Republicans Release Plan to Cut Social Security

[Moonbeam]

The conservative brain defect is a defect because it produces selfish behavior, the result of fear and mistrust due to the fact that competition is hate. It produces a self flattering image of success and self-reliance, the I'm a winner being held back by others mentation. This is a form of religious paranoia that works to destroy any form of socialized efforts to care for people. People can't be trusted like I can be trusted, they are less intelligent, they are self interested and selfish and only really looking out for themselves. The conservative sees the disgusting side of him or herself in others and is terrified on a lack of control that is implied by cooperation. The self flattering delusional egotist produced by fear leaves its signature on the brains of conservatives and as scars on the body of progress. We just elected a President who will create many new scars and everybody in general will suffer. The conservative brain defect is in flower. Welcome to a sicker country.

 

[IronWing]

People stupid enough to vote for a party that wants to cut Social Security deserve to have their Social Security cut.

If the elderly didn't vote this might be a fair assessment but when the generation that got theirs votes to hose over others then then it doesn't apply. If the GOP wants to come back with another proposal that involves applying these same proposals to current beneficiaries then it would be reasonable to say "we get what we deserve".

GOP proposal is basically cost shifting to unknown future payers, most likely the taxpayers who see their benefits whacked and to reduced future economic activity. The costs of living longer aren't going away because SS gets cut. This is shifting the costs from the wealthy who have managed to reduce their share of SS costs to the middle class that has not been fortunate enough to bribe politicians sufficiently to protect themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

I, at least, had the courtesy to support my claim. There is the JAMA published study looking much more recently at 40+ year olds which is a straying a bit more from the 65 we started out talking about. But even then it notes:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2513561

Or a deeper dive into Detroits information showing life expectancy did grow for poor men and that, again, there was a very high correlation to health choices
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-poor-live-longer-how-your-area-compares.html

I supported mine as well, did you not read my link and the rest of the thread? You should at least have the courtesy to read the thing you're participating in.

No I asked how you know that we won't be better off in 2035 if we cut things now instead of then.

I can see no plausible, logical case for why we would be.

Reserves as in trust fund assets as a percentage of program costs. Once those hit zero benefits are reduced to the sustainable levels determined by the current tax rate. I disagree that we gain nothing. We gain a greater chance that SS remains able to fulfill its promised benefits - which is something more easily planned for than just hoping that something happens around 2035 to make things work.

Think this through. Who owns the trust fund? The government. Who is obligated to cover the bonds in the trust fund? The government. You're arguing that in order to make Social Security sustainable we need to decrease the rate at which the government spends down the reserve fund that it owes itself. Does that make any sense?

Social security can fulfill its promised benefits for as long as the government wishes it to. The 'trust fund' as it exists is simply a statutory requirement for other government agencies to shift their funds to Social Security after payments exceed revenues until a predetermined total is met. It does literally zero to affect the sum total of government funds available, meaning that the reserve fund will be 'paid' by cuts to other programs, higher taxes, or public debt. Because of that, cutting things now does absolutely nothing to actually affect our ability to pay.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

When i read the items contained in the plan, I support most of them. When i read the lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations in the thread, it gets more confusing.

 

[theeedude]

Life expectancy is now dropping for whites in Republican states. You know, likely Trump supporters. Now they are going to get health coverage taken away and the retirement age raised, so that the rich can get enormous tax cuts. That's what you vote for when you vote Republican, whether you know it or not.

 

[IronWing]

• Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
• Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
• Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
• Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
• Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
• Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
• Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
• Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.

When i read the items contained in the plan, I support most of them. When i read the lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations in the thread, it gets more confusing.

No need for confusion. Paratus already provided a link to the bill language and the SSA Chief Actuary's response to a congressional request for an analysis of the provisions in the bill.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No need for confusion. Paratus already provided a link to the bill language and the SSA Chief Actuary's response to a congressional request for an analysis of the provisions in the bill.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf

Yes and every page of this thread should have the list on it. That way it cuts down on the lies, misinformation and hyperbole that is being spewed in it.

 

[IronWing]

Yes and every page of this thread should have the list on it. That way it cuts down on the lies, misinformation and hyperbole that is being spewed in it.

The list you provided is the glossy talking points (or lies, misinformation and hyperbole, using your words), not the actual provisions of the bill. The bill isn't as rosy as the talking points. The middle class is going to get reamed if the provisions included in the current bill get implemented.

 

[crashtech]

Apparently the middle ground on this issue, like so many others, is a razor's edge. Don't squirm too much or you'll be cut in half! Programs run by the collective will of the people have a way of morphing into social engineering experiments; better in my mind that SS could just be a simple mandated retirement account for those who didn't tuck away anything for themselves. That's the way the concept was sold to me when I learned about it as a kid, anyway. Must the program always be characterized as a wealth transfer from one group to another? Real numbers seem to be lacking, and the perception of which group is getting the shaft depends highly on one's ideology. Perhaps the ideal would be to get politician's fingers out of the pie that belongs to the working people that paid and are paying into it. Sober minds need to take stock and ensure that what goes in will continue to meet what goes out. But leave it to us fancy monkeys to take something that should be simple and turn it into a shit flinging contest. For my part as a small employer, I pay my matching portion to the government without complaint, but worry that it might not be nearly enough.

 

[theeedude]

If we can't afford Social Security, we can't afford Republican tax cuts either.

 

[Exterous]

I supported mine as well, did you not read my link and the rest of the thread? You should at least have the courtesy to read the thing you're participating in.

My apologies, I thought you had a report based on current data not based on 20+ year projections - especially given your stated dislike for projections. Your link cannot possibly make a final determination of remaining life expectancy of a 50 year old in 2010 as that information does not yet exist

As of 2010, the average, upper-income 50-year-old man was expected to live to 89. But the same man, if he's lower income, would live to just 76, according to the report.

If 20 year projections are usually wrong why are you trying to use 20+ year projections to support your case? The report even notes they don't have final data for the 1960's cohort

You're arguing that in order to make Social Security sustainable we need to decrease the rate at which the government spends down the reserve fund that it owes itself. Does that make any sense?

That is not my argument at all as I have certainly never claimed such. I never said 'spends down' I said 'slowing the downward trend'. I believe that we agree that the amount of assets compared to expenditures doesn't matter until it hits 0. I, and I believe most people involved in financial planning (professional and otherwise) would prefer a more predicitble glide path that shows promised benefits will continue to exist as opposed to a "I hope this changes in the future" approach

It does literally zero to affect the sum total of government funds available, meaning that the reserve fund will be 'paid' by cuts to other programs, higher taxes, or public debt. Because of that, cutting things now does absolutely nothing to actually affect our ability to pay.

You missed the default option - cuts to promised benefits. Given that this is the default option cutting now absolutely does affect our ability to pay as it prevents the trust fund assets as a percentage of program costs from getting to 0. Given that the government must act to prevent this from happening a gradual plan now allows for a clearer path for planning than hoping the government is has the ability\will to make the program solvent in the future

 

[Jhhnn]

Two truths in all of this are being overlooked- Current benefit levels cannot be maintained w/o revenue increases & current benefit levels must be maintained to prevent even more & more severe senior poverty than we already have.

The answer, therefore, is to increase SS revenues. It can be no other way.

The easy answer is to remove the employees' side of the contributions cap & to apply that to all income, including investment income. It imposes no drag on businesses and only slight drag on higher incomes. SS would be wallowing in revenues to the point where we could probably raise benefits & the trust would grow indefinitely.

Or we can go with the Repub plan, which is FYGM.

 

[fskimospy]

My apologies, I thought you had a report based on current data not based on 20+ year projections - especially given your stated dislike for projections. Your link cannot possibly make a final determination of remaining life expectancy of a 50 year old in 2010 as that information does not yet exist.

Apology accepted! I'm not sure why you would be confused by this though as the name of the term is 'life expectancy'. *Expectancy*

If 20 year projections are usually wrong why are you trying to use 20+ year projections to support your case? The report even notes they don't have final data for the 1960's cohort

Huh? Changes in life expectancy is what people who want to CUT social security use, so I was showing by their own metric their case was bad. What's the confusion?

That is not my argument at all as I have certainly never claimed such. I never said 'spends down' I said 'slowing the downward trend'. I believe that we agree that the amount of assets compared to expenditures doesn't matter until it hits 0. I, and I believe most people involved in financial planning (professional and otherwise) would prefer a more predicitble glide path that shows promised benefits will continue to exist as opposed to a "I hope this changes in the future" approach

'Slowing the downward trend' makes no more sense than 'spending down'. We most certainly do not agree that the amount of assets compared to expenditures doesn't matter until it reaches zero because I believe you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of social security.

What are these 'assets' you are talking about? If it's the trust fund then those are government bonds. A government bond is nothing more than a promise by the government to pay a certain amount. Considering those bonds are also owned by the government this amounts to nothing more than a promise by the government to pay itself. That's not an asset in the commonly understood sense, so there's nothing to slow the downward trend of.

The government's budget is a single entity so all dipping into the 'trust fund' means is we are reallocating spending from the military or roads to retirement benefits every year, (or borrowing money) starting from the first year SS expenditures exceed income, not from when the trust fund is gone.

Again, it's not like we have a giant vault of treasure here. You keep talking about assets, but explain what you think this asset is?

You missed the default option - cuts to promised benefits. Given that this is the default option cutting now absolutely does affect our ability to pay as it prevents the trust fund assets as a percentage of program costs from getting to 0. Given that the government must act to prevent this from happening a gradual plan now allows for a clearer path for planning than hoping the government is has the ability\will to make the program solvent in the future

I hope I have explained above how cutting things now means literally zero as to whether we have to cut them later as the trust fund assets do not exist in a traditional sense. At best it simply rearranges the cuts to make it happen to other federal programs.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll say I am tentatively and cautiously optimistic about this. Why? Its not because the plan is perfect - it isn't (it also hasn't been debated at all and I doubt any SS proposal will get passed on its first iteration. So the final version may have more or less to like) It's because its a republican proposal that doesn't involve means testing or privatizing social security. And if you look at table B1 the High-AIME and Max-AIME have the largest cuts to benefits by years worked



Sure but if you look at Figure 1 in the PDF the current law has a nice straight black line nose diving to 0 in 2035 so not doing anything will backfire on everyone. Or we'll end up with a really shitty bandaid put in place at the last minute



A lot of people will see reduced benefits and\or an increased eligibility age. It would be really shitty to say to say to someone almost at retirement that the safety net the planned on suddenly got smaller and moved. The larger changes seem to come in closer to the time where SS would only be able to pay 76% of its promised benefits. If we did nothing everyone would see a drastic cut. This still makes cuts but preserves many benefits for those with Low-AIME or Very Low-AIME while those with higher AIME (and, theoretically more able to endure the cuts) see larger reductions



Its not like the proposal has a drastic increase in retirement age. It is 2 years phased in over 7 years ending in 2030 which would bring the total retirement age increase to 4 years over the almost 100 years SS has been around at that point. That is about half of the current trend in life expectancy growth.

Its a pretty shitty thing to do all around. Tell the people who miss the cutoff that it's ok to mess with the terms and conditions they agreed to and paid into for a majority of their lives.

In my opinion, ss age should be reduced and the cap should be removed. Benefits (to those who are collecting them) should be given based on current income and hours worked. You work more and make more then you should get less. Ss should be a way for the elderly to get out of the workforce, not remain in it.

Hell! The baby boomer generation is such a drain on society I'd be willing to pay more in taxes and ss just to get them out of it. Seriously, fuck that generation!

 

[Exterous]

Huh? Changes in life expectancy is what people who want to CUT social security use, so I was showing by their own metric their case was bad. What's the confusion?

Saying 'its what people who want to cut social security use' doesn't work here as I used actual observed data while you stuck to projections. Instead of dealing with the observed data you turned to projections which you say are usually wrong. Given that you were presented with observed data and your stated distrust of projections you have completely undermined your own argument.

'Slowing the downward trend' makes no more sense than 'spending down'. We most certainly do not agree that the amount of assets compared to expenditures doesn't matter until it reaches zero because I believe you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of social security.

What are these 'assets' you are talking about? If it's the trust fund then those are government bonds. A government bond is nothing more than a promise by the government to pay a certain amount. Considering those bonds are also owned by the government this amounts to nothing more than a promise by the government to pay itself. That's not an asset in the commonly understood sense, so there's nothing to slow the downward trend of.

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what happens when the SS program costs exceed their assets (And I use the exact same definition of assets that both SS and the Fed use when they refer to SS assets). SS does not have the ability to make changes to payouts or change the amount or source of the assets used to payout promised benefits. If Congress does not act to make changes SS will reduce benefits at the point when expenditures exceed program assets regardless of what form those assets are in. The closer we get to that point the more likely it is to happen. The 'slowing down' I was referring to is slowing down the pace at which we will cross that threshold.

I hope I have explained above how cutting things now means literally zero as to whether we have to cut them later as the trust fund assets do not exist in a traditional sense. At best it simply rearranges the cuts to make it happen to other federal programs.

And I have explained how cutting now means more than zero. Cuts later are undefined and may be more drastic - which is clearly displayed as the default option has more drastic cuts than this proposal. I wonder if perhaps you do not have enough experience working with people who are trying to plan around these eventualities. It certainly means more than 'literally zero' to them as well

 

[Maxima1]

We aren't running out of money. What only matters is the resources available that the dollars are chasing. The SS "Fund" is irrelevant. The federal government is sole monopoly issuer of the currency and can add ones and zeros to accounts at any time. They don't need revenue to spend. Anyone thinking hyperinflation would be coming is clueless.Those dolts are always wrong and operate like we're under a gold standard i.e. money supply is fixed.

 

[crashtech]

What would be nice is if we had a welfare program for seniors as well as an actual retirement account program. I suppose it was a stroke of genius for proponents of an ever larger welfare state to combine the two inextricably.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hell! The baby boomer generation is such a drain on society I'd be willing to pay more in taxes and ss just to get them out of it. Seriously, *** that generation!

Don't worry- the younger Trumpsters will be saying the same thing about you.

 

[Jhhnn]

What would be nice is if we had a welfare program for seniors as well as an actual retirement account program. I suppose it was a stroke of genius for proponents of an ever larger welfare state to combine the two inextricably.

Technological progress makes the expansion of the welfare state imperative if all Americans are to benefit from it. It's just that simple.

Alternatively, there's FYGM.

 

[crashtech]

Technological progress makes the expansion of the welfare state imperative if all Americans are to benefit from it. It's just that simple.

Alternatively, there's FYGM.

I don't view it as a binary choice. My way or the highway is a difficult basis on which to build a discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Saying 'its what people who want to cut social security use' doesn't work here as I used actual observed data while you stuck to projections. Instead of dealing with the observed data you turned to projections which you say are usually wrong. Given that you were presented with observed data and your stated distrust of projections you have completely undermined your own argument.

This is baffling. Do you understand what my argument was? It was that people justifying cuts based on life expectancy was dumb. If you think I undermined that argument by using the very data they were trying to use I don't know what to say other than...no?

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what happens when the SS program costs exceed their assets (And I use the exact same definition of assets that both SS and the Fed use when they refer to SS assets).

Social security has assets, but this means nothing from a government standpoint as government liabilities to social security exactly equal social security's assets. I understand exactly what happens then as I've already told you several times.

Do you think if you borrow $100 from your wife your family has suddenly gotten a $100 asset or has there been no change in your net worth?

SS does not have the ability to make changes to payouts or change the amount or source of the assets used to payout promised benefits. If Congress does not act to make changes SS will reduce benefits at the point when expenditures exceed program assets regardless of what form those assets are in. The closer we get to that point the more likely it is to happen. The 'slowing down' I was referring to is slowing down the pace at which we will cross that threshold.

So you're saying that Congress needs to act now because Congress may not act in the future?

I understand exactly what happens when SS costs exceed the 'assets', I'm telling you that you don't actually understand the real problem. Exhausting the trust fund doesn't matter from a practical sense and the issue arises LONG before the 'assets' are exhausted, in fact it happens as soon as expenditures exceed revenues. The assets are just a claim on other government revenues that have to be replaced somehow. Extending or increasing the trust fund just magnifies social security's claims on other programs that still must be funded.

Make the trust fund a kabillion dollars or zero dollars, it doesn't matter. All it represents is a claim on government revenues that will have to be replaced by other means. This is a total government revenue problem, not a social security asset problem.

And I have explained how cutting now means more than zero. Cuts later are undefined and may be more drastic - which is clearly displayed as the default option has more drastic cuts than this proposal. I wonder if perhaps you do not have enough experience working with people who are trying to plan around these eventualities. It certainly means more than 'literally zero' to them as well

You're making the classic mistake of comparing personal revenues to government revenues. It's hard for people to understand that the two are nothing alike.

It all comes down to one very simple fact that once you understand you will see why cutting benefits now to protect the 'trust fund' is silliness: The amount of money the government has to pay retirement benefits, the military, roads, whatever, is the sum total of all tax receipts, plus borrowing. If the government buys its own bonds to put them in a trust fund that doesn't give them more money to spend next year because they are only transacting with themselves. If we cut social security benefits to zero today it would mean nothing as to our capacity to pay them in 2035 and if we doubled them today the same thing would be true.

 

[Exterous]

What would be nice is if we had a welfare program for seniors as well as an actual retirement account program.

I agree. I would be a great change to have a retirement program that wasn't tied to your employer like 401k or 403b programs are so you aren't at the mercy of the chosen plan provider and various fees\complications of rollovers. Then let employers contribute to your account or a separate account that is still in your name (Much like how many non-profit companies make their match contributions to a 403a account instead of the a 403b account.)

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't view it as a binary choice. My way or the highway is a difficult basis on which to build a discussion.

You can argue as to how generous the welfare state should be. To argue against the necessity is just FYGM.

Business does not require the services of nearly as many people as it once did. That's reality, like it or not.

 

[crashtech]

You can argue as to how generous the welfare state should be. To argue against the necessity is just FYGM.

Business does not require the services of nearly as many people as it once did. That's reality, like it or not.

I haven't staked out a strong anti-welfare state position, certainly I've not gotten near the question of "necessity." As a rule I view all government activity much the way the Founders did when they set up our system, with trepidation and a desire to keep it all to a minimum and under the people's direct control. Therefore my position on the welfare state is that it's a necessary evil, and I would contrast your declaration by stating that it's not "generosity" to allow our government to selectively reach into people's wallets at all when it's done by force.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The list you provided is the glossy talking points (or lies, misinformation and hyperbole, using your words), not the actual provisions of the bill. The bill isn't as rosy as the talking points. The middle class is going to get reamed if the provisions included in the current bill get implemented.

They're the talking points of the guy that is actually introducing the Bill, not Slates talking points or the handful of partisan crapholes talking points that populate this forum. I don't agree with your take on the current bill.