Posted: 7/15/2026 7:46:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ColtRifle][Edited]
|
Looks like Congress is finally going to begin coming up with “solutions” to Social Security’s funding issues. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/senate-social-security-legislation/2026/07/14/id/1262829/ With Social Security's looming insolvency date roughly six years away, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a proposal Tuesday to grapple with one of the most consequential financial challenges facing the federal government. The Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE Act, comes on the heels of the latest Social Security Board of Trustees' annual report, which found that Social Security's retirement trust fund is projected to face a funding shortfall in 2032, a year earlier than last year's projections. "The longer Congress waits, the more difficult it will be to address the program's financial shortfall," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., one of the bill's authors, said in a statement. "We were elected to solve problems — we owe it to our kids and grandkids to protect and strengthen this critical program." Durbin, who is retiring, is joining with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, and outgoing Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., in backing the Social Security legislation, which calls for an "independent, bipartisan advisory committee" that would make recommendations to Congress. Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Alan Armstrong, R-Okla., signed onto the bill right before its introduction. The bill is designed to force Congress to confront Social Security's long-term financing problem by guaranteeing that lawmakers vote on a solvency plan. It culminates in an up-or-down vote on a plan that restores Social Security solvency for at least half a century. Social Security's looming funding shortfall is mainly the result of lower projected birth rates, reduced immigration and reduced trust fund revenue, according to the Board of Trustees' report. The looming challenge for the programs is a partial funding gap, not a collapse. Even after trust fund depletion, the system will continue issuing benefits, albeit at reduced amounts. Traditionally, Republicans have been skeptical of endorsing tax increases, while Democrats have been critical of calls to raise the age of Social Security eligibility. In 2022, members of the House Republican Study Committee proposed raising the age at which someone could qualify for Social Security and Medicare. Social Security benefits were last reformed roughly 40 years ago, when the federal government raised the eligibility age for the program from 65 to 67, based on recommendations from a commission under the leadership of Alan Greenspan. Still, there are ongoing bipartisan calls to find a way to provide long-term funding to Social Security. Last month, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, wrote an editorial in The New York Times calling for raising the cap on the Social Security payroll tax. For 2026, the payroll tax cap, or maximum amount of earnings on which you must pay Social Security tax, is $184,500. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
The bill is designed to force Congress to confront Social Security's long-term financing problem by guaranteeing that lawmakers vote on a solvency plan. It culminates in an up-or-down vote on a plan that restores Social Security solvency for at least half a century. And the whole senate hasn't voted on it either. So pretty much a non-story. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
1097
EE: 100% (8)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: So what's the plan? The story doesn't say. And the whole senate hasn't voted on it either. So pretty much a non-story. Originally Posted By Mike_314: The bill is designed to force Congress to confront Social Security's long-term financing problem by guaranteeing that lawmakers vote on a solvency plan. It culminates in an up-or-down vote on a plan that restores Social Security solvency for at least half a century. And the whole senate hasn't voted on it either. So pretty much a non-story. |
Mach
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: So what's the plan? The story doesn't say. And the whole senate hasn't voted on it either. So pretty much a non-story. Imagine that, congress has to pass a law to tell itself to solve problems that it created. |
|
Originally Posted By Mach: The bill is to force a vote on a plan and bill that doesn't exist yet. This is just more pre-election grand standing. It's like having a vote to have a vote later. Actually, the funnier part is that this is being proposed mostly by outgoing congressmen. Dick Durbin saying it’s Congress’ responsibility is hypocritical….hes leaving Congress. He should be saying “now that I’m leaving, those left behind in Congress have to step up and fix this”. Everyone knows SS funding issues have to be fixed. One way or another. Like SS or hate it, it’s not going away because too many Americans (including the most vocal critics of it) depend on it. So, a fix will be developed just like last time. And, no one is going to like it because ultimately it will undoubtedly be a combo of benefit cuts and tax increases. No other way around it. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: So what's the plan? The story doesn't say. And the whole senate hasn't voted on it either. So pretty much a non-story. It’s to force a bipartisan development of a plan that Congress will have to vote on eventually. No plans in place yet. Just to form a bipartisan team (that’s people from both parties) to come up with a plan. A plan is going to happen one way or another. Older Americans don’t want cuts. Younger Americans don’t want to pay for it. Neither side will be happy. Those of us who planned to not rely on it will be sitting back and laughing at both sides. Those planning to rely on it should be very happy a solution is being devised and should be happy when their taxes rise and benefit cuts are made to guarantee their access to their benefits. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Those of us who planned to not rely on it will be sitting back and laughing at both sides. I fully expect that one of the bandaids they come up with will be to hit capital gains and other non payroll income with SS taxes. They already do it with NIIT for Medicare if you make over a certain level. That will really be a kick in the nuts if it’s instituted in conjunction with means testing for those of us who have effectively dropped out of their system. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: I fully expect that one of the bandaids they come up with will be to hit capital gains and other non payroll income with SS taxes. They already do it with NIIT for Medicare if you make over a certain level. That will really be a kick in the nuts if it’s instituted in conjunction with means testing for those of us who have effectively dropped out of their system. I won’t say you are wrong but I doubt that. Look at the last time 40 years ago this was an issue. They will play by the same playbook I suspect with maybe a few new ideas to effectively hide the changes. I do think they will add a cap to SS on how much an individual or a couple can collect from SS. So in a way means testing but not exactly. You’ll still get something even if you have lots of income but you won’t get as large of a percentage of what you put in vs someone who made less in their lifetime. They will have to raise taxes but younger people won’t like that. So, I have a sneaking suspicion it will be raising the amount the employer pays. That way Congress can say they are “making the employers pay for their employees retirement” while not seeing more money come out of employees paycheck. The reality is different but people are stupid and can’t do math so it would likely work. But I guess we will see what they come up with. Gonna be funny to watch the screams from all sides. But if you want SS, it’s gonna have to happen. And if you don’t want SS, it’s still gonna happen. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: I won’t say you are wrong but I doubt that. Look at the last time 40 years ago this was an issue. They will play by the same playbook I suspect with maybe a few new ideas to effectively hide the changes. They won't change current benefits because that would be suicide via AARP. They'll raise the full retirement age for future generations and then raise taxes for everybody to cover the gap between now until the new higher retirement age starts. What taxes they raise is the unknown... they'll lean towards a payroll tax increase because that is shared between individuals and their employer, so dumb people will only see 1/2 of the tax hike on their paycheck. They might change how much of your SS is taxable and similar things, but those changes are nowhere near enough to cover the money shortfall. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: but those changes are nowhere near enough to cover the money shortfall. They don’t have to fix it, they just have to kick the can down the road. Buy a few more decades and it will be someone else’s problem. Without looking it up I’d bet the key figures in the 1983 reforms are probably all dead and went to their graves being praised for saving it. |
|
There are really only 3 easy options. 1: raise the full retirement age. Probably the least liked of the three options. 2. Make all earned income taxable. This is pretty straightforward as right now now income over 184K isn’t taxed. This one item could extend SS another 20+ years. 3. Adjusting the tax rate payed by either employees or employers. Congress isn’t stupid enough to radically piss off the largest voting block by reducing benefits. |
|
Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: There are really only 3 easy options. 1: raise the full retirement age. Probably the least liked of the three options. 2. Make all earned income taxable. This is pretty straightforward as right now now income over 184K isn’t taxed. This one item could extend SS another 20+ years. 3. Adjusting the tax rate payed by either employees or employers. Congress isn’t stupid enough to radically piss off the largest voting block by reducing benefits. you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. |
|
Let me opt out of the fucking boondoggle, give me my money back - every cent - and let me invest it my way. Won't happen, but it's what I want because I'll never collect a fucking cent of this horseshit since I've still got almost 30 years before I can collect. And I'm sure by then the age will have risen even more. |
Tax this dick. - Ben Franklin (probably)
SPC James 'Jimmy' Waters - D Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Sartak AFG 2011
SGT Shawn M Farrell II - A Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Nejrab AFG 2014
SPC James 'Jimmy' Waters - D Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Sartak AFG 2011
SGT Shawn M Farrell II - A Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Nejrab AFG 2014
|
Originally Posted By spmx7777: They should also be going after Social Security Disability Insurance fraud. SSDI is 10% of the Social Security budget. I suspect you are referring to SSI not SSDI. SSI probably has a lot of fraudsters receiving money. SSDI…..not so much. SSDI is very hard to scam….not saying it’s inpossible but it is much harder. And, you can’t get SSDI unless you have worked AND paid FICA taxes in the past 10 years. AND, the SSDI program is pretty well funded and is not currently facing a budget shortfall. While the SS Administration does indeed run the SSI program, it is NOT funded by FICA taxes. So, if you cut off all people receiving SSI AND SSDI, the portion of SS that you get at 62+ is unaffected and will STILL have the same funding problems. That is a common misconception. People say “cut all the lazy people off and SS won’t have any funding issues”. But that is wrong. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By Airborne11B: Let me opt out of the fucking boondoggle, give me my money back - every cent - and let me invest it my way. Won't happen, but it's what I want because I'll never collect a fucking cent of this horseshit since I've still got almost 30 years before I can collect. And I'm sure by then the age will have risen even more. That’s nice but not what’s being talked about here. Changes are coming. Guaranteed. You won’t like any of it. But your like or dislike of it doesn’t change what is going to happen. You can rant impotently all you want to but way more than 50% of Americans depend on or plan to depend on the program. Yes it sucks in many ways. But it’s not going away no matter how much you rant and rave. And it’s a pay as you go system so you can’t get paid back what you paid in until you reach retirement age. Just the way it is. Plan to live without it and you’ll never care what they do to fix” it. Plus, less stress and anger in your life over it. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By heat762: you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. I think it’s far more likely to see it capped at a max amount rather than cutting off people who did pay into it. It’s already being discussed. I suspect it might be something like (for example) a max of $35000 per year per individual and $70000 per couple. The national average is something like $24000. Cut people off who paid into it and there will be angry calls to congress people. If you pick a fairly high limit, most people will never reach it and those who do will still get something to keep them quiet. Gotta think like a politician. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: That’s nice but not what’s being talked about here. Changes are coming. Guaranteed. You won’t like any of it. But your like or dislike of it doesn’t change what is going to happen. You can rant impotently all you want to but way more than 50% of Americans depend on or plan to depend on the program. Yes it sucks in many ways. But it’s not going away no matter how much you rant and rave. And it’s a pay as you go system so you can’t get paid back what you paid in until you reach retirement age. Just the way it is. Plan to live without it and you’ll never care what they do to fix” it. Plus, less stress and anger in your life over it. I know, I should be ok with an extra 10k a year stolen from me every year that I likely won’t see. Got it. On top of the 60k I pay in income taxes every year. Sorry but no. Will things change? No. Do I have to like it? Fuck no. |
Tax this dick. - Ben Franklin (probably)
SPC James 'Jimmy' Waters - D Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Sartak AFG 2011
SGT Shawn M Farrell II - A Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Nejrab AFG 2014
SPC James 'Jimmy' Waters - D Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Sartak AFG 2011
SGT Shawn M Farrell II - A Co 1-32 3BCT 10th Mountain, KIA Nejrab AFG 2014
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: I suspect you are referring to SSI not SSDI. SSI probably has a lot of fraudsters receiving money. SSDI…..not so much. SSDI is very hard to scam….not saying it’s inpossible but it is much harder. And, you can’t get SSDI unless you have worked AND paid FICA taxes in the past 10 years. AND, the SSDI program is pretty well funded and is not currently facing a budget shortfall. While the SS Administration does indeed run the SSI program, it is NOT funded by FICA taxes. So, if you cut off all people receiving SSI AND SSDI, the portion of SS that you get at 62+ is unaffected and will STILL have the same funding problems. That is a common misconception. People say “cut all the lazy people off and SS won’t have any funding issues”. But that is wrong. Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Originally Posted By spmx7777: They should also be going after Social Security Disability Insurance fraud. SSDI is 10% of the Social Security budget. I suspect you are referring to SSI not SSDI. SSI probably has a lot of fraudsters receiving money. SSDI…..not so much. SSDI is very hard to scam….not saying it’s inpossible but it is much harder. And, you can’t get SSDI unless you have worked AND paid FICA taxes in the past 10 years. AND, the SSDI program is pretty well funded and is not currently facing a budget shortfall. While the SS Administration does indeed run the SSI program, it is NOT funded by FICA taxes. So, if you cut off all people receiving SSI AND SSDI, the portion of SS that you get at 62+ is unaffected and will STILL have the same funding problems. That is a common misconception. People say “cut all the lazy people off and SS won’t have any funding issues”. But that is wrong. OK, I'm not a social security actuary, but I read a bit and sometimes misunderstandings happen. Agree on the "But that is wrong", and I didn't say the part in bold. I said what I said, no more, no less. Another thing to go after is anyone collecting social security or SSDI and sending remittances overseas. SS/SSDI/whatever is not a pension, and you do not have a property right to it (per USSC). If congress has the political will to do it that could make a dent. Maybe small, maybe large, but the point is congress controls social security and can change it as needed. |
|
Originally Posted By spmx7777: OK, I'm not a social security actuary, but I read a bit and sometimes misunderstandings happen. Agree on the "But that is wrong", and I didn't say the part in bold. I said what I said, no more, no less. Another thing to go after is anyone collecting social security or SSDI and sending remittances overseas. SS/SSDI/whatever is not a pension, and you do not have a property right to it (per USSC). If congress has the political will to do it that could make a dent. Maybe small, maybe large, but the point is congress controls social security and can change it as needed. Relax. Nothing I said was critical of you personally. It’s just a very common misconception about SS. It gets repeated so much that many people believe it is a fact. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By heat762: you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. Means testing is one sure way to piss off the largest voting block. People paying into a system for so long and then having their benefits cut will never end well. Congress is going to take the easiest option that won’t upset those on and nearing social security. The three other option are super easy, not get them into trouble, and keep social security paying out at 100% for 50 years. |
|
Originally Posted By Airborne11B: I know, I should be ok with an extra 10k a year stolen from me every year that I likely won’t see. Got it. On top of the 60k I pay in income taxes every year. Sorry but no. Will things change? No. Do I have to like it? Fuck no. If you are really paying $60k in income taxes every year you have an excellent income. At that level of income, if you are good at managing your money, you should be putting away enough money that you would never need to care about what SS is doing. That’s the way to stop getting fired up about hating SS. Plan your own retirement properly and you will stop worrying about what SS is up to. Then you can live with less stress and be more happy. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: If you are really paying $60k in income taxes every year you have an excellent income. At that level of income, if you are good at managing your money, you should be putting away enough money that you would never need to care about what SS is doing. That’s the way to stop getting fired up about hating SS. Plan your own retirement properly and you will stop worrying about what SS is up to. Then you can live with less stress and be more happy. So I’m just supposed to have 6.2% stolen for no reason? |
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: I think it’s far more likely to see it capped at a max amount rather than cutting off people who did pay into it. It’s already being discussed. Originally Posted By ColtRifle: I think it’s far more likely to see it capped at a max amount rather than cutting off people who did pay into it. It’s already being discussed. Originally Posted By Airborne11B: .........I've still got almost 30 years before I can collect. ............ I know, I should be ok with an extra 10k a year stolen from me every year that I likely won’t see. Got it. On top of the 60k I pay in income taxes every year. So do you make $160k, $200k, or $325k? Any of those incomes are great for somebody in their 30s and you don't/won't care about SS in 30 years. Everybody hates taxes but crying because you make a lot of money means your complaints fall on deaf ears. Originally Posted By hammer1995: So I’m just supposed to have 6.2% stolen for no reason? The only good thing about SS is that the money goes right back out to people rather than to the pockets of politicians. I'd recommend you spend your breath fighting against sales taxes, property taxes, etc. The SS dollar amounts are staggering. Making up for the shortfall will require an immediate and significant change - either reduced benefits or raised taxes. Waiting longer (which they will) will mean bigger changes will have to be made. Reducing current benefits enough to matter is political suicide. The 1980s SS law is the last time the retirement age was changed, and it changed the retirement age for people who were around 30 years old at the time (born in the 1950s). Using that as a guide would mean raising the current retirement age for people born in the late 1990s. The problem with that is that the savings won't be realized until those people start retiring in around 30 years. The only options that produce an immediate result is to raise taxes or simply print more money. I predict they will do both as well as raise the retirement age because reducing benefits is political suicide. |
|
Originally Posted By hammer1995: So I’m just supposed to have 6.2% stolen for no reason? It’s really 12.4%. 6.2% from you and 6.2% from your employer. Regardless how you do the math, the full 12.4% is still a cost to employ you (and me). Do you consider 401k money stolen from you too? It’s not stolen. It’s a program MOST Americans want and their elected officials voted on many years ago. And, then those same elected officials voted again to make changes to the program around 40ish years ago. Taxation WITH representation. So, the majority of Americans want a program they contribute to while working so they can get benefits when they retire. It’s a shitty program. Always has been. Always will be. If there was the political will to change it to something like GWB initially proposed, it would be better than what we have now. But too many people like what we have now and don’t want it changed. Young people don’t want to pay for it now but WILL expect something from the plan because they paid into it (and they probably didn’t plan for their financial future either). Old people are happy they paid into it because they are getting something from it now. You can’t have your cake in hand and eat it too. Bottom line is….if you try to get rid of it, everyone regardless of political background will vote you out. It’s going to get some changes. If you like SS, you need to be happy they are changing it. If you hate SS, you need to financially plan so that you never have to rely on it or need it. Like it or not, fair or not, Americans will NOT accept old people starving in the streets. There will always be some form of system to publicly provide retirement funding for old people. The average American demands it. So, it won’t go away. Ever. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: It’s really 12.4%. 6.2% from you and 6.2% from your employer. Regardless how you do the math, the full 12.4% is still a cost to employ you (and me). Do you consider 401k money stolen from you too? It’s not stolen. It’s a program MOST Americans want and their elected officials voted on many years ago. And, then those same elected officials voted again to make changes to the program around 40ish years ago. Taxation WITH representation. So, the majority of Americans want a program they contribute to while working so they can get benefits when they retire. It’s a shitty program. Always has been. Always will be. If there was the political will to change it to something like GWB initially proposed, it would be better than what we have now. But too many people like what we have now and don’t want it changed. Young people don’t want to pay for it now but WILL expect something from the plan because they paid into it (and they probably didn’t plan for their financial future either). Old people are happy they paid into it because they are getting something from it now. You can’t have your cake in hand and eat it too. Bottom line is….if you try to get rid of it, everyone regardless of political background will vote you out. It’s going to get some changes. If you like SS, you need to be happy they are changing it. If you hate SS, you need to financially plan so that you never have to rely on it or need it. Like it or not, fair or not, Americans will NOT accept old people starving in the streets. There will always be some form of system to publicly provide retirement funding for old people. The average American demands it. So, it won’t go away. Ever. 40 years ago, I wanted out. Now? Pay me. The talk decades ago was to partially privatize SS. I supported that then and support that now. We did plan well for our financial future. Luck played a part, having a pension helps, staying employed almost continually for 40 years did as well, not being extravagant with expenses helps, heck, marrying a low maintenance woman helps a lot too. A lot of little things add up. If SS benefits are cut, we'll draw more from savings and investments to make up the difference. It is what it is. Deal with it. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
4963
EE: 100% (4)
SC, USA
|
We could afford give every retiree $10,000 a month if we quit giving away money to welfare nations abroad and welfare queens at home. Of course, I'd rather cut all that crap and keep the SS the same, and pay off the debt with the that money. Then, with a balanced budget, we can cut taxes so that we don't have to pay so much for the welfare queens. |
|
Originally Posted By Redman556: We could afford give every retiree $10,000 a month if we quit giving away money to welfare nations abroad and welfare queens at home. Of course, I'd rather cut all that crap and keep the SS the same, and pay off the debt with the that money. Then, with a balanced budget, we can cut taxes so that we don't have to pay so much for the welfare queens. Of course we spend too much. But, your math is worse. There are more than 50 MILLION retirees collecting social security currently. The average payment is approximately $2000 per month or $24000 per year. At $10000 per retiree per month that is….wait for it….$6TRILLION dollars per year. In 2024 the US spent approximately $85BILLION for foreign aid. Or less than $1700 per retiree….for the YEAR. In 2025 the US spent approximately $7TRILLION. The break down per the US Treasury is: 23% Social Security 15% interest on the national debt 14% Medicare (old people) 14% Health (Medicaid-poor people, ACA subsidies, etc) 13% National defense 10% Income security (Welfare) 6% Veterans Benefits and services 2% Transportation 1% Administration of Justice 1% Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 2% Other |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
This video just came out. It’s long so the average TikTok attention span poster here won’t bother to listen and educate themselves. Senator Cassidy goes over the various proposals floating around Congress. It’s easy to listen to a 2x speed if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing. You don’t have to agree with any of it to at least be aware of what is being discussed in Congress. Be aware so you know how it could affect you.  A U.S. Senator Just Told Me How Bad Social Security Really Is |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Aint nobody got time for dat... summary This video features an in-depth interview between Erin Moriarity and U.S. Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy regarding the current financial crisis facing Social Security. Key Takeaways: The Crisis: Senator Cassidy warns that the Social Security trust fund is projected to become insolvent in approximately six years (0:57-1:47). Once depleted, the law mandates that outgoing benefits must align with incoming tax revenue, potentially triggering a 28.5% cut in benefits (1:50-2:05). The Proposed Solution: Senator Cassidy proposes a "401(k) for Social Security" (6:14-7:54). This involves creating an independent investment fund seeded with $1.5 trillion, managed at arm's length from Congress by a board of trustees to maximize market returns without privatizing the system or using individual accounts (17:44-23:49). Congressional Action: The Senator advocates for the PROMISE Act, a process-oriented bill designed to force Congress to conduct hearings and vote on bipartisan solvency packages rather than delaying action until the trust fund is empty (10:15-13:06). Bipartisan Compromise: The discussion emphasizes that solving this issue requires compromise. Potential levers mentioned include adjusting the taxable wage cap to reflect 90% of the wage base (27:12-28:20) and introducing work incentives, such as removing the payroll tax for individuals over age 73 with 40 years of work history (34:33-35:26). Economic Impact: The Senator stresses that relying on the general fund to cover the shortfall would cause catastrophic levels of federal debt, resulting in higher inflation and soaring interest rates that would harm younger generations' ability to afford housing (2:14-2:42). |
|
Originally Posted By heat762: you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. Originally Posted By heat762: Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: There are really only 3 easy options. 1: raise the full retirement age. Probably the least liked of the three options. 2. Make all earned income taxable. This is pretty straightforward as right now now income over 184K isn't taxed. This one item could extend SS another 20+ years. 3. Adjusting the tax rate payed by either employees or employers. Congress isn't stupid enough to radically piss off the largest voting block by reducing benefits. you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. |
Mach
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
|
the SS fund will be running at a deficit in 6 years. The federal General fund has been running at a deficit for over 200 years. Medicaid, defense spending, SNAP, EBT, FBI, CIA, EPA, etc etc etc are all running at a yearly deficit and have been since forever and few in govt give a shit about that. This is all about nothing and is being used to divide people. And to those that say SS is bankrupting the fed govt, it is not true. All payments to retirees have been paid from the so far fully funded with excess SS Trust Fund, and yes the fed govt has taken that money and replaced it with an 'investment' in Treasury Bonds, the same Treasury bonds that civil service retirement 'funds' are in and the same ones held by foreign govt all over the world. So they are either worth money or they are not but they can't be worthless in the SS Fund and then at the same time also bought by investors all around the world because they are a safe investment. |
Mach
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
|
Originally Posted By heat762: you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. Originally Posted By heat762: Originally Posted By Joe_Blacke: There are really only 3 easy options. 1: raise the full retirement age. Probably the least liked of the three options. 2. Make all earned income taxable. This is pretty straightforward as right now now income over 184K isn’t taxed. This one item could extend SS another 20+ years. 3. Adjusting the tax rate payed by either employees or employers. Congress isn’t stupid enough to radically piss off the largest voting block by reducing benefits. you could also means test it, and withhold it from anyone making 250k while retired. Then they would raise hell if they still had to pay SS taxes. Poor people are useless tax payers. Always have been, always will be. They are a drag on society to be quite blunt about it. Those on welfare are far FAR worse as many are lifelong leeches sucking on the countries lifeblood while also not paying a dime into anything. They really should have zero voting rights while on welfare. I see adding a 2% SS tax [or some percentage] on all imported goods as one of the solutions put forth. |
Liberals are a curious mix of communism and fascism, they want to destroy you but want to use your own money to do it.
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: SS retirement is already capped. The max you can get at full retirement age is around $50k. Getting that max amount requires you to have met the $184k income cap every year for 35 years. The number of people who get the max is so small that they don't matter. Numbers don't add up. You're in your 30s and an income tax bill of $60k means you make just over $200k if single and around $325k if married. $10k in annual SS deductions is hit at around $160k income. So do you make $160k, $200k, or $325k? Any of those incomes are great for somebody in their 30s and you don't/won't care about SS in 30 years. Everybody hates taxes but crying because you make a lot of money means your complaints fall on deaf ears. The .gov steals so much of your money that SS is the least of it. The only good thing about SS is that the money goes right back out to people rather than to the pockets of politicians. I'd recommend you spend your breath fighting against sales taxes, property taxes, etc. The SS dollar amounts are staggering. Making up for the shortfall will require an immediate and significant change - either reduced benefits or raised taxes. Waiting longer (which they will) will mean bigger changes will have to be made. Reducing current benefits enough to matter is political suicide. The 1980s SS law is the last time the retirement age was changed, and it changed the retirement age for people who were around 30 years old at the time (born in the 1950s). Using that as a guide would mean raising the current retirement age for people born in the late 1990s. The problem with that is that the savings won't be realized until those people start retiring in around 30 years. The only options that produce an immediate result is to raise taxes or simply print more money. I predict they will do both as well as raise the retirement age because reducing benefits is political suicide. Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By ColtRifle: I think it's far more likely to see it capped at a max amount rather than cutting off people who did pay into it. It's already being discussed. Originally Posted By Airborne11B: .........I've still got almost 30 years before I can collect. ............ I know, I should be ok with an extra 10k a year stolen from me every year that I likely won't see. Got it. On top of the 60k I pay in income taxes every year. So do you make $160k, $200k, or $325k? Any of those incomes are great for somebody in their 30s and you don't/won't care about SS in 30 years. Everybody hates taxes but crying because you make a lot of money means your complaints fall on deaf ears. Originally Posted By hammer1995: So I'm just supposed to have 6.2% stolen for no reason? The only good thing about SS is that the money goes right back out to people rather than to the pockets of politicians. I'd recommend you spend your breath fighting against sales taxes, property taxes, etc. The SS dollar amounts are staggering. Making up for the shortfall will require an immediate and significant change - either reduced benefits or raised taxes. Waiting longer (which they will) will mean bigger changes will have to be made. Reducing current benefits enough to matter is political suicide. The 1980s SS law is the last time the retirement age was changed, and it changed the retirement age for people who were around 30 years old at the time (born in the 1950s). Using that as a guide would mean raising the current retirement age for people born in the late 1990s. The problem with that is that the savings won't be realized until those people start retiring in around 30 years. The only options that produce an immediate result is to raise taxes or simply print more money. I predict they will do both as well as raise the retirement age because reducing benefits is political suicide. And that's only using the standard deduction and not taking advantage of any pre-tax retirement accounts or any other tax advantage accounts. |
|
Originally Posted By networkguru: So what was the point of this thread? Discussion. Not sure if you realize this but this is a forum where people….discuss things. In this particular thread most of us are discussing the future of social security. If you have nothing to contribute, feel free to move on to other discussions YOU might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Alternatively, you could watch the video and then give your thoughts on the topic. But, it’s not as easy as watching a 10 second TikTok video. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By heat762: Aint nobody got time for dat... summary This video features an in-depth interview between Erin Moriarity and U.S. Senator Dr. Bill Cassidy regarding the current financial crisis facing Social Security. Key Takeaways: The Crisis: Senator Cassidy warns that the Social Security trust fund is projected to become insolvent in approximately six years (0:57-1:47). Once depleted, the law mandates that outgoing benefits must align with incoming tax revenue, potentially triggering a 28.5% cut in benefits (1:50-2:05). The Proposed Solution: Senator Cassidy proposes a "401(k) for Social Security" (6:14-7:54). This involves creating an independent investment fund seeded with $1.5 trillion, managed at arm's length from Congress by a board of trustees to maximize market returns without privatizing the system or using individual accounts (17:44-23:49). Congressional Action: The Senator advocates for the PROMISE Act, a process-oriented bill designed to force Congress to conduct hearings and vote on bipartisan solvency packages rather than delaying action until the trust fund is empty (10:15-13:06). Bipartisan Compromise: The discussion emphasizes that solving this issue requires compromise. Potential levers mentioned include adjusting the taxable wage cap to reflect 90% of the wage base (27:12-28:20) and introducing work incentives, such as removing the payroll tax for individuals over age 73 with 40 years of work history (34:33-35:26). Economic Impact: The Senator stresses that relying on the general fund to cover the shortfall would cause catastrophic levels of federal debt, resulting in higher inflation and soaring interest rates that would harm younger generations' ability to afford housing (2:14-2:42). Spend a lot of time rotting your brain with TikTok eh? I know it’s hard to watch something longer than 10 seconds. Not a bad simple synopsis but left out a lot of the conversation. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Discussion. Not sure if you realize this but this is a forum where people….discuss things. In this particular thread most of us are discussing the future of social security. If you have nothing to contribute, feel free to move on to other discussions YOU might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Alternatively, you could watch the video and then give your thoughts on the topic. But, it’s not as easy as watching a 10 second TikTok video. Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Originally Posted By networkguru: So what was the point of this thread? Discussion. Not sure if you realize this but this is a forum where people….discuss things. In this particular thread most of us are discussing the future of social security. If you have nothing to contribute, feel free to move on to other discussions YOU might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Alternatively, you could watch the video and then give your thoughts on the topic. But, it’s not as easy as watching a 10 second TikTok video. Whats there to discuss? You already said there is nothing we can do to change anything and its all gonna suck. So its just a bitchfest or concern trolling? |
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Not a bad simple synopsis but left out a lot of the conversation. Social security aside it was an interesting glimpse into the tribalism and gridlock of congress. I’m not optimistic, especially after seeing what happened with the Clarity Act last week. Several politicians made the rounds on financial media bragging about how they tanked it but couldn’t speak intelligently on it other than that their political rivals supported it. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Social security aside it was an interesting glimpse into the tribalism and gridlock of congress. I’m not optimistic, especially after seeing what happened with the Clarity Act last week. Several politicians made the rounds on financial media bragging about how they tanked it but couldn’t speak intelligently on it other than that their political rivals supported it. Good point. Thought the same thing. Also thought, he’s criticizing Congress for not wanting to act….but he’s leaving office in a few months. If this is so important, why didn’t you take action years ago when you weren’t on your way out the door? But regardless, it is a good glimpse into the workings of Congress as well as the various options they are looking at. Bottom line is, no one is going to like the solutions. But Congress will end up voting on a solution even if it’s a last minute one. Might as well be prepared for the various options they may pick. It’s going to affect all of us in some way. Again, social security aside, it pisses me off how if one side is for something, the other side is against it. I disliked Obama and Biden but if they had a good idea on something, I’d be happy to support it if it was something I agreed with or could support. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By networkguru: Whats there to discuss? You already said there is nothing we can do to change anything and its all gonna suck. So its just a bitchfest or concern trolling? So you have nothing to contribute. Kindly see yourself out and go find threads you are interested in. Thank you. |
"It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things."
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
|
Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Bottom line is, no one is going to like the solutions. Cassidy’s sovereign wealth fund style fix is intriguing but as also dependent on perpetual growth which is the fatal flaw of social security to begin with. Erin called him out on the railroad retirement comparison and he didn’t answer her (employee and employer both contribute but employer has to pay for any shortfalls). The more sales pitches I hear for potential SS fixes the more I think letting insolvency play out might be the most painless option. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Cassidy’s sovereign wealth fund style fix is intriguing but as also dependent on perpetual growth which is the fatal flaw of social security to begin with. Erin called him out on the railroad retirement comparison and he didn’t answer her (employee and employer both contribute but employer has to pay for any shortfalls). The more sales pitches I hear for potential SS fixes the more I think letting insolvency play out might be the most painless option. A sovereign wealth fund style fix would mean the federal government would own a significant piece of private corporations. When progressive communists get a hold of social security sovereign wealth fund, I'm sure they will only do what's in the best interest of the shareholders. Pffft. No thanks. |
|
Originally Posted By Procat: Cassidy's sovereign wealth fund style fix is intriguing but as also dependent on perpetual growth which is the fatal flaw of social security to begin with. Erin called him out on the railroad retirement comparison and he didn't answer her (employee and employer both contribute but employer has to pay for any shortfalls). The more sales pitches I hear for potential SS fixes the more I think letting insolvency play out might be the most painless option. Originally Posted By Procat: Originally Posted By ColtRifle: Bottom line is, no one is going to like the solutions. Cassidy's sovereign wealth fund style fix is intriguing but as also dependent on perpetual growth which is the fatal flaw of social security to begin with. Erin called him out on the railroad retirement comparison and he didn't answer her (employee and employer both contribute but employer has to pay for any shortfalls). The more sales pitches I hear for potential SS fixes the more I think letting insolvency play out might be the most painless option. I believe that is only for Tier 2 RRR? Tier 1 is basically SS and would probably get the same haircuts or increases (except maybe age). Tier 2 is also roughly an extra 4% from the employee and 12% from the employer, but the pay cap is a little lower than the SS (Tier 1) cap. ETA: Even though the pay is pretty steep for Tier 2 (considering both sides) the payout is about half of Tier 1 (SS). I turn 60 next year, with 30+ years in and see the numbers regularly. |
|
Raise the rate a percentage point. Up the full retirement age to 70 and phase it in over the next decade. Tie the full retirement age to expected lifespan data so if people start living longer it goes up/down accordingly. Tie an automatic tax increase and automatic reduction in payments to projected solvency. Should piss everyone off and be workable. |
|
Originally Posted By Airborne11B: Let me opt out of the fucking boondoggle, give me my money back - every cent - and let me invest it my way. Won't happen, but it's what I want because I'll never collect a fucking cent of this horseshit since I've still got almost 30 years before I can collect. And I'm sure by then the age will have risen even more. If they don't change anything, you'll collect SS, it just won't be 100% of the promised payout. |
|
I expect Congress to let the clock run out until late 2031 and then they'll start pointing fingers at the opposite party. Never letting a crisis go to waste, they'll simultaneously raise FICA taxes to an even 7% for employees and employers, remove the income cap (fucking rich people Em'Irite?) Raise the full retirement age (FRA) to 68 3months and early filing to an even 65 for anyone born after 1970. The Boomers will still be a voting block to contend with and they're larger than Generation X, so tough shit. Most of us in Gen X grew up latch key kids and knew this was going to happen and planned accordingly. PS: Taxation is theft. 
|
|
Originally Posted By FMJ3: I believe that is only for Tier 2 RRR? Tier 1 is basically SS and would probably get the same haircuts or increases (except maybe age). Tier 2 is also roughly an extra 4% from the employee and 12% from the employer, but the pay cap is a little lower than the SS (Tier 1) cap. Can’t speak to the particulars of RRR but the host asked a decent question and the senator didn’t answer. Not addressing the pitfall of potential future funding shortfalls just sets us up to continue to have to overhaul SS every 40-50 years. Ironically the original legislation says how to handle insolvency. |