Social Security and the life expectancy meme: the age of SS cutting is upon us again.

[jaxexpat]

We are going to be hearing about how the "life expectancy" in 1932 was so low that by 2024, the SS system would, logically, go broke if people started using their funds at age 65. Because the average life expectancy has gone up so much, we don't even live in the same world anymore. So, it's time we panic, logically, and throw out the baby with the bath water. (an interesting adage considering the subject of child mortality). We MUST immediately raise the age of retirement drastically!......Suckers............. The American public fell for that crap once. That's why my sister hates that I could retire at 65 but she must carry on until she's 67.

2 things:
1. The age of concern for retirement is not "life expectancy" but life expectancy at the age of retirement. There is no great difference between the life expectancy of 65 years olds in 1932 from those in 2024. It's about 10-15, not the 25-30 "conservatives" will try to cite in their ceaseless, underhanded effort to swindle workers out of the ONLY real means they have to retire before they die in the streets.
2. This fact of statistics is not lost on the SSA. The "A", meaning administration, indicates there are people working at the SSA who deal with statistics for a living and recommend adjustments which may be required to sustain the Social Security System. That's why it "a pretty damn simple rise in maximum income level for SS levy would fix it for a long time, easily and painlessly", is a FACT.

Edward Rutledge lives on in the heart of every Republican.

[marble falls]

1. There should be a means test that would keep people like my dad from drawing it. As I told him many times ...

... SS was not meant to subsidize his and my mom's 200 day a year cruise habit, it was meant to keep the elderly from having to eat dog food. He's admitted: he drew out every penny he put in in less than five years.

We need to keep the age to receive it right where it is. The idea of working till 75 is that it is hard to find any kind of full time job after fifty.

[karynnj]

15. Actually it was designed to even give money to the wealthy. The strength of its support was it was not need based

Everyone who put money in for enough years gets a payment. Any attempt to means test it will likely cause it to lose support, especially if the limit hits the upper middle class as well as wealthy. Also, if it is designed on income, you penalize those who saved in IRAs where distributions are treated as ordinary income.

A very strong argument for SS is that people earned it by paying in for decades. Eliminating people who paid in hurts that.

[TxGuitar]

28. You said what I was going to say

except you said it much better. (Mrs TxGuitar and retired RN of 40 years)

[mopinko]

16. this is exactly y i oppose scrapping the cap.

if they keep the ratio of input to output, all kinds of ppl who dont need it get even bigger payments.
break that link, the program becomes a wealth transfer. it becomes a handout from the rich.
teddy kennedy was adamantly opposed to the idea and so am i.

the cap is raised every year. it cd easily make the program solvent. besides, thx to covid, le has gone down. all those covid deaths shd b black ink. might b a wash w all the long covid disability.

[Voltaire2]

41. There is no reason to keep the payments

increasing with the cap. They might be connected right now, but that is not immutable.

[mopinko]

48. changing that changes the whole thing.

[Voltaire2]

53. No it doesn't. It changes one aspect.

And it affects only a small minority of potential beneficiaries.

[Voltaire2]

61. No it doesn't. That's ridiculous.

[mopinko]

76. that was teddy kennedy's take.

[Voltaire2]

79. Well Biden's 'take' is eliminate the cap for

income over 400k, so I guess your adamantly opposed to that too?

[mopinko]

80. u got a link for that?

[Voltaire2]

81. Sure.

Extending solvency by asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share. Currently, middle-class and lower-income Americans pay Social Security taxes on all of their earnings, but higher-income Americans do not. That’s not fair. The President believes that protecting Social Security should start with asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-protects-and-strengthens-social-security-and-medicare/

[mopinko]

82. that's medicare, not fica. it never had a cap.

Extending Medicare HI trust fund solvency permanently by requiring wealthy people to pay their fair share toward Medicare and reducing prescription drug costs. The Budget extends HI trust fund solvency indefinitely by modestly increasing the Medicare tax rate on incomes above $400,000, closing loopholes in existing Medicare taxes, and directing revenue from the Net Investment Income Tax into the HI Trust Fund as was originally intended. Current law lets certain wealthy business owners avoid Medicare taxes on some of the profits they get from passthrough businesses. The Budget closes this loophole and raises Medicare tax rates on earned and unearned income from 3.8 percent to 5 percent for those with incomes over $400,000. In addition, the Budget directs an amount equivalent to the savings from its proposed Medicare drug reforms into the HI trust fund.

[mopinko]

83. and this isnt 'scrap the cap'

The President believes that protecting Social Security should start with asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share.

[Voltaire2]

99. It actually is. It is the long standing Democratic platform

proposal to implement the ‘donut’ modification to ss tax. Full benefits stop at the initial ‘cap’ and do not increase for taxpayers with 400k or more income, those affected by the resumption of ss taxes for income at that level.

Again, this has been longstanding mainstream Democratic Party policy.

[mopinko]

104. no it isnt.

it’s been floated a few times, mostly by bernie. the whole ‘donut’ thing was income taxes, not fica.

[Voltaire2]

97. No it is also Medicare.

You’re being obtuse.
Here is the entire section on social security, not the section on Medicare:

The President’s Budget Protects and Strengthens Social Security

Social Security is the bedrock of financial security for American seniors and for millions of Americans with disabilities. As detailed in the President’s Budget, President Biden looks forward to working with Congress to protect and strengthen Social Security, based on these key principles:

No benefit cuts. The President opposes any proposal to cut benefits, as well as proposals to privatize Social Security.
Extending solvency by asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share. Currently, middle-class and lower-income Americans pay Social Security taxes on all of their earnings, but higher-income Americans do not. That’s not fair. The President believes that protecting Social Security should start with asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-protects-and-strengthens-social-security-and-medicare/

Sometimes it’s ok to admit you are mistaken about the facts.

[mopinko]

106. .

asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share.

that’s not scrap the cap by a long, long way.

[jaxexpat]

66. Some comments.

"if they keep the ratio of input to output, all kinds of ppl who dont need it get even bigger payments."
reply: so will those who do need it

"break that link, the program becomes a wealth transfer. it becomes a handout from the rich."
reply: Agree, breaking the link between contribution rate and payout rate is wrong approach. However, wealth transfer, in and of itself, is intrinsically necessary to guarantee democracy's longevity and integrity, not a negative thing at all.

"the cap is raised every year. it cd easily make the program solvent."
reply: That's true but why should that be an annual debate? why should there be a cap on any means or amount of income? It is, after all, a savings account, not a tax. Caps only function is to maintain and contribute to wealth inequality.

[KPN]

68. Lol. You must be present on your cellphone this morning!?

I'm with you. The simple fix is raise the cap.

[The Bopper]

86. Thanks

For taking the Republican talking points. You once again tell is we should be talking n perpetual funding crisis.

[mopinko]

92. if teddy kennedy's position is a rw talking point now,

i dont know what to say. i dont even usually chime in on these threads. but it makes me sad af that folks here dont get it.

[oldsoftie]

121. There's no reason there cant be a cap on payouts too.

Scrapping the cap would pour a ton of needed money into the system.

[Progressive dog]

128. Social security income is

not proportional to what was paid in. The payments are progressive.
For example, a 65-year-old who retired in 2017 with a lifetime of “medium” earnings (about $49,366 in 2016) would receive about $18,971 a year, which would replace about 38 percent of past earnings. A “low” earner who made about $22,215 in 2016 would receive about $11,517, which would replace about 52 percent of prior earnings. A worker who always earned the “maximum” taxable amount (for a career-average taxable earnings of $120,418 in 2016) would get benefits that replace about 25 percent of prior earnings.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/how-do-benefits-compare-to-earnings/

[OrangeJoe]

132. Payments are tied to contributions

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2024, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

While it's true that the more you earn, the more you pay in and the more you take out. However, the formula is progressive (up to a certain point, more on that in a minute). Someone who paid in twice as much as someone else does NOT get paid back at double the rate. People who paid in more get back more, but not at the same rate they paid.

Now the problem is the cap on earnings subject to the cap. It should be completely lifted and everything you earn subject to the tax. And yes these high income people would get back more than someone who had a lifetime of lower income, but again it is progressive so they wouldn't get that much more back.
Progressive Dog, commenting above me, has it exactly right and stated quite elegantly.

And finally, if you exclude the wealthy it becomes a welfare program and there goes your support. Hell the Repubs are proposing to cut it already. If they weren't benefitting from it it would have been long gone.

[Rebl2]

19. Also

Most 75 year old people have one or more ailments that may make it difficult to work. I couldn’t and I am 66.

[TxGuitar]

27. I paid into my SS for 40 years....

Mrs. TxGuitar-- I paid into my SS as an RN for 40 years- I do not want it means capped. And what would the cut off be--- 100K per year would be a good starting point- and it would be adjusted from there. I receive considerably above average SS payments(I think the average is about 1500.00 per month) and if the govt wants to give me back my contributions with 5% interest then OK.

[marble falls]

59. When you drive your insured car with no claims, should the insurance company give you back your payments ...

... with 5% interest. In your forty years of paying into SS, how much do you think you put in?

Here's how much the average American pays in Social Security payroll taxes

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/03/27/the-average-american-pays-this-much-in-social-secu.aspx

-snip-

That 6.2% of your paycheck that goes to Social Security can be broken down even further. Specifically, as noted by the SSA, 5.015% is paid to the Old-Age, Survivors Insurance Trust (OASI), with the remaining 1.185% being directed to the Disability Insurance Trust (DI).

Based on 2016 data provided by the SSA (when the maximum taxable earnings figure was $118,500), the average American wound up paying $2,463 into the OASI, and $582 into DI. Combined, we're talking about $3,045 paid into Social Security via payroll taxes each year for the average American. Another $712 was paid, on average, into the Hospital Insurance Trust for Medicare Part A.

In terms of maximum payroll taxes in 2016, no worker will have paid more than $5,943 into the OASI and $1,404 into the DI, for a grand total of $7,347. For the self-employed this maximum doubled to $14,694. Once again, there is no limit on how much a worker could pay into the Hospital Insurance Trust for Medicare Part A.

-snip-



Assuming one put $2,463 into SS for 40 years - $98,520. At $1000 per month your contribution lasts 8.25 years. In reality is is less than eight years. Because you're getting more than $1000/month, and your contribution grew through the year to that $2,446 only in last years of contributing.

This age thing isn't about extending SS. It's about building a bigger pot of SS money to finance deficit spending. They want you putting more in and be less likely to take any or much out.

But I like your thinking. I want a rebate on the all the defense spending we don't use in non war years.

[jaxexpat]

72. Are you including employer's share in your totals?

[Voltaire2]

36. Um no. And by no I mean no fucking way.

But thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[OrangeJoe]

134. Employer's share

Actually you should include the employer's share. Microeconomic theory says that an employer makes the decision to hire someone based on what their total cost will be for the employer. In theory that means the employer would be just as happy to give you the 6.2% as to give it to the government. This actually strengthens the argument that you paid into the system because you gave up the employer's share which could have gone into your pocket.

[drmeow]

37. A means test makes it a form of welfare

rather than what is essentially a pension. We know how the Republicans treat welfare. We start with a reasonable means test now but pretty soon it is like minimum wage - with the limit stuck in the dark ages. It is a dangerous and slippery slope. It also violates the contract under which we paid into the system. Means testing turns it into a tax for people as opposed to a retirement contribution.

While he may have drawn out every penny HE put in in less than five years, that does not account for the money his employers put in! I don't know if this has changed over the years but my employer current puts in 3 times what I put in. That means, if you add his employer's contribution (same as any matching he got in his retirement - but more), his contribution should not have been completely drawn out for almost 20 years, not 5 years!

[mopinko]

50. employers put in the same amount as u.

[TimeToGo]

47. Disagree

As soon as you do that it becomes “welfare.” And we know how they campaign against that.

[BonnieJW]

62. My husband died at 70

He retired and began collecting SS at 67 after working for 42 years at the same company. Worked for 42 years and enjoyed retirement for 3. In his case, SS made a killing; literally.

[area51]

137. I'm sorry for your loss.

[Skittles]

141. I don't see it that way

no he didn't get back what he put in but let's say, for example, he helped the dependent children of widows survive

[LiberalArkie]

65. As soon as that is done, SS becomes an entitlement and not an earned benefit.

[JohnSJ]

110. It is an entitlement means you ARE entitled to receive the benefit that you

have been paying into it for years.

Not unlike an annuity

[Igel]

114. It's an entitlement because Congress passed a law saying you're entitled to it.

My mother received far more in retirement than she had "been paying into it" for years. Add in reasonable interest, and she still got a lot more out than she put it.

That was the compromise: Boomers, esp. later boomers, would pay in more than they were expected to receive to fund those who would be receiving more than they paid in.

[JohnSJ]

116. You are entitled to it because you have been paying into it. As for your

Mother, good for her, there are also a lot of people who die before they reach retirement, and those who die before they exceed what they paid into it.

It is a tax that is dedicated to paying Social Security benefits. People call it (and Medicare) Entitlement programs because people are entitled to their payments, it is not limited by a budget like other spending and congress can't limit the spending other than by changing the entitlement.

[oldsoftie]

120. I've never understood the negative connotation with "entitled"

Do people not know the definition of the word? I paid, I'm ENTITLED.

[Demsrule86]

71. No means test. It will destroy SS...raise taxes so the rich pay their fair share.

People may live into their 70's but that doesn't mean they can work.

[CousinIT]

88. The asses who want to raise the age to 70 or 85 are the same ones who would never hire anyone over 50.

It's a RUSE. A lie. And that's all it is -- to keep greedy billionaires from having to pay their fair share into it.

Mean-testing though, turns it into what Republicans love to call it: "welfare". As soon as something is means-tested, it's "welfare". I don't think we want that!

Rules could be enacted that the very wealthy draw out less because they don't need it, but means-testing on the front end is IMO a bad idea.

Raising the cap substantially and increasing the rate SLIGHTLY would fix the issue. This is what MAGA doesn't want - they're protecting the only people on Earth they give a damn about: millionaires and billionaires.

[oldsoftie]

123. Bill Gates & Donad trump dont need SS.

Give them back what they paid in over X number of yers, and then thats it. Its retirement insurance. You drive a car without a wreck & you dont get the money back. Means testing does NOT turn it into "welfare"
Scrap the cap & means test it & it'll last forever.

[Freethinker65]

130. Nope.

Some of us lived within our means and modestly invested while seeing our neighbors dine out weekly, take expensive vacations, always drive new vehicles, and move to better neighborhoods and larger homes. It was their choice, and perhaps they had more adventure and enjoyment during their lives than we did, but we both paid about the same amount into the system.

[dutch777]

2. Right on, raising retirement age is not the only fix available. Take the income cap off SS taxes. And...

...add an SS tax component to capital gains. The cap at $168k is ridiculous. And this would be an easy sell for the Dems. Jeff Bezos only pays X SS dollars tax on his income. Let's fix this.

[mopinko]

17. imho the best fix is to include capital gains.

not everyone who makes money that way is rich, or will end up rich.

[drmeow]

40. Totally agree

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2024, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

My partner's income passes the cap every year - we absolutely do not need that money, we've got enough!

[jimfields33]

51. Holy crap! It's only March. Your partner must make bank.

[drmeow]

69. This was for last year, not this year!

Fixed my post which was misleading.

[jimfields33]

101. Thanks. I wish you both well!

[mopinko]

78. my ex hit the cap early every yr for decades.

but since we’re divorced i get $1880/ mo.

[doc03]

3. A MAGA Republican retiree will say they won't cut our SS, it's the future

retirees. To them it is OK to cut someone 50 years old as long as they don't touch theirs.

[Mariana]

57. Yes, exactly.

MAGA Republicans will probably jump up and down wth glee if their children's and granchildrens future benefits are cut or eliminated.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. The actual age at which a person can collect SS

has never been raised. What's been raised is the "Full Retirement Age" which most people misunderstand.

Full Retirement Age means you can collect and still earn as much money as you can and nothing will be deducted. Earlier than FRA and you'll lose if you earn over a certain amount. The SS website can fill you in on the details.

The longer you wait to collect, the greater your payout will be, up to age 70.

At least they haven't tried (so far) to up the age for Medicare.

[Voltaire2]

42. That's wrong. Your SS benefits are taxable

no matter if you waited until full retirement or not. There is an income cap, set in 1985 and never inflation adjusted, after which 50% - 85% of your ss benefits are added to your taxable income.

Your benefits are just more taxable between the time you claim your benefits and FRA.

[Tickle]

45. true but not true

I have was collecting survivor benefits since turning 60. I did get taxed when I went over $21,000.However, after my recent meeting with Social Security (SS), it appears I will be transitioning to my own SS benefits at age 65 and 8 months. The great news is that with this change, I'll have the freedom to earn as much as I want without it affecting my benefits, and additionally, my SS income will not be taxable. This is a significant relief and provides me with more financial flexibility moving forward.

[Voltaire2]

49. Your income is always taxable.

However if it is below the irs thresholds your tax is zero. If you earn more than the ss limits your benefits also become partially taxable. Again if your taxable income ends up below irs thresholds after deductions and credits the tax is zero.

[Tickle]

58. I mean no disrespect

Starting in August, my Social Security benefits will not be taxable, which is a significant relief. I took the time to confirm and clarify this information with my SS representative to ensure I understood correctly. With this change, I have the freedom to earn as much as I want at work without impacting my benefits. It's wonderful to hear that you and my friend received the same information, and we are celebrating together. High five

[Voltaire2]

60. Yours won't be if your other income

is below the limits. The rules are actually quite clear.

[Lifeafter70]

67. If you go over a certain amount of income

You will be taxed on a percentage basis. I started collecting at full retirement age and am still working at 71. I paid taxes on 85 percent of my ss.

Edited to add this was on 2023 tax year. some years it is less based on if I have more medical or other deductions to offset taxes owed. But if your income goes over the cap you will be taxed on your ss.

[Lifeafter70]

84. Could it be they were refering to state taxes?

Some states do not tax ss benifits. I live in California and pay no taxes on ss to state. But if I go over the cap with no deductions to offset, I do pay federal taxes on 85 percent of my ss. I waited until full retirement age to start collecting.

Edited to add. I had the same impression as you. The first year I collected ss i was surprised that I owed federal taxes on it due to my earnings that went over what was allowed for federal tax purposes. So check with them again regarding federal taxes and what amount you are allowed to earn without being taxed on a percentage of your ss benifits.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

113. Taxable and actually losing $1.00 for each $2.00 earned over a set amount

are two very, very different things.

Lucky me, my total income is so low that my SS doesn't get taxed.

[Tickle]

5. oh it's always been upon us since the day it started

It's fascinating how perspectives can evolve over time. Back in the 80s, the introduction of the 401(k) plan brought about significant changes in retirement planning. Many were uncertain about the future of Social Security (SS) benefits and sought alternative retirement savings options like the 401(k).

Fast forward several decades, and here we are, experiencing firsthand the continuation of Social Security benefits. It serves as a testament to the adaptability and resilience of retirement planning strategies, as well as the enduring presence of Social Security as a vital support system for retirees.

[viva la]

11. The 401K, I think, was designed by big corporations as a way to avoid giving actual pensions.

It and the IRA are important, yes, but have replaced pensions in many workplaces-- and that's not a good thing.

[Emile]

22. When 401k first came out my employer said this

will not replace our pension. Within five years it replaced our pension.

[viva la]

35. My employer sneakily went from a 5-year vesting in the pension to 10 years....

and then laid a bunch of us off at year 9.

Actually, a 401K would have been better than that, as we would have gotten some of the employer contribution at least.

Fortunately I started contributing to an IRA early, and that's done well because of 20 years (out of 32) of Democratic economy.

[FalloutShelter]

6. Cut the crap- raise the cap.

Fixed it.

[modrepub]

7. Heard Raise The Cap For Decades

Just about every comment section in a SS article has multiple folks saying the same thing.

What I've never seen is a reporter asking one of these SS age raisers about raising the cap. I'd love to know what these representatives have to say about this idea. Another reason I think journalism is dead.

Someone should look at the average life expectancy in the folk proposing raising the full retirement age. Pretty sure they are below the average.

[mopinko]

18. it gets raised every year, but somehow it's not part of the convo.

[Voltaire2]

43. It gets COLA every year.

So claiming it gets raised every year is more than a bit misleading.

It needs to be eliminated. That would refill the trust fund. It would do that without cutting any benefits, and it would enable an expansion of benefits.

[RAB910]

8. How are Republicans going to be able to afford those huge tax cuts for the wealthy???

Cutting funding for vulnerable senior Americans is a great source of money for the evil GOP

[Meadowoak]

9. Remove the caps. Let rich people pay their fair share.

And their fair share doesn't have a cap. Make 50 million, pay SS tax on every last nickel.

[mopinko]

20. that is far in excess of what's needed.

and i dont want to see bill gates getting a fat check every mo.

[Voltaire2]

44. No reason to not cap benefits.

[mopinko]

52. except that it changes the fundamentals of the program.

[Meadowoak]

105. It may be in excess of what we need, but why should we

Pay SS tax on 100% of what we make, then the rich should do the same.

[mopinko]

107. cuz it's a basic program for basic protection.

fine to expand it. it fucks widows and divorcees. millionaires dont need it. if they’re still making money, they’ll pay taxes on their bennies.
they’re a tiny part of the population.

[Meadowoak]

112. How much of a business owners revenue comes from

Seniors, and their social security checks, I would imagine quite a large chunk. Maybe they should consider that.

[viva la]

10. And life expectancy for people who don't work in comfort...

hasn't gone up that much.
Plus without SS at 66, that construction worker will have to keep doing back-breaking work years longer.... if they live so long.

Cruelty is the point. I wish "the white working class" would all pay attention to this and not "the terror of a trans swimmer at a swim meet!"

[flying_wahini]

12. You didn't mention the other part that raised my hackles; killing the widow(ers) and children's benefit.

My understanding is - They want to say if the widow didn’t earn it then you can’t keep the husband’s
if he dies early. If you didn’t contribute then you can’t collect on his.

Now you can collect on the spouse with the highest benefits and forgo the other and children are covered until they turn 18.

[jaxexpat]

21. You're quite right. I didn't try to expose all their intentions, though. I don't type well.

I see this life expectancy angle as a means they use to get people to doubt their own mind by using knee-jerk false equivalence style logic.
Of all the things for which I despise the "conservative" mindset, it's the blatant dishonesty behind just about everything they proclaim to believe. They use the standard "twisted-shocking-fact" technique to get weak-minded people off center, filling the victim's resultant comprehension void with lies tailored to addict the subject to supporting rhetoric, itself composed of twisted logic, lies and blame for the "other".

[mopinko]

23. we only get half, anyway.

which is bullshit.

[CanonRay]

13. I wonder how much Social Security saved because of Covid?

The actuaries must know, but it must be a lot.

[mopinko]

24. it night b offset by increased disability.

even in young ppl.

[Bo Zarts]

31. Decline in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (CDC)

"Excess deaths due to COVID-19 and other causes in 2020 and 2021 led to an overall decline in life expectancy between 2019 and 2021 of 2.7 years for the total population, 3.1 years for males, and 2.3 years for females." - US Center for Disease Control

Now .. I have no idea how that factors into the big Social Security equation. But there must be some impact .. IMO.

[MichMan]

32. All the people who weren't working because their place of employment shut down didn't pay anything into SS

Might have been a net loss

[Emile]

14. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality

has improved.

[jaxexpat]

30. Also, women's life expectancy is improved by modern prenatal care. It's an easier world to grow up in.

But neither fact has any bearing on the life expectancy of a 65-year-old. or 67-year-old or 70-year-old retiree. That's part of the false logic trap which conservatives try to put people in as they continue their war against Social Security.

[Emile]

33. Exactly, another great point.

[Igel]

118. Your math doesn't work.

If 10% of the population lived long past 65 when 60% of the population only received benefits for a few years that means most of those who died fairly early would never recoup the taxes they paid in. The deceased contributed towards the living, because it was *insurance," not a government-backed pre-funded program that was underfunded in a way that kept it from having large reserves like a normal pension. This was known to my parents and my friends' parents in high school in the '70s. They looked around and saw people, mostly men, dying at age 61, 63, or if they managed to retire they seldom lasted much past 65. Working in a steel mill was rough on the body and working-class lifestyles didn't help. (They sort of forgot that their OASI benefits would devolve to their families, but by then their kids would be adults and their wives didn't always live that many more years.)

In other words, average life expectancy was high so there was a population bottleneck between paying money in and getting money out.

In the '80s they realized the finances were going to go the other way. A greater percentage of the population that had been paying in had longer expectancy of life at retirement, so a larger percentage would collect for longer. At some point the crossover between receipts and expenses would cross over and the small reserve would be exhausted quickly. Hence the bipartisan vote to increase the FICA so as to overtax the workers in order to fully fund those closer to retirement while funding their own OASI benefits.

[jaxexpat]

136. Don't understand a single sentence. Can you rephrase?

[DENVERPOPS]

63. Wow

last I heard the U.S.'s Infant Mortality was going up, not down.......Maybe someone out there knows how to check on that.....

[Emile]

85. It raised one year out of the last twenty.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/health/us-infant-mortality-rate-rises-for-first-time-in-more-than-20-years/index.html

[DENVERPOPS]

98. Thx

Any ideas on where to check the U.S. statistics on Child Mortality vs other civilized countries....????

[JT45242]

87. Depends greatly on part of the country

In the Confederate states, plus the neo-Confederacy like Iowa, mother and infant mortality rates are increasing. But in states that took the expanded Medicaid, no increases.

[DENVERPOPS]

93. Thx

I am sure there are particular demographics that are seeing a Major rise......the poor, and minority populations........

[TBF]

25. It should have been a lock box from day one - nobody raiding it for anything else.

And there should be no cap. If people want there to be millionaires/billionaires the percent should be the same as it is for someone making 20K a year. That would shore it up real fast.

[jaxexpat]

34. The only presidential candidate I know of to ever use the "SS lock-box" as a campaign plank was Al Gore.

They changed the rules to stop him. They invented the "chief executive by judicial proclamation" technique.

[Voltaire2]

46. It hasn't been raided.

The ss trust fund is invested in treasury notes that are interest paying.

Would you prefer it was stuffed in a mattress?

[DENVERPOPS]

74. Is there somewhere

we could read exactly what and how it is kept???????

What did Al Gore know that he wanted a Lok Box???????

I have heard about this both ways, and would like to know more about it.......

I believe the whole SSI is much more complex than what is being presented here.

I distinctly remember when "Reagan" told everyone he was going to solve the future SSI funding once and for all time.
He literally doubled the contribution from 7.5% to 15%.........Then, the next few years he said the Fed Govt was bringing in way way too much in taxes, and shoved thru the LARGEST TAX CUTS EVER focused totally towards wealthy individuals and corporations.....
Of course, at the same time, he "back handedly" INCREASED the income taxes on he middle class by quite a bit. And that is a FACT.

(I hate to say Reagan did this. Just because it was done during the time he "occupied" the White House doesn't mean HE actually did it. He was just a figurehead, just as W was during his "occupation" of the White House.......HW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc were truly running things....)

[Igel]

119. Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund isn't unreasonable.

Congress established the OASI trust fund in 1937. It stipulated that excess OASI monies had to go into special treasury bills that could only be held by the US government. They would pay interest. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

Last year it was on the order of 4% or greater. (But inflation's still knocked the trust fund for a loop.)

I believe that at one or two times the SSA drew down a bit of the trust fund for OASI but it's not worth tracking that info down.

Wiki states accurately that Congress could pass a law to default (by the usual process--bill, two chambers vote, president signs, subject to judicial review) but that's always been true: Ultimately the SSA and OASI are creatures of Congress and the FICA is just a special-purpose federal tax. Congress could also pass a law that would disavow any obligation to repay Savings Bonds or T-notes. Neither's happened and nobody's talking about it--but it's always possible because it's not impossible.

Note that there are two trust funds. They're usually merged for some purposes and one is usually ignored for other purposes.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html The main one for retirees is OASI.

[Stargazer99]

127. If you think it has not been raided where in the hell have you been?

[DENVERPOPS]

138. It is interesting

That Al Gore, a person who was educated and politically experienced, would talk about putting it in a LockBox if it were already being held in the equivalent of the lockbox.......

I am sure that there is not a single Dem or Repub in the House or Senate that would want it disclosed that they borrowed from SSI over the decades
.
There is not any politician that would be able to resist such a humongous chunk of money just sitting around waiting for the future when they would be gone from office...........And they sure as hell wouldn't want to talk about what a huge financial liability they incurred, because then that would blow the living shit out of any future tax cuts until the amount was repaid. And most certainly tax increases to the Rich and Corporations.......... And no Dem or Repub politician would be safe from the outrage of SSI recipients who have been screwed or who are currently being screwed.....

A friend did a study of civilized countries and their Gov't retirements when he was in college econ class. He said that most had a monthly benefit of roughly twice what was provided in the U.S. by SSI (But also stated that didn't apply to Russia, China, or any tyrant controlled country.) And that those countries also had Health Care provided by regular taxes through out their lives, so their retired didn't need to be paying anything in addition for their medical care or meds.

[Johnny2X2X]

26. Most successful social program of all time

There are tens of millions of Americans who are living off their social security. Sure, many of them struggle, but at least they aren’t totally destitute and homeless.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. And how are you supposed to survive after age 65

when there's blatant, unabashed age discrimination in employment?

The longevity "argument" is a red herring.

A lot of us would embrace the fulfillment of working indefinitely if health and mind so permit. But getting past the ageism is almost impossible and very time-consuming.

[DownriverDem]

38. repubs have told

the American people for decades that Social Security is an entitlement. We know it's not. Thanks to the repubs repeating the lie on talk radio, Fox News and convincing young folks they won't get any many folks believe them. Those in their 50s better wake up and vote for the Biden/Harris team or they will really be screwed.

[Chainfire]

55. Republicans need to practice what they preach and refuse SS benefits as a matter of personal ethics.

[JohnSJ]

108. It is an entitlement. You are entitled to a payment because you have been paying

for years into it. Because people don’t understand or misrepresent what entitlement means is because of ignorance

[Igel]

122. The SSA disagrees.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-entitle-ussi.htm

As does the text of the law. Black's is probably dated, but these terms don't drift much. https://thelawdictionary.org/entitlement/

"Entitlement" has changed its popular, colloquial meaning a bit. It still means "something you're entitled to by law" but it now has a negative connotation.

The denotation--what the actual legal and operative definition of the word is--hasn't changed for decades.

In some sense we've flattened two older definitions (which probably split a century earlier): something you were entitled to versus something that you improperly assumed you were entitled to by virtue of some irrelevant trait or feature. But even there we hedge: "President Biden is entitled by virtue of his office to respect." Surely "entitle" isn't a negative word all the time.

[Shermann]

39. The benefit base for 2024 is $168,600

That limit can't be simply raised beyond inflation without breaking Biden's campaign promise, so the donut hole solution seems the best.

[jaxexpat]

75. Good point except it seems to play into the falsehood that Social Security is a tax based program.

People already have enough difficulty understanding the difference between taxes and savings contributions. Biden never promised not to increase savings contributions on people making less than $400.000. In some ways, it's a fine point, but you get my drift, right?

[Shermann]

100. False dichotomy, it can be a contribution to a benefit program and be a tax.

Both of those can be true. It shows up as a FICA tax on your paycheck. That sounds like a tax to me.

[jaxexpat]

109. A lifetime record of taxes paid will not determine your monthly SS retirement check.

A record of your SS contributions to your SS fund, however, are the means used to determine that amount. One can reasonably expect to get SS investments back in kind, but never taxes.

It may be a fine point, but it matters because of those who hold political alliances and vote according to their resentment of taxation. They might just act with hatred toward the very thing they end up dependent upon after decades of doing the bidding of those who wittingly wish to bring it down. Imagine discovering that you've been a self-destructive lifetime tool for those who prey on your weakness because of a little semantic misunderstanding. Doesn't seem very cricket to me.

[Shermann]

117. Form W-2 Box 4: Social security tax withheld

You can easily determine your monthly SS retirement check from that lifetime record of taxes paid. All you need in addition is age and filing date. It is what it is.

[Chainfire]

54. You retirement money could be better spent by the wealthy on necessities like yachts and vacation homes.

Republicans will always work to see that that happens. Working people need to work until the drop dead on the job and are hauled out with the rest of the trash.

[Emile]

56. Republicans want old, hungry, desperate and are willing to work cheap labor pool

to exploit.

[GiqueCee]

64. Okay, let's start with the foundations...

... of conservatism: greed, malice, deceit, and the insatiable desire to hurt people. These perverted character flaws drive their every word and deed. It's long past time for clinicians to designate conservatism as a mental disorder on the sociopathy spectrum and treat it as such. Establish mandatory testing to determine one's fitness for elective office before they can file to run. The likes of Empty Greene, Paul Gosar, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Bullet Boebert, Ron Johnson, and all the rest of the very long list of self-serving sociopaths who crave dominion over the lives of others, have no business abusing the powers of their respective offices, let alone fucking with Social Security.
First, Social Security is NOT an entitlement; it is deferred wages held in trust. It's YOUR money, not the government's, and not some Republican politician's to steal and dole out to Wall Street hyenas. Even with all the protections SS supposedly has, the scumbags get their filthy paws on millions from the SS trust fund, always promising to pay it back, but never quite getting around to actually doing so.
And the fact that there's a cap at all on SS withholding, let alone a cap of a measly $160,000, tells you all you need to know about the grotesque corruption of the über-wealthy's influence on policy makers. There is NO justification for ANY cap on how much money the rich have to pay into Social Security. None. We have to pay on every penny we earn. So should they.
Gee, doncha just wish you had a lobbyist to promote your interests at the expense of working people? Or maybe doncha just wish there was no such fuckin' thing as lobbyists in the first place?
Sorry. My constant state of simmering rage bubbles over sometimes and I gotta vent or explode. Plus, we've got a foot of snow on the ground already, and it's still coming down like a sumbitch. Visibility's so low ya can barely see the trees on the other side of the road. Gonna have some serious shoveling to do when this lets up, and the snowblower's gonna get a workout, too, that's for damn sure.
I'm too old for this shit.

[jaxexpat]

77. Absolutely love the passion-n-logic of your rant, GC. I think I'll go out onto the balmy patio's 75 and think on it.

We save our miserable weather for May 1-September 25. Sheltering in place before an A/C duct.

[GiqueCee]

90. Central Vermont...

... is exceedingly envious of you, jaxexpat!

[jaxexpat]

95. It's a burden.

[Turbineguy]

70. That's why we need to put trump back.

He'll get life expectancy at any age down.

[Traildogbob]

73. Every percent

Cut from SS needs to be equally cut from senate congress and presidential retirement. And end the Spouses of those from continuing to receive the benefits after death.
I have a real issue forking over cash to Melania for 40+ years.
The wife of a treasonous, traitorous murderer.
But yea our entitlements are a handout.

[CousinIT]

89. I'm one of those who had to wait until 67 and I am LIVID.

All my asshole siblings who keep voting for Republicans (who will TAKE AWAY OR CUT THE DAMN SOCIAL SECURITY THEY'RE FREAKING LIVING ON), got to retire at 65. I couldn't.

[Emile]

91. I got mine so screw you is a republican trait.

[CousinIT]

94. Absolutely. I hear it from them every day. That, and..

...their white privilege, Talibangelical, homophobia problems and constant spouting of RW disinformation that is never true. They're first in line for social benefits but vote MAGA because "socialism". What they SAY and what they DO are polar opposite. Fucking bunch of misogynist, racist, homophobic hypocrites.

[Silver Swan]

96. General information about Social Security for the curious

This is from a Social Security publication called the Annual Statistical Supplement. It is a fairly concise description of the Social Security program and might answer any questions one might have.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2023/oasdi.html

[Igel]

124. That can't be right.

It calls FICA a "tax" and refers to the program as an "entitlement."

(Of course it's right, but some reject the idea that what they've paid in has mostly funded current expenses for the last decade or two as the trust fund registers trivial increases and we prepare to start drawing it down sharply as more and more boomers retire. At some point, high school didn't actually teach something important--I know, that's a real shock.)

[JohnSJ]

102. Everyone who pays into social security deserves to get social security regardless of income. What

needs to be done to fix social security is raise the CAP on it, and stop using it for purposes it wasn’t intended

[FakeNoose]

139. Exactly right

If we've lived long enough to collect our benefits, then we spent most of our lives paying into the system.

The numbers may be skewed because some Americans die young, without paying into the system for 45 years. But that doesn't change the fact that we older ones (I include myself because I retired 7 years ago) buoyed the system with our paychecks all those years.

They can't change the rules on us now.

[Mike Nelson]

103. I am not in favor...

... of changing anyone's present SS, without their approval. Still, I think there are some good ideas about changing the SS system. First, if someone was so successful they became a multi-millionaire, why send them SS? There should be some evaluation of net worth at the age of retirement. If your net worth is $10,000,000 at age 65, congratulations! You did great and don't need SS. If you give it all away or lose it, then we reevaluate.

[jaxexpat]

111. We ascend a slippery slope when we oblige a political institution to define "need".

Need is such a needy word. Who needs to drive automobiles? or play an instrument? or run for offices? or control their own body? or vote?

In any situation, "the majority is only right when it does right", Ibsen.

[MichMan]

131. These seem to be contradictory

I am not in favor...... of changing anyone's present SS, without their approval.

There should be some evaluation of net worth at the age of retirement. If your net worth is $10,000,000 at age 65, congratulations! You did great and don't need SS. If you give it all away or lose it, then we reevaluate.

[Silent Type]

115. Bet money we'll still be sitting here in 10 years with little or nothing done to bolster SS. Raising the cap appreciably

isn't going to happen, although it is considered an easy fix by many. We might get a small increase in tax rate, maybe some bump in cap, but not much.

Currently, we have an annual Deficit between $1.5 T and $2.0 Trillion. We need a totally revamped healthcare system that will cost significantly more than we spend now; we need child care; we need climate change; we need homes for homeless; unfortunately it appears we'll be fighting wars for years to come; jobs, education, infrastructure, etc.

Does anyone really think we will increase taxes by 12.4 percentage points (6.2% we pay, 6.2% employer pays for Social Security) and still be able to go after another 10 to 20 percentage points we'll need to fund healthcare, etc.

Ain't gonna happen no matter how much we complain, rant, yell.

We'll get closer to the mandatory benefit cut of 23% looming at some point around 2035. Hopefully, Democrats will be in office when the crunch comes and something has to be changed. But, there is not guarantee of that.

Obama tried for SS reform and got bashed by his own supporters calling it the Catfood Commission. One of the Commission's recommendations was to increase payments to those beneficiaries at the lower level. Obama was criticized to hell for it.

[oldsoftie]

125. I started collecting at 62 for 3 reasons.

1- I'm not guaranteed to be here tomorrow.
2- for me to actually get "more" money by waiting till I'm 67, I'll be 78 yrs old before I actually have made back what I didnt collect from 62-67
3- Who knows if it'll be here in the same structure when I AM older?

[Kaleva]

126. Should go by life expectancy for 21 year olds

In 1940, just over 50% of those males who would turned 65 that year actually made it to that age. In 1990 that percentage increased to just over 70% for males.

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

[Elessar Zappa]

142. It shouldn't go by life expectancy.

Leave it at 65 (or 67) for everyone.

[Kaleva]

143. Why is 65 or 67 the magic number?

If you are going by history, then you'd also have to accept the fact that historically, almost 1/2 of adult males didn't live long enough to get their first check

[orangecrush]

129. George Carlin once said

"People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you, sooner or later, 'cause they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club."

[jaxexpat]

135. Smart bettors do not argue with Carlin's ghost.

[Warpy]

133. What killed men off when SS was devised was alcohol

and/or physical neglect, especially dental neglect. They would simply not visit a doctor unless they were drastically ill and could no longer put up an effective fight against it. End stage cirrhosis, sepsis, and pneumonias were the big killers.

Women were then left mostly destitute, a man's pension dying with him, if he'd even had one of those. Social Security was above all a program for surviving women, giving them choices instead of forcing them into servitude as unpaid cooks and nannies in the homes of relatives if one would take her in. A measure of how horrible this was is how quickly it was abandoned as soon as Social Security came in.

My own parents benefited greatly from SS before the big stock market runup in the late 90s. It had been the difference between living comfortably and having to rely a little too heavily on what my dad could pull out of the Indian River for dinner.

Now they're trying to take it away because we live too long. How fucking dare they? They know full well how to fund it, keeping it pay as you go. What they're really freaking out about is the lack of overpayments that allowed Reublicans to disguise the national debt caused by reckless Republican tax cuts for corporations and rich men.

First, fund Social Security by raising the minimum wage to a living level in most locations outside a few of the big cities nationwide. That alone might increase contributions beyond what is necessary.

Second, get Social Security out of the General Fund. It was never meant to be there. It is a national INSURANCE program, not anything the Republicans have tried to call it. Pay your premiums, get insurance payments wen you can't work any more. That's how it works and it works well, thanks, as long as we can keep Republican grabby hands off it.

Third, raise the ridiculously low earnings cap so that an emergency fund can be maintained.

Fourth, index the earnings cap and the disbursements to inflation.

Fifth, require a constitutional amendment to end the program, and good luck to the skinflint Republicans (or whoever replaces them) on that one.

We know how to do this. We just need to get rid of Republicans and "fiscal conservatives" in Congress.

[Tactical Peek]

140. Lower the retirement age and expand the benefit.

How a Frustrated Blogger Made Expanding Social Security a Respectable Idea

https://psmag.com/social-justice/frustrated-blogger-made-expanding-social-security-respectable-idea-67226


Social Security Expansion Is Good Politics

Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works and co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security coalition, explicates the story of the politics of Social Security.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4603022/user-clip-social-security-expansion-good-politics