security was in deficit mode.
By 2026, the SSA will run up a cumulative deficit of $1.6 trillion.
Wait¡ what about all the money you, I, and every other American has paid in since 1935?
How is that possible?
We¡¯ve been told for decades the Social Security trust fund holds trillions in assets (cumulative Social Security surplus revenues since 1935) that are collecting interest.
Particularly, at the end of 2014, we were told the trust fund owned over $2.8 trillion in assets.
This is a lie. There isn¡¯t one dollar in the Social Security trust fund. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Remember, that $2.8 trillion sum is book assets, not actual dollars. The dollars were spent the minute the government collected taxes.
That¡¯s because the government isn¡¯t required to use money collected from Social Security toward Social Security purposes (according to the Supreme Court¡¯s ruling in Helvering v. Davis). So, it¡¯s used that money to fund everything from defense spending to payroll expenses.
The Treasury Department took in dollars from taxes but paid the SSA in paper IOUs¡ redeemable on a future date.
Translation: The left hand of the government took money from the right hand of the government and promised to pay it back on ¡°some future date.¡±
Consequently, there are no real assets in the Social Security trust fund.
0
@bandit1010
Fact: The Social Security trust fund has no money in it.
In 2014, the Social Security Administration (SSA) took in $786 billion through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax¡ $73 billion short of the $859 billion needed to pay claims.
In plain English, Social Security was in deficit mode.
By 2026, the SSA will run up a cumulative deficit of $1.6 trillion.
Wait¡ what about all the money you, I, and every other American has paid in since 1935?
How is that possible?
We¡¯ve been told for decades the Social Security trust fund holds trillions in assets (cumulative Social Security surplus revenues since 1935) that are collecting interest.
Particularly, at the end of 2014, we were told the trust fund owned over $2.8 trillion in assets.
This is a lie. There isn¡¯t one dollar in the Social Security trust fund. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Remember, that $2.8 trillion sum is book assets, not actual dollars. The dollars were spent the minute the government collected taxes.
That¡¯s because the government isn¡¯t required to use money collected from Social Security toward Social Security purposes (according to the Supreme Court¡¯s ruling in Helvering v. Davis). So, it¡¯s used that money to fund everything from defense spending to payroll expenses.
The Treasury Department took in dollars from taxes but paid the SSA in paper IOUs¡ redeemable on a future date.
Translation: The left hand of the government took money from the right hand of the government and promised to pay it back on ¡°some future date.¡±
Consequently, there are no real assets in the Social Security trust fund.
Had this discussion several times over the years and the issues are in the eye of the beholder, so some see things one way and others differently.
SS is a tax, it is not a classified retirement account and since it is a tax there is zero claim anyone has to it if the government decides to not pay it out.
The fact that in the early 2000's the fund was struggling, the only way it is floating now is because the increases until the late 90s were small and now the max is over 100k a year!
If you were working and retired in the early 2000s which many retirees fit that description, in 1980 your pay in was about 2000. In 1990 the max pay in was just over 4k, as mentioned above the average payout is 1500 a month so one year of payouts wipes out in some cases a decade of SS tax. Now if you reach the max cap you will pay over 8k a year which is 4x what someone working in 1980 paid and 2x what someone working in 1990 paid. So the current worker is what keeps the ponzi floating.
In addition the SS category isnt just a retirement gimmick it also serves other areas like disability and is not inclusive just for retirees. Its a good thing that the population has grown and wages have grown because without a large increase in contributions to the SS tax it would have been in much worse condition especially with people living longer than the forecasts back in the 70s and 80s
0
Had this discussion several times over the years and the issues are in the eye of the beholder, so some see things one way and others differently.
SS is a tax, it is not a classified retirement account and since it is a tax there is zero claim anyone has to it if the government decides to not pay it out.
The fact that in the early 2000's the fund was struggling, the only way it is floating now is because the increases until the late 90s were small and now the max is over 100k a year!
If you were working and retired in the early 2000s which many retirees fit that description, in 1980 your pay in was about 2000. In 1990 the max pay in was just over 4k, as mentioned above the average payout is 1500 a month so one year of payouts wipes out in some cases a decade of SS tax. Now if you reach the max cap you will pay over 8k a year which is 4x what someone working in 1980 paid and 2x what someone working in 1990 paid. So the current worker is what keeps the ponzi floating.
In addition the SS category isnt just a retirement gimmick it also serves other areas like disability and is not inclusive just for retirees. Its a good thing that the population has grown and wages have grown because without a large increase in contributions to the SS tax it would have been in much worse condition especially with people living longer than the forecasts back in the 70s and 80s
You get 250 to cover funeral costs you recieved on average 20,000 a year with the benefit...if they could lower the age expectancy to 65 and raise retirement to 75 then you are given 0 benefits for everything and the government can keep all the money.
Sharpen your pencils boys cause king is gonna need to upgrade his windmills....
0
You get 250 to cover funeral costs you recieved on average 20,000 a year with the benefit...if they could lower the age expectancy to 65 and raise retirement to 75 then you are given 0 benefits for everything and the government can keep all the money.
Sharpen your pencils boys cause king is gonna need to upgrade his windmills....
yeah baloney it's GOP party threatining to do this i started collecting long ago had to wait becuse govt said my injuries werent severe enough got lawyer to fight for me 3 months later got it but then when started collecting pooof was cut to only $175 a month because two living toghethr cannot get full ssi argh like we couldnt affor to eat out at MC d's so got back plus saying we were seperated using my sons adress saying i lived there paying half rent
NOW im raking in investments plus $1350 a month so i will say im back home and give up the extra $476 i get for disability
0
yeah baloney it's GOP party threatining to do this i started collecting long ago had to wait becuse govt said my injuries werent severe enough got lawyer to fight for me 3 months later got it but then when started collecting pooof was cut to only $175 a month because two living toghethr cannot get full ssi argh like we couldnt affor to eat out at MC d's so got back plus saying we were seperated using my sons adress saying i lived there paying half rent
NOW im raking in investments plus $1350 a month so i will say im back home and give up the extra $476 i get for disability
o BTW say you start collecting at 60 years old waiting 10 years is a gamble you may not make it i was almost killed long ago in 90's a teen on bike knocked me out full blown concussion 3 skull fractures and contusion,
SO those xtra 10 years you collect like as high as $4000 a month me now getting me was getting $9600 a year for 23 yrs =$220,800 so that increase i would get is not worth wait it cannot make up for the money i received already.
PLUS still was able to work making like $20,000 a year DONT wait until your 70 the increase aint goona make up for the 10 or more years you already collected.
0
o BTW say you start collecting at 60 years old waiting 10 years is a gamble you may not make it i was almost killed long ago in 90's a teen on bike knocked me out full blown concussion 3 skull fractures and contusion,
SO those xtra 10 years you collect like as high as $4000 a month me now getting me was getting $9600 a year for 23 yrs =$220,800 so that increase i would get is not worth wait it cannot make up for the money i received already.
PLUS still was able to work making like $20,000 a year DONT wait until your 70 the increase aint goona make up for the 10 or more years you already collected.
I think they need to heavily tax the casinos even further and use that money to offset deficiencies in ss. Casinos are making money hand over foot I would also tax people depending on the car or truck you drive. If you can afford for instance a brand new Hummer or Audi a8 you surely cant justify not paying a yearly fee of an extra grand or two per year. The guy that just purchased a ram 1500. He pays a little less Not to mention all the Bugatti, Porsche and Corvette owners. Theres money out there .Just look for it. I have two sports cars and am on SS. You want nicer things? You gotta shell out.
0
I think they need to heavily tax the casinos even further and use that money to offset deficiencies in ss. Casinos are making money hand over foot I would also tax people depending on the car or truck you drive. If you can afford for instance a brand new Hummer or Audi a8 you surely cant justify not paying a yearly fee of an extra grand or two per year. The guy that just purchased a ram 1500. He pays a little less Not to mention all the Bugatti, Porsche and Corvette owners. Theres money out there .Just look for it. I have two sports cars and am on SS. You want nicer things? You gotta shell out.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
