Republicans expand Social Security at a cost of $196 billion. Guess who benefits.
Senate Votes to Expand Social Security
The Wall Street Journal reports Donald Trump is Whistling Past Social Security’s Insolvency.
Neither political party is serious about spending restraint, and the latest evidence is the Social Security Fairness Act that the Senate whopped into law late last week. This is a giveaway to public unions that whistles past the program’s looming insolvency.
The Senate voted 76-20 Friday that supposedly fix provisions that stop public employees from collecting disproportionate Social Security checks. One change would restore a bonus to government workers who spent part of their careers in private industry, giving them more generous benefits than retirees who earned the same amount in nongovernment work. A separate change would boost benefits for public workers who are spouses of private workers.
This is all a matter of fairness, according to lawmakers. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy invoked teachers, firefighters and police officers, saying the reform would “stop punishing them for having elected to serve our communities.” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a well-deserved Christmas gift.
This is political flim-flam. Retirement benefits for government employees are at least comparable to similarly paid private workers, and they are often much more generous for those who meet requirements for a defined-benefit pension.
Lawmakers reversed reforms passed in the 1980s to rescue Social Security that kept public employees in step with everyone else under Social Security’s benefit formula.
The GOP-led House passed the changes last month, 327-75, with Republicans in favor by nearly two to one. Twenty-seven GOP Senators voted in favor.
The Social Security bill will cost taxpayers an estimated $196 billion over 10 years, and much more than that in the years beyond. Affected public workers will gain an average $360 a month, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and spousal-benefit recipients will gain about $700 in each check.
Meanwhile, Social Security is already running a $4 trillion 10-year deficit, and it’s on pace for an automatic 21% benefit cut by 2033. The coming changes for unions could move the crash up by six months. Something has to give eventually, and future seniors and taxpayers will pay for this union boondoggle.
Expanding Social Security to Millions
CBS News reports Senate Approves Bill to Expand Social Security to Millions of Americans
Nearly 3 million Americans will receive full Social Security benefits under legislation passed in the waning hours of the current Congress and now headed to President Biden, who is expected to sign it into law.
Senators voted 76-20 for the Social Security Fairness Act, which would eliminate two federal policies that prevent nearly 3 million people, including police officers, firefighters, postal workers, teachers and others with a public pension, from collecting their full Social Security benefits.
Democrats uniformly voted for the measure, while Republicans in the Senate were split, with 20 voting to pass it and 20 voting against it. Four senators did not vote, including California’s Adam Schiff, a Democrat; Joe Manchin, an independent from West Virginia; and two Republicans — Marco Rubio of Florida and Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance of Ohio.
Senate supporters of the bill, including Louisiana Republican Bill Cassidy, argued that while Social Security’s funding shortfall needs to be addressed, that shouldn’t be done at the expense of retirees with public pensions.
The lead image is from the Congressional Record All Actions: H.R.82 — 118th Congress (2023-2024)
Where’s Trump, DOGE and Vance?
- The WSJ reported Donald Trump endorsed it the bill.
- CBS News reported Vice President-elect JD Vance of Ohio was among the 24 Republican senators to join 49 Democrats to advance the measure in an initial procedural vote that took place Wednesday.
- Vance then buried his head by not voting on the bill. So did Marco Rubio. This maneuver will allow both to later pretend they didn’t vote to increase the deficit by $196 billion.
- DOGE is hiding under a rock.
Republican Hypocrite Bill Cassidy wants to address the shortfall but not now.
Cassidy also claims this should not be at the “expense of retirees with public pensions” even though they collect far more in benefits on average than even the top Social Security recipients.
Who Are the Biggest Beneficiaries?
Police, teachers, and firefighters are obviously on the list.
But also note …
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service.
So Congress gave itself a retirement pat on the back for a job definitely not well done.
Trump Threatens to Take Down Chip Roy
On December 19, I noted Trump Threatens to Take Down Chip Roy, One of the Only True Fiscal Conservatives
Massive Republican infighting between Trump and fiscal conservatives is underway.
What Would You Do to Balance the Budget?
For discussion, please see An Interactive Exercise: What Would You Do to Balance the Budget?
Unlike DOGE and Trump, I did balance the budget in my proposals.
Can DOGE Cut $2 Trillion?
I asked these questions on December 27: Can DOGE Cut $2 Trillion Out of $1 Trillion? What About Revenue?
If you think Trump or DOGE is going to do a damn thing about the deficit, please reflect on the above and read the link immediately above.
Why is this “Team Trump” if he is not in office yet?
I paid into SS for 20 years while in the private sector — then when I got a teaching job, I was told I couldn’t collect SS when I retired but would get a teacher pension instead. I thought that was unfair since my mother got SS and a corporate pension upon retirement. But I’m not counting my newfound pot O gold just yet: what’s glad-handed out by the politicians is so easily yanked back later…
Either you were told wrongly or you misunderstood. Under the old rules, you would get some Social Security but it would be affected negatively by your teacher retirement benefits. Under the recently passed Federal law, your SS benefits should be higher than they would have been under the old rules. SS benefits vest after 10 years.
We live in a world of imperfections not ideals. The more government tries to be ideal the more imperfect things are.
The biggest rip off of Social Security in the history of the UD was the ZIRP under the Fed and Obama Administration.
The lost interest income during that period and continuing today as a result of the investment in long dated instruments had probably totalled more than 1 trillion dollars.
The biggest rip off in history IS Social Security. It’s legalized theft and the bottom line… socialism.
tell us what you really think.
SS is part insurance and part transfer payment. It created winners and losers. Relative to what she contributed to the system, Ida Mae Fuller probably did better than any other contributor. She put about $25 into the system and received 35 years worth of benefits. She also received about 10 years of Medicare benefits.
Cut the war machine budget to the level where the spending is the same as the next largest spender. That would save $700B. Then, make corporations pay $2 in taxes for every $3 in Fed income taxes that people do (as in the 1950s) instead of paying just $1 in taxes for every $5 in Fed income taxes from individuals. That will net another $1 trillion.
$2 out of $3 , who pays 66% federal taxes? All sub chapter S corporations profits fall to shareholders, they pay the taxes. If C corporations paid no taxes I would have my cpa file as a C but I would pay more so no your misinformed. Rich folks actually paid a lot of taxes in the process of getting rich.
I do not feel like doing your research. But, I do believe that corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than individuals do. Looking at total dollars paid does not work as their are about 160 million individual tax returns. Just not that many corporations.
But the next largest spender has much lower labor costs, so the trade would not be equal.
How many times does this have to happen before the barnyard animals wake up and realize elections are fake?
Trump is an ACTOR. They all are
This is who runs the show https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/who-runs-the-world
How can you tell politicians are lying? Their lips are moving.
They get a direct feed from the Ministry of Truth on their teleprompter
I could be wrong, but I think Massachusetts opted out of the SS program for the government workers. So this bill is actually a bailout of the states, letting all those teachers, police, and firefighters, collect benefits that were never contributed for. The states grabbed all that money ages ago
wow, a -1 like, but no thumbs down count…that is so satisfying in a dark humor kind of way.
Anyway, I found this article that sort of explains what I was trying to convey. Clearly I didn’t say it correctly. I meant no harm, just making an observation and hoping for more information and clarity on the subject. Indeed, I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong in my assessment that this bill is covering up shortfalls in the State Pensions, shifting that liability to SS (but not the assets) and let this 196 Billion coverup come due in 10,20 30 years when the adults have long since past and the kids don’t even remember.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v82n3/v82n3p1.html
Auditing the rich is paying off alreadyhttps://x.com/aphofer/status/1873049106127700171
We plused-up the Ukraine pensions…now for our own.
Biden on aid to Ukraine – “It’s going to allow pensions and social support to be paid to the Ukrainian people so they have something in their pocket.”
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1626635527716732948?mx=2
The US made a very big and costly mistake meddling in the affairs of Ukraine. But I doubt anyone in the CIA or the State Department will serve any jail time over this fiasco. Good luck to President Trump in trying to extricate the US from this quagmire.
Nothing more to Ukraine UNTIL they face their reality and start drafting 18025 yo men!
It’s easy to fix SS. Just remove the upper income tax limit, as Medicare has done. And then forbid the Federal government from moving any excess SS income to.general revenues.
In fact, with these changes, there will surely be enough extra money to give all SS recipients a permanent raise to their base.
You’re part of the problem here.
You don’t know the federal government does NOT remove SS income for general revenues. Every dime of tax paid into SS is earmarked for current or future SS payments.
And you don’t know even removing the upper income tax limit will not be enough new revenue to meet what’s been promised.
How can we expect politicians to advocate for real fixes when the voters are fiscally ignorant and so get ticked off when real proposals are made?
“Every dime of tax paid into SS is earmarked for current or future SS payments.”
It is through IOU’s. But the money is SPENT NOW!
“And you don’t know even removing the upper income tax limit will not be enough new revenue to meet what’s been promised.”
And I do know that it will be enough. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Of course, you’d need to know at what number the cutoff would occur. Would they move it up 200k or totally remove the upper limit. They might also start charging people above a certain income a higher percentage.
You know less than you think you do.
I have paid upper limit most of my life. I also receive the upper limit of benefits. The more you pay in the more you take out so is your calculation include that?
This is a social program. The formula to calculate benefits is skewed in favor of the lower income worker.
If you make 4 times what I do, you will not get 4 times what I get. Probably around 2.75 depending on all factors involved and leaving out possible dependent child benefits if they apply
Wow, someone that understands how Social Security is set up. Not many people like you. Most have absolutely no idea. Same goes for income taxes – most are clueless.
You don’t have to know how Social Security works or anything about the Internal Revenue Code in order vote. The only people that need to know any civics are applicants for US citizenship and the test is not very difficult.
It doesn’t always have to be that way. You can be made to pay more and get nothing more in return.
Don’t like, cancel your citizenship. Because even if you move, you still have to pay taxes to the US government.if you remain a citizen.
Sorry, but you’re wrong
“the (SS) money” is NOT spent. Every Congress overspends, but it has nothing to do with SS; that account is separate. Look it up.
And you’re full of hubris (‘excess self-confidence’) with your “And I do know that it will be enough”.
It takes 20 seconds to Google this https://manhattan.institute/article/problems-with-eliminating-the-social-security-tax-cap to find that even completely removing the cap has already been calculated, and SS would still be insolvent (although a little later), much less able to give all SS recipients a raise.
Maybe if you tried the free Google search in the future, you won’t seem so out of touch with reality?
The government pays out SS benefits from incoming tax revenues. Whatever is left over, it spends but puts an IOU in SS coffers rather than allow SS to keep any excess in a “lockbox” (remember Al Gore?) that it could gain interest on and add to monies it could then use to pay out benefits.
I’ve seen the link you reference. MI is just another conservative think tank that wants to protect the wealthy from more taxes, which is easy to see in the conclusion summary to this article.
SS benefits CANNOT be cut. They need to be increased. If that requires taxing high income earners more, in however many ways necessary or even eliminating benefits for those above a certain income level at retirement. then so be it. Cry me a river…
Point of fact, this will all be moot in 20-30 years, when significantly fewer people will be working, their jobs having been taken by automation/robots that don’t pay taxes. If enough jobs are replaced then it is possible that everything can be produced at near zero cost and therefore, can be distrusted to everyone for free. Money will be passé.
Although removing the max won’t fix the whole problem, it does go a long way, longer than I thought.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run106.html
So you’re blaming Trump? This Ponzi scam has been going on for years. They tax you and your employer & promise to provide lifetime retirement income. Congress borrows that money and spends it on whatever so when it comes time to pay you, they borrow that money again to do so! And this is Trumps’ fault? BTW, DOGE is not operational yet and the Senate is still controlled by the Dims. Just so you know.
Hubris alert!
Of course Trump is not in office yet, but “team Trump” already is (you know, the fiscally conservative Republicans that always want to reduce spending).
Well, this increase in SS spending started in the Republican House and could have been filibustered by Republican Senators, but instead they voted with Democrats to increase spending for a specific group and so make the Fund insolvent sooner for everyone else.
Plus, if you think it’s a long-time Ponzi scheme, by definition the federal government never collected enough from you and your employer to meet the “lifetime retirement income” you purported.
You still havent explained why its trumps fault…….
Agree – the headline is unfair.
It’s unfortunate some of the R’s joined the sinking of SS. More evidence of the uniparty.
Don’t forget about the taxes you pay on 80% of the SS that you already paid tax on, small business owners pay double going in but that just disappears when they calculate what you get out. Now if you make too much IRMAA kicks in and Medicare can cost more than private insurance.
80% should read 85%.
Here is an interesting extract from a recent article regarding Social Security. It is time for another across the board 20% increase in Social Security benefits, say I!
—–
So, this will probably shave about 3 months off the SSTF’s solvency. 2033 is current date. My money is on it moving forward to 2032 by spring of 2026 when the Trustee report usually comes out. Then, throw in a recession sometime in the next 2 years and we might see it leap forward to 2030. FYI – the GR moved it forward ~ 4 years.
I like Rand Paul’s fiscal conservativism, but he wants to raise the retirement age before he collects more revenue. The last time it was raised, it took place over 22 years. RP wants to raise it by 3 years in only 12 years. I’m not a fan of that quickly, and the current $168K income cut off is ridiculously low. If you’re going to do something to save SS, you need to do both: raise revenue & the age (eventually).
I’m a GenX, and we’re going to get screwed. The oldest GenX’er is turning 60, so they’ve got 7 more years before they can retire with full benefits, and RP wants to push that out to 70. Dude, chill out and at least wait at least another 5 years and spread the 36 months out over 18 years instead of 12.
And Trump seems like he’ll veto anything SS related, so there’s definitely going to be a scramble circa 2028.
Trump might be willing to consider proposals from Congress.
No he’s not. He’s on record multiple times saying he’s not touching SS.
He knows it a political landmine, so he’s not going to do anything.
If he does, it may imperil the GOP in 2028.
Another participant in the hypocritic problem!
“I’m a GenXer, and I want MINE. Make any changes affect those after me. And small revenue/tax increases are OK (since I’m near retirement already).”
And this from someone that will probably benefit from this current SS increase, as you’ve told us before you will be a double-dipper and collect both a private pension plus Social Security.
SO much hubris!
Yep, I guess so, but your “everyone’s got hubris except me” stick is getting old.
I’m a GenXer, and I want MINE. Make any changes affect those after me. And small revenue/tax increases are OK (since I’m near retirement already).
That’s not what I said, dickweed.
To fix it, Congress is going to have to raise revenue and eventually increase the retirement age from 67 to 70. I recognize this, but my problem is that the last 3-year raise over 22 years is just wrapping up, then there should be a gap in between the increases in age. Furthermore, increasing the age right as a generation is about to retire is not cool. The age increase should start about a 1/3 or midway through a generation. Be that as it may, it’s probably in the ballpark of 80/20 (revenue vs age) that’s going to solve the problem.
Maybe I missed some other part of his speech, but yammering ONLY about increasing the age is not what the electorate of any generation wants to hear.
It was actually hard to get a clear answer on what this bill was about since it’s so controversial.
Basically you have to work 10 years to get a social security benefit. If you just work 10 years (or close to the minimum) your calculated benefit is proportionally higher than if you worked a full career (40 years or more). The intent was to boost the checks of presumably less advantaged workers.
If a person worked 10 years under social security and 30 years under civil service, they benefit from a supposed “windfall” since in addition to getting a civil service pension, they also get a boosted social security pension for their 10 years of work.
The 1981 law eliminated the “windfall”. The 2024 law restores it.
You could make the same “windfall” argument for any other person who worked only 10 years under Social Security but gets other income in retirement and thus doesn’t “need” the “windfall”.
The GPO should definitely not be changed. The were getting a benefit everyone else on social security was not getting until GPO came into law. Should now not be repealed.
Example. If I worked outside SS for the fed govt for 35 years and did not pay into SS but was working as mentioned, if my spouse put in a claim for social security, it would treat me as if I did not work any years and then give me 50% of her benefit. But I did work for 35 years it just was not in the SS system. That was clearly an added benefit those people were getting that would happen to the rest of us…
WEP is different, probably not as agregious as GPO but that too should not have been repealed
Once again, government workers get extra.
Are there going to be any riots now that Jimmy Carter died?
Worst president for 100 yeras.
Really? So FJB is better than Carter? At least Carter didn’t head a crime family. I don’t remember Carter causing controversy after pardoning his drug-addled, hooker-banging prick of a son for any and all crimes he was convicted of *or may have committed* going back the previous 10 YEARS. SMH.
I was there. Nice guy but no balls.
Carter had his brother Billy 🙂
Ain’t poligizin.
Jimmy did not let Billy have any influence on his presidency so Billygate was nothing like Hunter and his corrupt father. To me Jimmy was the most moral president of the past 100 years and his honest broker roll in Camp David the crown of an otherwise lacklustre presidency.
RIP Jimmy Carter, our 2nd worst President ever.
Brandon #1 by thousands of miles. Agreed!
FYI – Carter only took 79 vacation days to Biden’s 579 with 3 weeks to go.
The linked document tells you everything you need to know about who pays what and who gets what from SS and Medicare. For higher earners it is a negative return, for low earners it becomes a transfer payment.
Social Security and Medicare Lifetime Benefits and Taxes
It was always ment to be a transfer payment. In the 1930’s when it was conceived you had old people dying on the streets so FDR did it to give them a revenue. It was easy to sell because everyone even those well off could through misfortune see the same thing happening to them. That has not changed.
So first basic questions (true questions … do not know the answer and am not making stupid assertions disguised as questions):
The public employees I’ve seen have retirements far better than private companies. I have cousins in PA who worked 30 years (age 18 to 48) for the state and will be paid 80% of salary plus COLA + benefits for the rest of their lives. They will be paid far more in retirement than in their career. I contrast that with my $500/month retirement from my IT position (I do have a 401K … but I was the primary contributor to that). There should be some serious retirement analysis and for those who worked x number of years and are now getting below $y from gov’t retirement … good to go. For those making a killing in retirement … let’s not add them to social security as well.
see older comments…mostly yes.
I see the tRumpers are undoing years of past compromises … same with his promise of “no tax on SS” and “no tax on tips”.
Eliminating waste/useless programs and reforming health-care (even if privatized as Medicare Advantage) is great …even tax-cuts across the board are fine (yes, they benefit the well-off); increasing transfer payments is the wrong direction.
I know economically that taxes and transfer payments are two sides of the same coin but they sure feel different.
I prefer The term TRexers because they eat plant-eaters for breakfast.
Are the seniors on-line here agreeable to more means testing (expand/raise the IRMMA – say 2-3 times higher)? aka, “tax the rich & old”.
After all, it isn’t the young (under 50) that caused the problem.
I am…………… But the problem was not caused by them either. And this article points out by terminating the WEP & GPO it makes it worse.
Longer life spans, divorces and investing in T bills instead of the S&P are what caused most of this. And Covid sped this up 18 months or so in that a large portion of the population was on unemployment and they nor their employers had to pay into social security
Many of these double-dippers have decent retirement income already … those that don’t then the “safety net” is appropriate. That said, SS wasn’t planned/marketed as a “safety net”.
We could also means test the price you pay for gas, heating, vacations and food. It’s the same principle.
Agree on “means testing” … but the IRS can more easily track income than spending.
To your point, CA will be means-testing electricity rates in “late 25/early26” (plus many low-income people aren’t paying anyway).
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cut-residential-electricity-prices
Medicare/caid is more of a problem than SS; privatizing or block-granting to states clears the feds plate of those.
Not quite a senior, but income is manipulable. Instead of other bonds, you buy double tax-free muni’s, for example. Social security net benefits are already means-tested in the sense that SS income becomes taxable based on other income. The big money is in Medicare and Medicaid.
After all, elder poverty is so high; investing is so difficult, the seniors need some help! (/s)
The Republicans raise the debt by slashing taxes while doing nothing about spending levels. Their modus operandi is to work in “bipartisan” fashion with the Democrats on spending, while unilaterally firing all guns on taxes The net result? A debt approaching FORTY TRILLION DOLLARS.
Social security is only part of the problem. Larded into the mix is a military that is supposed to fight TWO major wars at once and win them, and a public health plan that is facing a tsunami of out-of-shape, decrepit Boomers slushing toward it.
Elon Musk, where are you now? (Department of Government Efficiency.)
You can read more of my writings by going to: dark . sport . blog — on the net!
Thanks for making it clear that the debt is all the fault of republicans. I have some land south of Miami that I can sell you at a big discount. It is more believable than what you obviously believe currently.
DOGE was silent on the $895 billion NDAA which easily passed Congress a few days prior to the spending bill DOGE scuttled. The chances that the NDAA didn’t contain pork is quite low.
DOGE is a joke. Just like the meme crypto it just so happens to be named after.
Trump is not president yet but some people expect the problems to be solved already.
If DOGE was concerned about spending I would expect them to treat all spending legislation the same way, but they don’t.
I repeat. They are not in power yet.
Then how/why did President Musk and VP Trump sink the last spending bill that had been planned for quite some time – from the Republican House (if they are not in power yet)?
Sleepy joe lets me do as I please.
We really should have an immediate turn-over to the new administration after an election. Certainly no longer than two weeks. OK, let’s round it up to a 12/1 switchover.
This isn’t the 17th century when it took months for the newly elected to pack and move their things (and themselves) to Washington DC.
There are advantages and disadvantages.
There always are.
There’s a lot involved in the handover.
It takes a couple of months.
Unanswered question = Did these government workers pay FICA taxes? My past understanding is that most of these government workers did not, and maybe paid into state or local programs instead. I heard that this bill->Act provides that these government workers get Social Security benefits as if they had paid the corresponding FICA taxes.
yes, some did for the years worked outside the government and then did pay in and are getting what they feel is a reduced benefit. I think what they are not considering is how the benefit is calculated for everyone to start with. The higher our earned income is the more the reduced benefit.
Once you pay for 40 quarters (10 years), you’re eligible for benefits. They were reduced for double-dippers or spouses of double-dippers. Part of compromises to keep SS afloat in the 1970/80s … now getting sunk by TPTB.
Triple-dip by:
1) Join military (thanks for service!) from 18-38 year-old get full pension/care,
2) Join police or other muni job from 38 into your 50s
3) then low-stress job 50s into early 60s or do some gig-work to earn minimum (~$1700) each quarter across 40 quarters.
Getting pensions from two unrelated sources is not “double-dipping.”
Join the military and get shot at. Join the police force and get shot at. When too old to do that do gig jobs and maybe get shot at. Have people who never got shot at complain you make too much.
Should people who risk their lives in other professions get extra compensation. Roofers are more likely to die on the job and they literally put a roof over your head. How about night shift workers who have their lives shorten by working at night while you sleep. I respect the military and police for the job they do and I think they deserve what they earned. I come from a military family and have always seen serving in the military as a privilege. I don’t forget that the rest of country has made a sacrifice as whole to make sure we have the best equipment. Our military is what it is in part due to the fact that our economy chooses to spend money on it rather than things like healthcare. I’m fully aware that I have benefitted from their sacrifice so I could do my small part in defending this country.
Wow, thanks for the well-thought-out rational and respectful response. I don’t see much of that here usually. Kudos!
I am for those in dangerous jobs getting more pay. I dislike those who treat the military as just another job because it isn’t. The pay sucks. It’s very dangerous and you are on call 24/7 for 365 days of the year but somebody has to do it.
Are you illiterate? They don’t “make” too much. Triple dippers “take” too much
Incorrect.
After 20 years of active duty military service you get 50% of your base pay.
You now also have to pay for medical care. It used to be free.
If you are in the reserves you can not collect your retirement pay until you are 60.
IIRC the formula for calculating retirement military pay also changed over the recent past as well and compared to prior retirement pay it has been reduced.
In any event the pay military people used to get was piss poor.
My first pay as a 2nd Lieutenant was well under $1000 a month.
Have you heard of putting the national economy on a wartime footing? Years ago I concluded that the high-spending liberals want to put our national economy on a welfare footing. The sort of national economy that Ayn Rand described in her novel, where it is impossible to work to get ahead. A national economy in which work is oriented towards providing others with a good life. You are expected to work hard so that everyone else can have a good life.
Do you have ambition, and talent? Well, stifle yourself. There will be no future for doing much more than others do. (Unless you are the sort of ward-heeler scalawag to get into government and rise in it.)
Remind me again what the Republicans are conserving? Phony baronies. Even (or especially) Kennedy of Louisiana.
My wealth.
The having of our cake, and the eating of it, too.
I’m sure the workforce that has been given a great defined-benefit pension these last decades have factored in that they would have reductions in Soc Security as a result. Then, when the reductions kicked in or were about to for a large swath of population, boom, change the rules again. Not sure why government workers are considered “special”…. It’s tiring.
The reverse of which was the elimination of stretch IRAs where we planned for decades as a strategy only to have Trump reverse that too.
See, I can vote for a guy and still take great umbrage at what I perceive to be bad policy.
Key point of this post is “Neither Party Is Serious about Spending Restraint”. There are no property rights in Social Security but the jerkoffs in charge act as if there is. “Fairness” to public employee unions who already have (at least in my state) unbreakable pension contracts and insanely generous bennies we private sector “poopies” can only dream of? Next thing you know when public sector pensions implode, a private sector retiree will be “assigned” a public pension retiree to support in order to “Thank Them For their Service”. /sarc
Ask Detroit about unbreakable pension contracts. No such thing
Cities are different…In Oregon black robed bandits (on PERS) have ruled that the contracts can not be changed. (Until total insolvency??)
When broke States will be no different.
Oh there’s a lot of damage to be paid before that point.
Not 1 post here went into the meat and potatoes of this article. Not one..We got TDS. We got Musk derangement syndrome(MDS) ponzi schemes and foreign currency against the $ issues…………..Anyway
GPO should not have been repealed. If you understand social security and how it treats survivor benefits for a spouse, you know.
Same with WEP..Only lower income workers get the higher payout.
Look up how the bend points come into the AIME calculation to get PIA…..and how workers working outside the SS system and making money and get a 0 in their calculation when in fact they were making money and therefore should be treated just like everyone in the private sector.
I guess having the best pension, who gets a defined benefit plan anymore? the best insurance while paying in less than the private sector and getting a state tax free pension is not good enough. You still have to get a better social security calculation than the rest of us…
It never ends with you people.
SS is just another expenditure of Congress, not an official retirement program that you have property rights to. Supreme Court made that clear in Flemming v. Nestor that paying SS doesn’t give you a contracted right to benefits. All SS taxes are merely money going to the government. GIven these rules it was perfectly fair to be “unfair” to the gold-plated public pension sector who already got their guaranteed retirement. Paying SS benefits is really about preventing revolution from the poor poopies…and in this latest case Mish wrote about – politically paying off the union rackets. It’s not a good look for the Trump Team 2.0 to support the payoff but as long as it’s “popular”???.
To your last sentence, I indicated I did not think it should be repealed. It a frigging social program. It is calculated to benefit the lower income workers. I do not have a problem with that
Does anyone want the U.S. to be the only country in the developed world without some type of government retirement system?
I understood your point and agree. Perhaps the better question to ask is how long are we supposed to be unproductive and supported in such a system? The concept of 30-40 years of retirement is a relatively recent development which seems poised to financially break the Western welfare states aka “developed world”.
I agree. And retirement was meant when most of us were doing manual labor for their entire life. I run my own business in an office with the AC on so I am not complaining nor do I think will I stop working before 75… But the mostly guys back then doing 47 years of manual labor, some where the dads of my friends growing up, they deserve a decent retirement.
No one “Deserves” a decent retirement. You earn yourself a nice retirement by making responsible financial decisions..
I just want participation to be voluntary instead of being forced to participate in a program that takes 12.4% of my income to then later provide me “benefits” that I have no legal right to (meaning they can be reduced or taken away together). The time value of my deferred “benefits” is frittered away instead of being prudently invested and compounded overtime. And these”benefits” will be reduced by the time I am eligible to collect over 20 years from today because the program is insolvent and automatic cuts built into law will kick in early next decade.
Heck, I would be willing to let them keep all my contributions if they let me opt out today and stop paying in.
I’m with you. I think at some point with all the changes that have to be made coming up that will happen. But the issue with that is well, if you think the stock market has become socialized with the Fed put or plunge protection team, I think we would have to make them come out from the shadows and be a part of the market mechanism because when the entire social security reserves are in the U.S. stock market , how is that protected?
So much for free markets… But nothing is free right? and whens the last time the stock market was a free market?
I would say the stock market was last “free” when Jesse Livermore was trading/speculating. Back then the powers that be were using the stock market to separate fools from their money. Livermore experienced collusion on the part of market makers to cheat him out of his earnings. When that didn’t work, they banned him from their trading houses.
For me that would be a YES… Their is not a word in the Constitution authorizing our government to run insurance ans retirement programs,, Flood Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, or any other scheme…
The ponzi scenes known as Social Security and Medicare will implode in 2028.
The young will never collect, but have paid.
I smell inflation.
Yep. Promises that can’t be paid won’t be paid or made meaningless through inflation.
At this point we are just hoping the robots save us. We will never do what we need to do namely eliminating most federal agencies, giving the rest a 70% haircut including defense, and fixing the expensive and broken healthcare system congress designed. We will keep going until we hit the brick wall at 90 miles an hour, and then figure out how to clean up the mess.
The robots will serve us… as Soylent Green.
Only Medicare is a straight up ponzi scheme. Social security is very close to fully funded. An additional 0.8% payroll tax on employees would close the funding gap for *lifetime* income security.
Finally someone not just repeating ideological blather
As long as everybody accepts the US dollar, all is good. When they stop accepting US dollars, run for the hills. Just print until it all implodes…..brrrrrrrrrr
LQQK: There are so many ways to fix Social Security, its a non issue.
Eliminate the income cap on the tax, it’s currently at the first $168k/yr earned.
Raise the tax, it hasn’t been raised in decades.
Means test for it. People above $300k/yr don’t need it.
Invest the fund in the market and return big gains.
Raise the tax? about 15% of compensation is already paid into this and Mediscare…and then add your other fed, state, and local taxes. Reducing who gets it should be of paramount importance. There are no property rights in Social Security, according to the Supremes.
Yes, raise the tax on the inferior Americans, so I can get more cuts and subsidies.
Before or after the “inferior people” lay a wealth tax on your unrealized gains, President Musk? /sarc
Eliminating the cap on income subject to Social Security tax would be the biggest tax increase in history. An additional 12.4% tax over $168k. That, coupled with federal and state income taxes, would push the effective tax rate over 50%. Anyone who could do so, would decrease their w2 income and get paid more as a distribution. Others would just choose to earn less. Earning a dollar to keep 45 cents would be past the FYIP to many people. (*Fuck You Inflection Point).
Well, if you don’t take care of people, you get more leaches on the system and more crime from those that just DGAF.
There are WAY too many people expecting their checks when it comes due. I don’t want to see what happens if they don’t fund it.
Full disclosure: i have a funded 401k, almost paid off home, but I’m not a high earner. I’m getting my SS money come hell or high water.
—-
Like this:
Monty Python – Hell’s Grannies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy7UDADXDg
It’s only 6.2% on the amount above the cap number. Employer contributions don’t count.
If you’re self-employed, you pay the employer portion also.
According to Perplexity:
Yes, self-employed individuals can deduct a portion of their Social Security taxes. Here’s how it works:
## Self-Employment Tax Deduction
Self-employed individuals are responsible for paying the full 12.4% Social Security tax on their net earnings, as they are considered both the employer and employee[1][2]. However, the IRS allows for two deductions to help alleviate this tax burden:
1. **Adjusted Gross Income Reduction**: You can deduct half of your total Social Security tax from your gross income when calculating your adjusted gross income[4]. This adjustment is similar to how employees are treated, as the employer’s share of Social Security tax is not considered part of an employee’s wages.
2. **Business Expense Deduction**: The IRS treats the employer portion (6.2%) of the self-employment tax as a business expense[2]. This means you can deduct it on your tax return, effectively reducing your taxable income.
## Important Considerations
– The deduction is calculated on your net earnings, which is your gross income minus allowable business deductions and depreciation[5].
– The Social Security tax applies to earnings up to a certain threshold, which is $168,600 for 2024[1][3].
– While these deductions can lower your current tax burden, it’s important to note that they may also reduce your future Social Security benefits, as these are calculated based on your reported earnings[1].
## Bottom Line
Taking advantage of these deductions can help self-employed individuals manage their tax obligations. However, it’s crucial to balance the desire for current tax savings with the potential impact on future Social Security benefits. Consulting with a tax professional can help you make informed decisions based on your specific situation.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-self-employer-is-social-sec-LqzxNZRyS7mC2XTZb4Wi6Q#0
If you eliminate the cap on income that is taxed you should also eliminate the cap on what you can collect when you retire… only fair you know..
Who said life is or should be fair?
Gonna have to give the leash a sharp jerk… old people are useless, and should die as quickly as possible. Giving them money just drags out the inevitable.
Musk’s brother is on record that EM has no empathy…Oh, good luck on getting the next administration to stop reporting self-driving car accident stats. /sarc
The GPO should not have been repealed. It treats them they way everyone else is treated for social security purposes.Lets say husband is the higher life time income.When he dies, the spouse does not get his social security AND her social security. The max she gets is the higher of the 2. Without GPO, they were getting more than everyone else.
WEP, still looking into some special cases, and excluding disability cases here, but I do not agree with repealing it here too.
I paid into SS 46 years so far, and my benefit will be adjusted lower because because of the bend point calculations . They want to be treated differently than everyone else.
Meanwhile, they have the best pensions, unless you work for a government agency, who has a defined benefit plan anymore? Its tax free on most states, mines not. And oh their medical insurance is light years better than the private sector, and on avg they pay less into it than the private sector.
Meanwhile taxpayers are bailing out these states because we cant fund all the government workers pensions and benefits. So can I get a state tax free pension because my tax $’s paid for your tax free pension?
I don’t mean to throw all federal government workers under the bus but come on now.
Social Security is still a social program and setup to get the lower worker a higher payback than the higher income worker. They want the calculation to treat them as a low income worker, and most are not.
Cut SS across the board. No colas
Why?
So I can have more subsidies and tax cuts.
You see our debt and deficit? Shared sacrifice. Everything must be cut. No sacred cows.
Cut “defense” by half and I’d take a COLA freeze for five years. And I’m not on Social Security. Of course, the big money is in Medicare and, to a lesser degree, Medicaid. Free Luigi!
The why is the young people.
Of course. I’m not for screwing over future generations. Most here are.
You’re not doing anything. I got your vote. You can go die in the rain now.
SS isn’t that broken. Medicare + Medicaid + ACA subsidy scheme +VA health care are a much bigger financial hole. The government spreads out the health insurance spending so it’s not all in one account and harder to add up.
As for the SS issue on the headline, If you’ve paid in your 40 quarters to qualify for your SS benefits why shouldn’t you get them? It’s not likely that you are going to have the full 35 years of SS taxes paid in for the calculation, and all those zeros are going lower your PIA quite a lot.
You will get cut. Like everyone. There is no magic money tree. Cut or nothing is the future. Your choice
Dream on. We’ll just make you pay more taxes to fund us.
Donald Trump proposed to push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress
The trumpster is not off to a good start as predicted by the pundits.
Pay no attention the the fat stinky guy… *I* am your president. I bought it fair and square.
Said it before to Mish but I’ll repeat – We need a “Laugh” button on the comments. President Musk’s comment reminds me of EM shrouded in weed smoke on Rogan’s podcast. Had I been drinking milk the laugh would have shot it out my nose like an elementary school boy.