Gordon said there’s also a ton of uncertainty surrounding the Social Security program itself. Because of this, there will likely be reduced benefits in the future to keep the program solvent.
Couples who wait until the higher earning spouses max their benefits at age 70 face additional issues.
I can’t help but note that Newsweek didn’t even attempt to discuss the prospect of increasing payments to Social Security from upper income earners or requiring Congress to payback the “loans” they took from it to pay for military expenditures.
This bullshit about cutting Social Security benefits to ‘keep it solvent’ needs to be stopped. The Republicans have been trying to do this since Reagan, and in the 80s they were telling Gen X that Social Security would ‘run out of money’ by the time they were 30. That age is decades in the past, and they are still peddling that lie.
It’s only possible when the mega rich aren’t paying their fair share, or aren’t paying at all relative to everyone else.
This year the maximum income taxable for SS is 160k. This effectively means the top 10% aren’t paying into the system. End their special treatment and the system will be easily funded.
The income cap is theft from all the rest of us.
Precisely. Remove the cap and the problem goes away.
I don’t know about ‘lie,’ but it’s certainly a misrepresentation. For decades, there were so few retirees that SS taxes were billions more than SS payments, and all of that surplus bought Treasury bonds. i.e.: loans to run the rest of the government. Payments now are running around $100B/year more than taxes ($10B if you include interest on those bonds), which is around 8% of tax revenues. At that rate, the last of the bonds gets sold in 2034, and something will need to get done about the 8% imbalance.
The misleading part is letting people infer that “running out of money” means no money to pay beneficiaries, like SS is some kind of bank account. Fixing the deficit isn’t that hard, though. Cut benefits by 8%. Raise SS tax rate to 8.25%. Raise the income cap to $300k. None of those would be especially popular, and there’s no reason to do any of them now, because there’s still nearly $3T of Treasuries sitting in the SSA account. In the meantime, fearmongering about the issue is a great way to turn out the 65+ crowd and near-retirees, and a great way to demoralize the under-40 crowd.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t need to raise SS rates at all, just lift the cap. Simple. 168k is the max for 2024 and that seems absolutely silly nowadays.
It’s hilarious that something that was designed to be the everyman’s social security net operates on a regressive tax.
What about dropping the tax rate by a meaningful amount and raising the income cap to $1M?
I realize that most CEOs get modest salaries and almost all of their income from capital gains, but a move like this could bring in more revenue and be popular by reducing the tax burden on middle class and working class Americans.
If we’re dreaming, it’d be great to do away with OASDI as a separate, non-progressive, capped income tax and just roll it into the regular Federal rate. Bump the 10% bracket to 12%, the 22% to 26% and 37% to 45%. Hell, add a couple points to the CG rate.
But they sold OASDI to Americans like some kind of insurance policy - it’s right in the name - and they’ve been trying to turn that fiction into a personal savings account for decades. Social safety nets just don’t fit the mythos of strong, independent American who don’t need no gubmint.
I agree. Raise taxes to cover any shortfall. And start with the 1% 's taxes.