Republicans Release Plan to Cut Social Security

[fskimospy]

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

Not only that, but life expectancy gains have been concentrated among the affluent, you know, the people who need social security the least. When you raise the retirement age you're basically screwing poor people so that you can keep paying benefits to rich people.

 

[Sunburn74]

So the narrative of the left is still that SS is entirely sustainable and should not be altered in any way? What is the theory of the left that explains why Republican lawmakers seek to make changes? Racism? That's a constant in the Dem toolbox. Is that in play now?

Where does the left think that SS deductions are "invested" now?

I think you are jumping to conclusions. To begin, HRC specifically has called for increasing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations to help sustain SS. Honestly though, the issue is deeper than a simple temporary increase in government revenue to allow us to catch up with our population growth in that area.

Personally, the basic issue is really a philosophical issue. SS is a safety net program that sets a the floor, a minimum living standard. What should be the floor for living in this country as an elderly person? That is the question. I don't think people can really even talk about fixing SS as a group until we decide conceptually what an elderly person living in the minimum acceptable living standard looks like.

People on the left are interested in social justice, about ensuring the fair and equitable distribution of the rights in the constitution. People on the right are interested in individual liberty (protecting my personal rights to happiness). Both are important but I'm in favor of fixing broad systemic issues as rapidly and efficiently as possible and then scaling back wards, rather than trying to piecemeal your way to a fix for a broad systemic issue.

 

[Puffnstuff]

They should've started by denying healthy working age people benefits like EBT and force them to find a job like every other productive person is expected to do. From a religious perspective even Paul says that if you don't work you don't eat so there we can use scripture to back up dicing and slicing welfare if they are able to work. Just as long as these policy changes don't affect Trump or any of his family then anything goes but us veterans cannot get a decent COLA on our retirement or disability benefits.

 

[Sonikku]

Doesn't it seem like messing with Social
Security has a high likelihood of horribly backfiring on congressional republicans?

They shut down the government and got the Senate. This time they wouldn't so much as grant a justice they liked a damn hearing and got the White House. At this rate if they gut Social Security they might just get a Senate super majority!

 

[boomerang]

I think you are jumping to conclusions. To begin, HRC specifically has called for increasing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations to help sustain SS. Honestly though, the issue is deeper than a simple temporary increase in government revenue to allow us to catch up with our population growth in that area.

Personally, the basic issue is really a philosophical issue. SS is a safety net program that sets a the floor, a minimum living standard. What should be the floor for living in this country as an elderly person? That is the question. I don't think people can really even talk about fixing SS as a group until we decide conceptually what an elderly person living in the minimum acceptable living standard looks like.

People on the left are interested in social justice, about ensuring the fair and equitable distribution of the rights in the constitution. People on the right are interested in individual liberty (protecting my personal rights to happiness). Both are important but I'm in favor of fixing broad systemic issues as rapidly and efficiently as possible and then scaling back wards, rather than trying to piecemeal your way to a fix for a broad systemic issue.

The quest for equality for all is a pipe dream that will not and cannot ever be attained. Give everybody the exact same lodgings, the exact same food, the exact same education, the exact same stuff and there will still be one item that can never be equalized and that is the human brain. We are not all born with the same intellect. Some people are exceptionally bright, some are not. Some are geared towards violence. Some lean towards sloth. Some behave like the energizer bunny. Some like to take risk. Some like to steal from others. Some are submissive. The list would be a long one but hopefully you get the picture. Make everything material as equal as is possible and there will still be huge deviations in behavior and those deviations will result in jealousy and feelings of unfairness among a select group of people. We are not all born with the same brains.

IMO, you got off on a tangent as it relates to the discussion of altering SS but I still wanted to address your post.

 

[postmortemIA]

Guilty of trying to throw off things from the sinking ship!

 

[bshole]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/09/top_republican_releases_social_security_plan.html


Doesn't it seem like messing with Social
Security has a high likelihood of horribly backfiring on congressional republicans?

Especially with Paul Ryan going after Medicare.

I

I actually support raising the retirement age. The demographics almost demand it. We need more people paying in and our demographics are shifting older as life expectancy is longer and families are having fewer children. I vehemently oppose any attempt to privatize.... that is a terrifying proposition.

I also support strongly putting all personal income to SS tax. The rich only expose a tiny fraction of their income to the tax. The Republicans will never address this.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually support raising the retirement age. The demographics almost demand it. We need more people paying in and our demographics are shifting older as life expectancy is longer and families are having fewer children. I vehemently oppose any attempt to privatize.... that is a terrifying proposition.

Life expectancy is only longer for wealthy people. If you're saying you want to increase the retirement age because of increased life expectancy you're basically saying that you want to cut social security for poor people because rich people are living longer.

http://wapo.st/1inbNWj

 

[bshole]

Life expectancy is only longer for wealthy people. If you're saying you want to increase the retirement age because of increased life expectancy you're basically saying that you want to cut social security for poor people because rich people are living longer.

http://wapo.st/1inbNWj

Please don't interpret what I said. My contention is that the demographics have shifted towards an unsustainable model. I obtained the chart below from the SSA. Apparently we are trending down from 3 workers per retiree to less than 2 workers per retiree. Raising the age of retirement should cause there to be more workers per beneficiary and make the system more secure.

For my own part, I have no problem whatsoever working into my 70s like my father did. Of course I absolutely love my job so I may be an outlier in that regard.

 

[fskimospy]

Please don't interpret what I said. My contention is that the demographics have shifted towards an unsustainable model. I obtained the chart below from the SSA. Apparently we are trending down from 3 workers per retiree to less than 2 workers per retiree. Raising the age of retirement should cause there to be more workers per beneficiary and make the system more secure.

For my own part, I have no problem whatsoever working into my 70s like my father did. Of course I absolutely love my job so I may be an outlier in that regard.

Then it sounds like the better answer for the poor would be to eliminate social security entirely as it would often be a money losing proposition for them. Under your plan would just represent a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

There are many ways to change the viability of social security that doesn't do it on the backs of the poor.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Slate. I'll wait for a credible news site.

Agreed. Breitbart has no mention of this. They also have no mention of Russia possibly throwing the election or Trump calling the CIA liars on Twitter at all which means both Russia and the CIA are just figments of leftist propaganda and do not really exist.
Get your head out of your asses and learn where to get your news, folks. Also it's the MAN of the year not Person of the year as Trump had decreed (and all the women, the yugest women, agree with him) that women are not people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ould-rather-man-year-person-year-politically/

 

[bshole]

Then it sounds like the better answer for the poor would be to eliminate social security entirely as it would often be a money losing proposition for them. Under your plan would just represent a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

There are many ways to change the viability of social security that doesn't do it on the backs of the poor.

Not if they did the other thing that I strongly support. Putting the ALL of the income of the wealthy to the SS tax. Honestly I am shocked that we haven't accomplished at least this aspect, it is a no-brainer.

 

[fskimospy]

Not if they did the other thing that I strongly support. Putting the ALL of the income of the wealthy to the SS tax. Honestly I am shocked that we haven't accomplished at least this aspect, it is a no-brainer.

Then how about we just do that instead and leave the retirement age where it is. Social security's primary purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly. What good is it for that if the people who it would rescue from poverty are dead before they can use it?

 

[IronWing]

Not if they did the other thing that I strongly support. Putting the ALL of the income of the wealthy to the SS tax. Honestly I am shocked that we haven't accomplished at least this aspect, it is a no-brainer.

This is the fundamental issue with the current SS program. It isn't that there are too few workers to support retirees, it is that the percentage of GDP that is subject to the SS tax has plummeted over the decades as the tax code has been modified to benefit the very wealthy.

The timing of the phase-in of this bill gets the bulk of the Boomers safely through the door and screws anyone younger. We've seen this pattern in every social welfare cutback to date. When the wealthy can't win on direct class warfare they switch to a strategy of inter-generational economic warfare and suddenly the social justice contingent of the BB generation wanders off to paint butterflies

 

[bshole]

Then how about we just do that instead and leave the retirement age where it is. Social security's primary purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly. What good is it for that if the people who it would rescue from poverty are dead before they can use it?

With Trump in office that seems doubtful.

Regarding the bottom 20% I wouldn't have a problem with an exception made for them. The people we absolutely need working longer are the middle class and higher. They are the critical backbone that make the system work.

 

[Exterous]

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

Doesn't it seem like messing with Social
Security has a high likelihood of horribly backfiring on congressional republicans?I

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

Yep! So why would they phase this in then? Why not make it take effect immediately?

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

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

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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 less than the current trend in life expectancy growth.

It is less than the current trend in life expectancy growth for WEALTHY people. Life expectancy for lower economic tiers has not changed. It seems like a bad idea to index poverty reduction measures to the life expectancy of the rich.

More importantly though, we all agree that social security is a pay as you go system, right? So it's not like we will be better off in 2035 if we cut things now instead of then. With that in mind, why on earth does it make sense to codify cuts to social security now based on a projection of what will happen two decades from now, considering that we know twenty year projections have almost no chance of being accurate? I can't imagine any situation where that is a good idea.

This is just bad governance and ideological policy making trying to masquerade as fiscal responsibility.

 

[Exterous]

It is less than the current trend in life expectancy growth for WEALTHY people. Life expectancy for lower economic tiers has not changed. It seems like a bad idea to index poverty reduction measures to the life expectancy of the rich.

That is not true at all. In fact all life expectancy for men increased between 1920 and 1950 although not evenly and women did not fare as well. Besides factors other than wealth impact life expectancy. We all know smoking is bad for you yet it is 2x more likely to occur in lower incomes - despite its high cost in years of life and money.

The causes are still being investigated, but public health researchers say that deep declines in smoking among the affluent and educated may partly explain the difference.

snip

Jessica Ho, of Duke University, and Mr. Fenelon calculated that smoking accounted for a third to a fifth of the gap in life expectancy between men with college degrees and men with only high school diplomas. For women it was as much as a quarter.

snip

More recently, the prescription drug epidemic has ravaged poor white communities, a problem that experts said would most likely exacerbate the trend of widening disparities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/h...pans-of-the-rich-and-the-poor-is-growing.html

So it's not like we will be better off in 2035 if we cut things now instead of then.

How do you know that? I think it would be pretty clear that slowing the obvious downward trend in SS reserves would be a prudent idea especially if we can do it in a way that leaves years for people to adjust their plans

 

[Mai72]

We are going to have major issues if we don't find a reasonable way to fix social security. The wealthy don't really need SS. It's the poor and middle class who need it the most. With the cost of goods rising it's getting very difficult to buy groceries on limited income. We could raise the retirement age to late 60s but here's the issue: AUTOMATION. Many poor and middle class people don't have the skillset to compete for better jobs. So, they are left working at a job that can be easily replaced by a computer. IMO, in 10-20 years many of those low skill jobs are going away for good. Amazon Go anyone?

So, what do we do when SS is broken and there are tens of thousands of people who don't have income and are past their working prime?

 

[fskimospy]

That is not true at all. In fact all life expectancy for men increased between 1920 and 1950 although not evenly and women did not fare as well. Besides factors other than wealth impact life expectancy. We all know smoking is bad for you yet it is 2x more likely to occur in lower incomes - despite its high cost in years of life and money.

It's definitely true. Note how you mention between 1920 and 1950. What happened since? Stagnation for lower incomes. (SS retirement age was already previously adjusted upward to account for prior increases)

How do you know that? I think it would be pretty clear that slowing the obvious downward trend in SS reserves would be a prudent idea especially if we can do it in a way that leaves years for people to adjust their plans

How do I know that 20 year projections are usually wrong? The history of 20 year projections.

I'm not sure what you mean by social security reserves though, as Social security is a pay as you go system. Social security taxes that the government collects in excess of payouts are placed in government bonds, which are... promises by the government to pay itself. The trust fund is a promise from other governmental agencies to pay back the trust fund from their revenues, meaning that to maintain THOSE agencies we would have to raise taxes or issue new public debt to replace the intragovernmental debt that now exists.

It's not like there is a vault of gold coins to spend down, so we gain literally nothing from cutting 2035 benefits today. Zero.

 

[TheVrolok]

This is not the whole picture. Even if implemented, it's not going to change what current retirees are on. They are not going to get a pay cut. An idea, going forward, that I am very much in favor of, is CHOICE. Yes, mandatory contribution, from your pay check, but a choice as to where your money is INVESTED. We are very right to build a program, where younger people can plan their retirements, in a way where they feel they can direct where their money is going. Most people, operating within low risk investments, would be way better off, at the retirement end, by NOT having to depend on the government, but by being able to chose where to place their money. This goes against the grain of "government is god, bigger is better, etc." Fortunately, I'm too creative to have to worry about that shit, but I recognize, everyone is not in the same boat.

And for those who are less "creative" than you? What happens to them upon retirement because "they chose poorly..."?

I just also have to echo what others have said about this essentially just serving to further divide the classes. I guess as a one percenter, I shouldn't give a shit, but unfortunately I do.

 

[cliftonite]

And for those who are less "creative" than you? What happens to them upon retirement because "they chose poorly..."?

I just also have to echo what others have said about this essentially just serving to further divide the classes. I guess as a one percenter, I shouldn't give a shit, but unfortunately I do.

Same here. Part me says fuck it who cares but at the end of the day there will be lots of folks who will get fucked over.

 

[Jaskalas]

So the narrative of the left is still that SS is entirely sustainable and should not be altered in any way?

Disregarding anyone's narrative I'd give social security to every adult citizen. Call it stimulus, basic income, social security, don't care the PR term. We can afford $1,000/mo for $2.6 trillion of our annual $4 trillion budget. If that boosts the economy then all the better. It'd look like a "cut" to some though, but maybe we can also improve upon low income housing and develop plans for poor people to live on just social security.

If you think about it... college kids could use that money to pay for tuition. 30 somethings could find a better house. Unemployed could still have food and shelter. Basic needs could be met the nation over. Social security needs an entire remodeling from the ground up. Social safety net, not a pension. Dedicate 65% of the general fun to it and it'll be both solvent and useful to everyone.

 

[theeedude]

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

 

[Exterous]

It's definitely true. Note how you mention between 1920 and 1950. What happened since? Stagnation for lower incomes.

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:

Fourth, geographic differences in life expectancy for individuals in the lowest income quartile were significantly correlated with health behaviors such as smoking (r = −0.69, P < .001), but were not significantly correlated with access to medical care, physical environmental factors, income inequality, or labor market conditions. Life expectancy for low-income individuals was positively correlated with the local area fraction of immigrants (r = 0.72, P < .001), fraction of college graduates (r = 0.42, P < .001), and government expenditures (r = 0.57, P < .001).

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

In all of the studies I've linked if you remove the additional negative health choices present in the lowest incomes the life expectancy of the lowest incomes does not stagnate

How do I know that 20 year projections are usually wrong?

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

I'm not sure what you mean by social security reserves though, as Social security is a pay as you go system. Social security taxes that the government collects in excess of payouts are placed in government bonds, which are... promises by the government to pay itself. The trust fund is a promise from other governmental agencies to pay back the trust fund from their revenues, meaning that to maintain THOSE agencies we would have to raise taxes or issue new public debt to replace the intragovernmental debt that now exists.

It's not like there is a vault of gold coins to spend down, so we gain literally nothing from cutting 2035 benefits today. Zero.

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.