Social Security reform has long been considered the “third rail” of national politics. George W. Bush tried and failed, and barring some sort of reform, most experts agree Social Security in its current form is unsustainable.
Here in Wisconsin, U.S. Senate candidates Ron Johnson and Sen. Russ Feingold have sparred over Social Security, with Johnson likening Social Security to a “Ponzi scheme” and supporting privatization of Social Security, while Sen. Feingold said in last night’s debate that he supports raising the FICA cap to improve Social Security’s solvency.
So let’s talk about Social Security reform….what are your ideas on how to accomplish meaningful reform of Social Security?
I personally would eliminate the FICA cap which would solve all of SS problems and it would be solvent forever.
Or we could ask Sean Duffy, since he is running I am sure he has studied this issue inside and out…. http://bloggingblue.com/2010/09/18/watch-sean-duffy-struggle-mightily-on-fox-news/
Combination of things:
1. Lower the age for eligibility to 55. Lots of people laid off in this age group have the hardest time getting back to their standard of living, and given the stock market’s collapses in the last 10 years, you certainly don’t want them to be dependent on Wall Street to determine their financial future (this really screwed by 61-year-old father, who now has to work another 2-3 years thanks to corporate corruption). They need that safety net more than ever, and it might also allow some workers to retire before 65, which can turn around the workforce faster and possibly even save companies some money.
2. As a trade-off for No. 1, lower the benefit payments for all people 60 and under, and remove the automatic COLA. People don’t need the extra money as much as they need SOME money. If you do this right, you might not only keep costs relatively similar in the short-run (when we’re still collecting more in taxes than paying out), and save some in the long-run.
3. Raise the tax cap. It is absurd that Ron Johnson gets a major tax cut compared to me, because RoJo pays around 1-2% in Soc. Security tax, and I pay the full 6.2% (this is another reason I have no sympathy for his type whining about their fed. income taxes- the cap more than makes up for this). You raise the tax cap to $500,000 in income, or even phase it down (like 5% for $106K-$200K, 4% for $200K-$300K, etc.), and there is no funding issue.
Anyone who rips Social Security is an ignoramus of the first caliber. Nothing has encouraged a better standard of living and risk taking in later age than the financial safety net of Social Security, and if you take it away, watch our already-low demand erode even further.
Lower the retirement age?! Are you kidding? If anything, with today’s rising health standards and quality of life, the artificial age 65 retirement age isn’t what it used to be when SS started so many years ago. If you lower it to 55, you will have perfectly able-bodied people hanging around, contributing nothing, collecting a public welfare check (think of how many fewer years they would be contributing into the SS fund).
You say “lots of people laid off in this age group have the hardest time getting back to their standard of living” — well by pushing the retirement age down, you will just be pushing that problem to 45 year olds. Also, Social Security rarely puts someone back to their standard of living.
Based on your other comments, sounds like you want to change Social Security for a redistrubition welfare program for half the country.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” — Margaret Thatcher
The problem with conservatives today is that they tell lies so often that they start to believe them.
I like how you progressives and liberals don’t want to be called socialists, but then you suggest ideas like raising the cap on social security. If you eliminate or raise the cap, and you know this, the rich will be paying FAR more into the system than they will ever receive out of it. SS was set up to be a trust fund, not a vehicle to redistribute wealth. So Jake, your comment is laughable. If SS was functioning properly, you are getting all that money back, RoJo would not. Furthermore, the government you guys love so much already drained the trust fund dry, but you want to give them more money that is not yours – awesome.
“Anyone who rips Social Security is an ignoramus of the first caliber.” The fact that a program like this has no constitutional basis in the first place(here come the promote the general welfare chants), it probably isn’t going anywhere. People should be able to choose what they want to do with that portion of their payroll taxes. I really like Paul Ryan’s plan for SS.
If you guys want to be called pro-choice and kill unborn children, I want to be called pro-choice and choose where my money goes.
Social Security is a relatively solid. The doomsayers are misleading the public. And, as usual, trying to make a well-functioning public program a play-thing for private marketeers. For more on why increasing the retirement age and lowering benefits are bad ideas, and for a better explanation of the program and why calling it a Ponzi scheme is a blatant falsehood, read the links below:
brewtowngumshoe.blogspot.com/2010/08/social-security.html
brewtowngumshoe.blogspot.com/2009/04/social-security-is-fine.html
brewtowngumshoe.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-security-program-solid.html
brewtowngumshoe.blogspot.com/2009/05/social-security-scare-tactics-again.html
Also, I think we’ve all heard enough from the “constitutional” scholars and those who have no idea how Social Security is actually funded nor operates.
Solid for how long? That’s kind of the point. Trying to be proactive before it all falls apart.
Wow. None of you folks have refuted anything I said. You just gave a bunch of incorrect talking points and whined about “my money.” And stop talking in theory about “able-bodied people laying around.” If you took the time to actually read what I’d written, you’d see that I also called for slight reductions in the amount people get paid each month from Social Security (you know, much that “75% of current payments” thing that you dimwits call “bankruptcy”). And it’s not like they’re pulling down big bucks on SS as it is.
If the goal is to allow people to have the freedom to control their own financial destinies in their golden years (and it should be), it sure ain’t going to come from handing that future over to Wall Street. And Ryan’s scam is nothing more than a giveaway to the FIRE industries by encouraging more people to gamble on their retirement instead of giving them the safety net they deserve in exchange for putting in a good work effort in the greatest country in world.
Rich people owe a lot of their incomes to workers that depend on Social Security to back their incomes in retirement – it’s not too much to ask that they pay a similar amount of their income toward the program (after all, they’re getting it too). This is especially true in an age where business owners continue to remove 401k matches and pensions in the name of “cost-cutting.” Since the private scetor will not do their job in protecting people’s financial security in old age, it must fall to government. And it has worked extremely well for 75 years, and if backed up properly, will be fine for another 75. There IS NO SS PAYMENT CRISIS IF YOU READ THE NUMBERS. PERIOD.
The fact that you put “my money” in quotes says it all. ‘Nuff said.
No that shouldn’t be the goal. Why the hell should it be the role of the government to do this? This is not remotely what Social Security was formed to do. Taking care of people who absolutely need it, is a laudable goal. Giving everyone the “freedom to control their financial destinies” is something different entirely. I know you’re going to scoff – but that degree of government providing for us all is socialist.
Taking care of those in need is perhaps the greatest thing the government can do. They need to raise money to do that, and taking more of it from those who are better able to deal with having their property confiscated is acceptible. When it’s done punitively – when it’s done with the goal of evening things out, it’s crosses a bright line.