Yes, and Congress hasn't done a thing. One contributor to that problem is because president after president, from both parties, runs on a campaign of promising not to touch SS.The President can't "touch" SS.
That would required Congress to act to change the law.
WW
Why, exactly, should (some?) SS beneficiaries get less than they were ‘promised’?
Ah but the old number is 50% of the new number,
In 20 years when you retire you'll receive SS benefits that boomers contributed to.I don’t expect to ever collect a penny of Social Security
Never have and have spent my entire working life anticipating that I won’t.
If I do manage to see it, it will be happy icing on the cake
I’m still more than 20 years away from retirement - and still building my retirement portfolio with the anticipation that I’m on my own. Same with my husband - and we are both Gen X and have NEVER anticipated that we’d ever get a penny from SS.
I don’t even open the mail I get from SS to see what my “anticipated” benefits would be, because I don’t count on ever seeing it.
Get everyone off who shouldn't be on. Raise the SSI tax 1 or 2 %, increase the age by another year. You can't do nothing. Chicken shit Congress has to act of we all are going to regret the inaction of politicians with no guts.
They should have created a future attractive enough to induce a fertility rate that could sustain their benefits.
Hmm… how about a mandate that folks (over 30?) have at least 2 children or pay a FIT penalty?
OK, but the new number is twice as much as (double, or 100% more than) the old number. Of course, you could use ‘liberal math’ and say it was only a 1% tax rate increase.
They should have created a future attractive enough to induce a fertility rate that could sustain their benefits.
You should expect to collect Social Security.I don’t expect to ever collect a penny of Social Security
Never have and have spent my entire working life anticipating that I won’t.
People without children already pay a FIT penalty.
Because we have a big shortfall problem and it requires fixing. Sometimes, supposed promises, including financial promises, can't be (fully) kept when situations change.Why, exactly, should (some?) SS beneficiaries get less than they were ‘promised’?
Obviously not enough incentive for most to elect to have at least 2 children.
Math is math it is not liberal or conservative
Going from 11% to 12% is an increase of 1%, in absolute numbers, or an increase of around 9% from a relative standpoint.
Two values 2 and 3.
3 is 50% larger than 2
2 is 33.3% smaller than 3
3 is only 1 number higher than 2.
All descriptions are true all can be used to push specific goals to influence people
And we're back to the state of the future prospective parents were left.
OK, but the new number is twice as much as (double, or 100% more than) the old number. Of course, you could use ‘liberal math’ and say it was only a 1% tax rate increase.
Yes. If people want the SS system to survive, then they have to pay more into it.With my suggested (25%) SS FICA ‘payroll’ tax rate(s) increase, there’s no need to raise the SS ‘full benefit’ age.
In the U.S. 1.1 million. That's sad but it's not earth shattering for the SSI program. Mismanagement, borrowng from he fund, reinvesting that money to use elsewhere isn't proving to be able to keep SSI afloat. The money invested and the interest earned should have to go into the SSI fund and not be spent elsewhere. Instead of making the system pay for itself they essentially spend money that ought to be invested back into the trust fund. Now we are short funds to keep it going without some changes. What politicians are going to have the balls to vote in increase the SSI tax on income, to eliminate the cap on the amount taxed, and to raise the age for claiming benefits? Cowards.This generation is smaller than was planed for as Covid killed off millions.
What politicians are going to have the balls to vote in increase the SSI tax on income, to eliminate the cap on the amount taxed, and to raise the age for claiming benefits? Cowards.
Yes, that is the liberal Rx for everything--tax the rich. Benefits are also capped so SS is not in trouble because the rich arent paying enough. Its in trouble because no one is paying enoughRaise the cap should be the first thing.
I was never given an option or an alternative. I was forced into the system as it is. If taxes have to be raised so that the system survives, then the young will have to pay more into it.I don’t like extending the age because it is forcing younger generations to pay more for less.
Yes. If people want the SS system to survive, then they have to pay more into it.
Current beneficiaries should give up nothing, They played by the rules as they were. The rule changes will be for future generationsAnd what do current beneficiaries give up in this scenario?
Unfortunately, no one in congress has the guts to increase taxes on anyone but the rich. So if SS is set to collapse in 8 years, we can expect congress to come up with a fix in 7 years, 11 months and 29 days.Yep, that’s how ‘pay as you go’ systems work.
Quit voting for republicans and the democrats will fix social security.
Republicans take the Grover Norquest pledge to never raise taxes! They have always hated Social Security. They want it bankrupt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?