Republicans Release Plan to Cut Social Security

[Exterous]

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?

I do but I wasn't arguing that. In fact I bolded your exact statement I took issue with. You said "Life expectancy for lower economic tiers has not changed" I said you were wrong and then provided evidence to that effect. Your response was to cite projections which you say are not accurate. Even if we decide to agree that projections have merit we still need to contend with the health choices that weight on lower income life expectancy - like the expensive habit of smoking as noted earlier - and that controlling for choices does show a rise in life expectancy for lower economic tiers.

And to your comment "It seems like a bad idea to index poverty reduction measures to the life expectancy of the rich." that is clearly not what is being done here since the rich would be at the top of the life expectancy chart and above the noted averages. Therefore having the retirement age raised to half of the average increase in life expectancy is obviously not indexing it to the life expectancy of the rich since it is well below that mark. I do not have time to do the math but I suspect that if we remove 25-33% of the difference in LE gains (the % caused by increased levels of smoking) we will find that a 4 year increase over 100 years is close to the LE increase for the lowest income levels.

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?

Absurd comparison aside there are actually situations where that would change the courts' or IRS' view of your family's assets and could result in a net negative to your wife's net worth.

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

I never said they needed to.

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.

You said "Because of that, cutting things now does absolutely nothing to actually affect our ability to pay." which cannot be substantiated as we are not at the point where SS cannot pay its promised benefits. It is entirely possible that other constraints on the budget like medicade\medicare make Congress unwilling\unable to overide the fund deficit for SS or do so to a level better than the current proposal. (Not that I would hold my breath on this proposal passing in its current state) Likewise I cannot say that making changes now will avert this issue - however making changes now makes it far more likely SS stays solvent while avoiding knee jerk changes with unknown or negative consequences that cannot be fully mitigated. It is also not necessary to 'fix' it all in one bill.

The latter was to an earlier point where you said 'we gain literally nothing'. I pointed out an impact - it does not matter where that impact occurs since there were no specified confines in your comment. In fact the use of an absolute specifically includes everything.

To restate my original point - this isn't perfect but its starting out at a much more moderate position that I would have hoped for. I would have expected something far closer to 'privatize social security' given the relative power Republicans currently enjoy.

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.

It baffles me that you make this argument since I have never said anything in regards to protecting the trust fund and specifically mentioned that the overall level isn't of great importance. The level of trust fund reserves doesn't matter to the payouts as long as expenditures doesn't exceed assets. The trust fund only serves as a proxy for overall solvency. The additional assets could be a $1 IOU but as long as it stays at that we have no issues with SS. The desire for a gradual change isn't because the assets have to be protected its so that people have time to adjust to any changes. A drop of 25% or even 10% is not something a lot of retirees can just absorb instantly. It takes years and years of planning to build up personal reserves of that magnitude.

 

[Mai72]

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.

Eating habits are horrible for many Americans. My guess is diabetes will be one of the leading diseases. There are so many teens and young adults who have type 2.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, GOP will raise Social Security age out of reach of their fat, pill-popping, flyover state supporters, by taking away their health insurance.

 

[dank69]

I think this is great! Go GOP! Rah rah rah!

 

[Ackmed]

Eh, I'd rather manage my own money. And most certainly not pay more than those with lower income while getting a far less percentage back too. I have serious doubts it will be there for me if I ever get to that age.

 

[JSt0rm]

if they change the age on me im sueing them for everything i paid in plus triple damages.

 

[dank69]

Eh, I'd rather manage my own money. And most certainly not pay more than those with lower income while getting a far less percentage back too. I have serious doubts it will be there for me if I ever get to that age.

I agree. Things were awesome before SS. Humans invested in retirement plans because humans are responsible creatures. I think this is going to be fantastic and think it is fantastic that you also agree. Full steam ahead GOP agenda, I hope Medicare is next.

 

[Ackmed]

I agree. Things were awesome before SS. Humans invested in retirement plans because humans are responsible creatures. I think this is going to be fantastic and think it is fantastic that you also agree. Full steam ahead GOP agenda, I hope Medicare is next.

I know you're trying to play it like I said "go ahead and cut it, fuck everyone". But I didn't. Not very slick. I simply said that I would rather manage my own retirement, and that I doubted SS would be there for me. And that I think its unfair to have someone who makes more, pay in far more while getting back a far lower percentage. I realize that not everyone has retirement planned out, I don't especially mind the program. I simply stated I would rather invest my own money, paying almost $150 a week into it? I think I can do better. And I am not that great with investments, trying to get better though.

 

[JSt0rm]

I know you're trying to play it like I said "go ahead and cut it, fuck everyone". But I didn't. Not very slick. I simply said that I would rather manage my own retirement, and that I doubted SS would be there for me. And that I think its unfair to have someone who makes more, pay in far more while getting back a far lower percentage. I realize that not everyone has retirement planned out, I don't especially mind the program. I simply stated I would rather invest my own money, paying almost $150 a week into it? I think I can do better. And I am not that great with investments, trying to get better though.

vanguard.

 

[Jhhnn]

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?



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?



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.



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.

I think you ignore the psychological implications. Boomers & GenX'ers have paid it forward for 30+ years to create the current trust fund balance of ~$2.7T. That's helped to enable low taxes the whole time, of course, particularly top tax rates. It's been obvious that the money to honor that commitment & maintain benefits would have to come from the general fund or from increased SS revenues.

Repubs sure as Hell won't raise taxes at the top so they'll cut, cut, cut somewhere to make up the difference & it won't be on military spending.

 

[dank69]

I know you're trying to play it like I said "go ahead and cut it, fuck everyone". But I didn't. Not very slick. I simply said that I would rather manage my own retirement, and that I doubted SS would be there for me. And that I think its unfair to have someone who makes more, pay in far more while getting back a far lower percentage. I realize that not everyone has retirement planned out, I don't especially mind the program. I simply stated I would rather invest my own money, paying almost $150 a week into it? I think I can do better. And I am not that great with investments, trying to get better though.

You misunderstand my post. I'll be able to support my grandmother. I look forward to all your grandmothers eating cabbage soup exclusively.

 

[Ackmed]

You misunderstand my post. I'll be able to support my grandmother. I look forward to all your grandmothers eating cabbage soup exclusively.

I suppose I did, I apologize. Still not sure I completely grasp your meaning but doesn't really matter. I'm supposed to be doing some bullshit homework, reading quietly to myself four different poems. Diving into the soul of each. Reading them out loud to myself, with different voices. Trying to make a child laugh. Some more bullshit, writing about them. I have a hard time focusing, so do a little work and browse the net in between. And we just got home yesterday from being at the hospital for 4 days, wife had our fourth child. People wanting to come over, ugh. None of that really matters, my mind is just not focusing well right now.

If I a vote, I'd vote to keep it. Because I don't think most people have retirement, and you don't really miss it if you never had it. I'd rather be a little unhappy than millions of people not having retirement at all. I just don't want it to keep evolving into something that is worse for me over and over.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I agree. Things were awesome before SS. Humans invested in retirement plans because humans are responsible creatures. I think this is going to be fantastic and think it is fantastic that you also agree. Full steam ahead GOP agenda, I hope Medicare is next.

"Supporting irresponsible humans is a good idea"

A person with no savings by the age of 65 is a worthless human being, with only diminishing productivity from there.

The notion that people live much longer now than back in the 1930's is sorta incorrect. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality.

A more appropriate metric for this discussion is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood. The average life expectancy at age 65 has increased an average of 5 years since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.


Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65

(M) (F)
1940 12.7 14.7
1950 13.1 16.2
1960 13.2 17.4
1970 13.8 18.6
1980 14.6 19.1
1990 15.3 19.6

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Hmm, didn't know it was this mild, thanks for the info.

 

[Jhhnn]

Eh, I'd rather manage my own money. And most certainly not pay more than those with lower income while getting a far less percentage back too. I have serious doubts it will be there for me if I ever get to that age.

Everybody was doing that back in 1929.

Life's uncertainties dictate that those of us who are more fortunate need to be generous if only as a form of insurance. Being young & successful now doesn't mean you always will be. There's the small matter of Karma, as well, if you believe in such things.

The only reason SS might not be there for you is if too many people start thinking the way you do.

 

[Puffnstuff]

A person with no savings by the age of 65 is a worthless human being, with only diminishing productivity from there.

Not everyone is so fortunate as to go through life without having something beyond their control wipe them out.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Not everyone is so fortunate as to go through life without having something beyond their control wipe them out.

How about a case-by-case emergency fund? You lose you entire savings because Madoff ripped you off, or because of tragedy in the family, or because of job-related injury, you get more support. You live your entire life on credit and have no children, you get pennies, enough to afford food, but that's it.

 

[dank69]

"Supporting irresponsible humans is a good idea"

A person with no savings by the age of 65 is a worthless human being, with only diminishing productivity from there.



Hmm, didn't know it was this mild, thanks for the info.

Exactly. We could probably get them to kill each other for table scraps for our entertainment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Exactly. We could probably get them to kill each other for table scraps for our entertainment.

I would support this. Nothing would turn me on more than watching two middle class families with no savings fight to the death over the last bits of leather from the seats of their luxury sedans to eat.

 

[MrSquished]

the bonus is that if the Repubs gut SS and Medicare they will probably lose a shit ton of votes

 

[IronWing]

the bonus is that if the Repubs gut SS and Medicare they will probably lose a shit ton of votes

They will market the plan as "saving SS". They will take the actuary report linked above as evidence that they have saved the program from certain doom. They will have a valid point. The fact that the saved program deeply cuts benefits to anyone younger than the baby boomers will get less press.

 

[dank69]

the bonus is that if the Repubs gut SS and Medicare they will probably lose a shit ton of votes

Yes, clearly the average American voter operates on a completely rational level.

 

[Jhhnn]

They will market the plan as "saving SS". They will take the actuary report linked above as evidence that they have saved the program from certain doom. They will have a valid point. The fact that the saved program deeply cuts benefits to anyone younger than the baby boomers will get less press.

But they'll get more cornholio, so it's all good from a Repub perspective.

 

[MrSquished]

Yes, clearly the average American voter operates on a completely rational level.

That's true but many Americans are emotional about things like SS & Medicare. So maybe they will act out on their emotions

 

[dank69]

That's true but many Americans are emotional about things like SS & Medicare. So maybe they will act out on their emotions

Doesn't stop them from electing Paul Ryan over and over.

 

[Puffnstuff]

the bonus is that if the Repubs gut SS and Medicare they will probably lose a shit ton of votes

Nah, Trump will tweet that Obama did it from a golf course and the faithful will drop to their knees and thank God that they have a republican in power. Meanwhile in the land of critical thinking the educated minds will engage in face palming as we view the next big top circus act unfold.