Warren Proposes the Biggest Expansion of Social Security in 50 Years

[babylonsister]

Warren Proposes the Biggest Expansion of Social Security in 50 Years
David Dayen
September 12, 2019
The plan, with an immediate $200 per month benefit increase, sets the left edge of the possible on a bedrock Democratic program.


In November 2013, less than a year into Elizabeth Warren’s first Senate term, she gave a floor speech rejecting a persistent push, including from her own party’s president, to cut Social Security benefits. Her outspokenness came out of studying the economy and noting the precarious finances of an aging population. “We don’t build a future for our children by cutting basic retirement benefits for their grandparents,” she argued. “With some modest adjustments, we can keep the system solvent for many more years, and could even increase benefits.”

At the time, a few other liberals—Senators Tom Harkin, Sherrod Brown, and Bernie Sanders—had endorsed expanding Social Security, an important protection for a working class struggling to retire with dignity. By joining the fight, Warren helped stave off the march to cuts. What was once the province of a few has become the dominant philosophy in the party. Earlier this year, a Social Security expansion package launched with the support of over 200 House Democrats. And now, Warren is charging ahead with the biggest expansion package a Democrat has proposed in decades.

“Despite the data staring us in the face, Congress hasn’t increased Social Security benefits in nearly fifty years,” Warren wrote today in her favorite format, a Medium post. “We need to get our priorities straight.”

She’s doing it because the struggles remain evident, and worse for those nearing retirement than those already in it. For too many people, particularly people of color, Social Security has become the main source of retirement income, as fewer employers offer significant retirement benefits and stagnant wages eat up savings. The median annual income of women over 65 in 2016 was a paltry $18,380. And that’s with many working into their golden years.

A Government Accountability Office report released just this week revealed that poorer seniors had a dramatically lower survival rate than their richer counterparts. Those living into their 70s and 80s tend to rely more on Social Security, but by paying in less throughout their working lives, they receive less in benefits than richer counterparts who need the money less. This inequality doom loop is built into the inputs and outputs of the Social Security system, and Warren seeks to arrest this yawning wealth gap that is literally a matter of life and death.

more...

https://prospect.org/article/warren-proposes-biggest-expansion-social-security-50-years

[BeyondGeography]

1. There she goes with her plans again

An endorsement from Moody’s chief economist:

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, concurred with Warren that the extra revenue from wealthier taxpayers should keep Social Security solvent until 2054 and would also reduce the deficit. Social Security is currently projected to be solvent until 2035.

“The net macroeconomic impacts of the reform are small but positive in the long run; the economic benefit of smaller federal government deficits and debt load is largely offset as high-income people reduce their own work hours,” Zandi said. “The plan results in a much more progressive Social Security system, as high-income people shoulder the financial burden of the plan, while low- and middle income people benefit substantially. “

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/12/elizabeth-warren-social-security-200-per-month-taxing-rich/2294876001/

[mopinko]

3. yeah!! she doesnt fall for scrapping the cap!

and instead is applying it to investment income. that is the way to go.

scrapping the cap is one of those ideas that is simple, appealing, and wrong. want to make ss a target for even more of a target? destroy the connection between fica as an earned benefit, and make it a wealth transfer.

[lostnfound]

5. Completely agree. Nt

[rurallib]

9. thanks for that insight

never really thought about it that way before.

[mopinko]

11. i learned that from teddy kennedy.

he fought scrapping the cap his whole life. he did not want to see it stop being something that people owned, and accepted because they earned it.
we all know older people who would refuse to sign up for welfare. he never wanted that kind of shame associated w the program.

this is what turned me off to bernie.
i wish i had a nickel for every time i have engaged in this discussion here. hopefully now people will get it.

this is why i love the crowded field. it has been such a rich policy discussion. and a civics lesson for all.

[Wounded Bear]

13. All well and good, but...

the cap should probably be raised to around 250k or so, just to follow income trends.

[KPN]

16. Not sure I follow you. The article says she would lift the cap

for those earning $250,000 or more annually.

[mopinko]

23. lift the cap, fine. scrap the cap, no. expand fica to investment income is the biggie.

that was the obvious way to go to me. extend it to unearned income.
not everyone who lives like this is rich. some are benefits from parents who planned for their disabled kids, and like that.

including those people in the program is a very, very savvy move.

and yes, raising the cap by a big chunk is a good move.
personally, my ex made enough for us to pay the max most of his career. it would have been fine w us to pay more. i collect soon, and wish we had been able to invest more. we also have a disabled kid who will also collect a lot more once her dad retires, and there too we wished they would take more of our money.

i would like to see the full plan. i bet she also has a plan to wring the sexism out of the program, and support caregivers.

i have one more pet plan, tho. allow voluntary contributions.
allow people to elect to make the max contribution, w 1/52 deducted each month. it would be great to make their employers do the same, but even an opt in would be great. like a 401k match for those w no plan.

[KPN]

36. Thanks. I was thinking lifting and scrapping

the cap were the same in effect. Yes, I agree. As far as something that can be enacted, it’s a great strategy. In fact, it actually is an “incremental” approach when you look at the bigger picture of policy driven income inequality and wealth concentration over the past 40 years.

[IronLionZion]

21. Her plan is to lift the cap and tax investment income

Warren lifts the cap on payroll taxes for those making above $250,000 per year, and increases that tax above $250,000 by 2.4 percent, split between the employee and employer. It would also for the first time ever add a payroll tax for net investment income, for individuals making $250,000 or more, and families making $400,000.

In effect, this shifts the Social Security system closer to where it was before inequality took off. The payroll tax used to capture 90 percent of wage earnings, and today, because of the cap on earnings above $132,900, it captures only 83 percent. That’s actually far worse, because of the growing shift to capital income, where the wealthy make money by having money. All those earnings normally escape the payroll tax. Inequality is robbing Social Security’s solvency, and the Warren plan rebalances it.

[KPN]

37. Thank you for that detailed and clear explanation.

I’m really impressed with her proposal. In the way it is constructed, it addresses SS solvency fairly completely for another 20 or so years and then also incrementally addresses the inequities of wealth concentration over the past 45 years.

[IronLionZion]

42. Warren's plans are very well thought out. She's got my vote

[MadDAsHell]

38. Social Security is not a "retirement benefit.". "Retirement" is nowhere in the law.

By definition it is "old-age" and "social insurance." Framing it as a "retirement benefit" is one of the reasons so many elderly folks get themselves in financial trouble. Senator Warren should know better.

My grandparents, God bless them, had the income during their working lives to save and invest for retirement. Instead, they spent everything they made and more on high-end vehicles, vacations, and other things they couldn't actually afford, because "social security was their retirement."

They then proceeded to basically live in poverty, solely on social security, the final 25 years of their lives. None of us were in a financial position to help what was a pitiful situation.

[Ohiogal]

2. I love this

coming on the heels of Rob Portman's interview in the Columbus Dispatch, claiming that our deficit explosion is NOT due to the Trump tax cuts (what idiot really believes this) ..... no, Portmasn wants to squeeze Medicare, Medicaid, and SS, which he claims are the REAL culprits to our ballooning deficit. It just makes me want to scream! Do they not realize the wasteful spending of Trump and his regime on golf trips, caging children, wall funding, military, etc. etc.??? Why do I even ask........... It's like they don't know one person trying to make it on SS and Medicare these days ........ We're NOT all like the seniors in the drug commercials who walk hand in hand on the beach!....... most of us are just barely scraping by, and I don't know how young couples with children afford anything. Ohio is one of the seven states whose uninsured actually has gone UP, despite the face that we are a Medicaid expansion state!!! How pathetic is that!!!

[Martin Eden]

8. Tax cuts serve 2 purposes

1. Rewarding rich campaign donors

2. Skyrocketing deficits

Republicans know the only way to cut and eventually kill popular programs like Social Security and Medicare is to convince the public they are unaffordable and hard choices must be made.

To do this they must "starve the beast" of funds.

It is easy to conclude that Republicans who claim the mantle of "fiscal conservative" are too stupid to realize the effect of their tax cuts on the budget, but I think we should consider they are achieving the desired effect.

Republicans need huge budget deficits to achieve their long term goal of shrinking government to a size that can be "drowned in a bathtub."

Repeat:
Huge budget deficits created by Republican policies are intentional.

[iluvtennis]

17. well said. nt

[KPN]

19. It's been their strategy for decades. And then they

scream “tax and spend Democrats” are bankrupting is with massive federal deficits. tRump is really nothing new, the Rs have been bald-faced lying for decades. He’s just not as wily.

[ECL213]

14. F.U. Rob Portman

[grantcart]

4. The difference between Warren and others who make proposals

Is that her ideas on how to pay for it ate as smart as her plans to spend it.

Her proposal to tax wealth assets @ 2% after 50 million is brilliant.

[DemocracyMouse]

7. Why a wealth tax above $50 million? Make it a bloody $5 million. Get rid of the zero!

[KPN]

22. Perhaps because if her wealth tax is annual, the 5 million would be gone in 50 years.

the 5 million would be gone in 50 years?

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Oh dear, wouldn't Pragmatic Incrementalism be much safer?

Say, $1 increase per year, instead of $200 all at once- that kind of socialism might turn off voters and get Trump reelected...

sarcasm

Status Quo centrist Pearl clutching in 3,2,1...

[DemocracyMouse]

10. Warren is educated. REALLY educated.

Hmmm... Do we trust her plans because we are back to revering well-educated people? I think, after witnessing a man in the White House who never reads anything and is glued to Dumb Fuck news sources, the sticky propaganda label "elite" has finally begun to fade. We WANT a professor in the White House. And this one happens to have experience as both a Senator and a girl growing up in poverty. THREE sources of wisdom.

[safeinOhio]

12. She is going in the correct direction.

I would double that by taking back the wealth the rich have stole from us from the time Reagan was President until now.

[usaf-vet]

15. At LEAST raise the cap. Rep Sean Duffy said he couldn't survive on $176,000 / year.

Yet he only pays SS tax on the first $132,900 which means he doesn't pay SS tax on $43,100 dollars of his income.

I'm sure the majority of his constituents would love to make $43,100 / year income.

Recent news reports have indicated he has managed to accumulate $4,000,000 in his campaign coffers in the 8.5 years he has been in congress.

Interesting how that works! So now what happens to that $4,000,000 now that he has announced he is "retiring" from Congress on Sept 23, 2019.

[turbinetree]

24. Bingo....................the rich do not have to pay on anything above $132,900.01

but everyone making less than $132,900.00 have to subsidize that do make more..................why do I feel that it is like the let them eat cake thing...................that one little penny changes everything..............

[highplainsdem]

30. Warren's new proposal leaves a donut hole for income between $132,900 and $250,000 a year,

when a slightly higher payroll tax rate will kick in for all income above that, according to the analysis at Vox:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287273960

So members of Congress will stll have lots of income on which they won't have to pay any payroll taxes.

Warren needs to get rid of that donut hole in this new plan.

[KPN]

35. I imagine doing so would result in fewer ayes.

And what about people — especially all of the two income families — who make more than $132,000 but less than $250,000?

It sounds to me like her target is strictly wealth as opposed to annual income from labor/work. And her objective is fairness in ensuring SS solvency into the future. So she really isn’t raising the fica tax on those who live off annual income from work. Congressman/Senators work (or at least they are expected to).

It seems like a great strategy as far as getting it actually enacted to me.

[HeartlandProgressive]

18. K&R

[zentrum]

20. Let it be her.

[Oppaloopa]

25. I know senior women living on 900 per month with 15 dollars in Food Stamps this is Florida

[Hoyt]

26. While I sure can use the $200/month, I don't think this is a good idea -- except at lowest levels -

because we have so many other things that we need to pay for: healthcare for everyone, jobs, education, college loan help, deficit and debt reduction, environment, child care, infrastructure, shoring up the Social Security system at the current level of benefits, etc.

Warren needs to prioritize her promises and come up with plans/proposals that will actually pass. She's spent that 2% Wealth Tax, several times over before this new proposal.

[highplainsdem]

29. But this proposal entails new taxes, though with a strange donut hole for income between

$132,900 and $250,000:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287273960

[crazytown]

39. Nothing Warren can propose is going to satisfy you Hoyt.

You will never forgive her role in killing the TPP. You have suggested it cost Hillary the GE - against all the evidence to the contrary.

[Hoyt]

40. What evidence to the contrary? And last night, she was right back on her "Economic Patriotism."

For a moment she made sense about helping Latin American countries like Venezuela.

Then, she turned right around and all but condemned Mexicans, etc., to working for 50 cents a day on dirt farms rather than decent factory jobs at 10, 20 times that per hour with her trade junk to supposedly preserve American jobs. America First, again.

At least Biden gets that we are part of a much bigger world.

[crazytown]

41. 'Free Trade' was not popular in the midwest in 2016 (and still is not, but they're learning)

Backing the TPP would have disadvantaged, not helped, HRC in those states.

My message is that things have to change and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver a better life for the people all across this nation that had been ignored, neglected and abandoned.

I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country, and they are forgotten, but they will not be forgotten long. These are people who work hard but no longer have a voice.

I am your voice.

DJT, RNC Acceptance Speech.

How would the TPP have helped Hillary in OH, MI, PA, or WI?

[Hoyt]

43. Definitely not popular. They consider foreign workers scabs -- "Screw poor Mexicans, Vietnamese,

etc., looking for a better life, our jobs are more important than anyone else in the world."

Classic "America First," or as Warren tries to call it "Economic Patriotism." Those same Midwestern states went for, guess who? And guess why?

[crazytown]

44. What Warren calls 'Economic Patriotism', is not 'America First'.

I went looking to see what she was talking about, when I first heard that expression. There is populist rhetoric, but 'the plan' is as much about making America competitive, as luddite protectionism -

A - Intervention on Behalf of American Workers

•Leveraging federal R&D to create domestic jobs and sustainable investments in the future.
•Production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States.
•Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.
•R&D investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities.
•Deploying the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American-made products.
•Restructuring worker training programs to deliver real results for American workers and American companies.
•Dramatically scale up apprenticeship programs.
•Institute new sectoral training programs.
•More actively managing our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing.

B- The Department of Economic Development

Our international competitors like China, Germany, and Japan develop concrete plans for promoting domestic industry and then make serious investments to achieve their goals. China’s Made in China 2025 plan aims to dominate advanced manufacturing in the coming decades using various incentives and “hundreds of billions of euros” in subsidies. Germany and Japan have also developed plans that identify long-term goals for domestic production and put real money behind achieving them.

This is a pretty straightforward idea. But outside of the defense context, the United States has nothing remotely like it.

Government programs that affect job creation are an afterthought, uncoordinated and scattered across the government, and submerged in larger agencies with different primary missions:

There are 58 programs in 11 federal agencies that provide support to American manufacturing — all of them tacked on to the primary missions at those agencies.

There are at least nine offices in five different agencies primarily responsible for trade policy and export promotion.

And there are 47 different employment and training programs spread across nine different federal agencies.

https://medium.com/teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7

[Johnny2X2X]

27. It's about dignity

The disabled and the elderly cannot live in dignity with what the minimum is now, this would lift millions up towards a dignified existence.

[highplainsdem]

28. I'm not sure why we need to increase Social Security payments for those who are well off. And as

for the increase for low-income seniors -- I'm not sure how this works, if their Social Security goes up, but would it cut into any other benefits they might be getting, maybe even make some seniors ineligible for those benefits (so the increase would help higher-income seniors much more than lower-income)?

[elocs]

31. Promises and proposals are easy, how to get them passed into law & paid for, much harder. n/t

[Bradical79]

32. Yeah

We're probably fucked.

[paleotn]

33. Yea.....

Shit is hard, so lets do nothing.

[elocs]

34. Did you set up that clever strawman just so you could knock it down?

I never said "do nothing" but an explanation of how it would realistically get done would be nice.