A real solution from a politician

[Magox]

This is an example from what I expect from our elected leaders. Which is to make unpopular decisions that benefit our country.

 

A Republican-held Congress might look to raise the retirement age to 70, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested Monday.

 

Boehner, the top Republican lawmaker in the House, said raising the retirement age by five years, indexing benefits to the rate of inflation and means-testing benefits would make the massive entitlement program more solvent.

 

"We're all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected," Boehner said in a meeting with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "And I think that raising the retirement age — going out 20 years, so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement — and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."

 

The GOP leader said Social Security was the most important entitlement to reform, though he also pledged Republicans would bring legislation to the floor to repeal and replace the healthcare reforms passed earlier this year if the GOP wins back control of the House this fall.

 

But Boehner also floated several other reforms to Social Security, paired with raising the retirement age, to make it more solvent. Boehner said benefits should be tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of wage inflation, and he suggested reducing or eliminating benefits to Americans with a "substantial non-Social Security income" while retired.

 

"We just need to be honest with people," he said. "I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy, but I think if we did those three things, you'd pretty well solve the problem."

 

Republicans have made cutting spending and reforming entitlement programs a key part of their 2010 campaign message.

 

Makes a lot of sense to me, just like the rate of inflation, people are living longer, so if they are living longer, then S.S should be pushed back.

 

Video in the link

[Chef Jim]

eliminating benefits to Americans with a "substantial non-Social Security income" while retired.

 

I knew that was coming. Great, reward those who did not plan and penalize those that did.

[KD in CA]

I knew that was coming. Great, reward those who did not plan and penalize those that did.

 

How else are you going to keep paying benefits to people who never contributed to the system?

[bartshan-83]

It's a great idea...the part about bumping the age back. It's an obvious solution to an obvious failure in a system that is going to die if nothing is done.

 

It doesn't get much more simpler. Reading the comments on that article is mind-numbing.

[MrNix]

How else are you going to keep paying benefits to people who never contributed to the system?

Someone can collect social security without working and paying into the system? why do i get sent a statement that tells me how much my benefits are based upon my past earnings? I tried to find this answer online, but best i could do was find the minimum payment which is still based on some minimum years of work.

[John Adams]

Someone can collect social security without working and paying into the system? why do i get sent a statement that tells me how much my benefits are based upon my past earnings? I tried to find this answer online, but best i could do was find the minimum payment which is still based on some minimum years of work.

 

The more you pay in, the bigger your benefit at retirement.

[Magox]

I knew that was coming. Great, reward those who did not plan and penalize those that did.

I hear you, and Im with you in principle. I believe I have been pretty consistent in regards to that sticking point you have, but Chef, we are much more heavily indebted than people realize, even conservatives. We need to pay down this debt, it is unsustainable, and I agree that in this instance, reducing the S.S for people (for example) that make over $400,000 makes sense. I know it goes against many of our principles, but we are so deep in the red that we have to bend the rules until we get this debt down, and the reality is that this makes sense.

[finknottle]

Someone can collect social security without working and paying into the system? why do i get sent a statement that tells me how much my benefits are based upon my past earnings? I tried to find this answer online, but best i could do was find the minimum payment which is still based on some minimum years of work.

 

It's a funny scam. SS started out billed as a savings program, but has become a redistributive entitlement program. The way it works is this: you contribute money and they keep track of when and how much - you can see it on the statement they send you once a year. They also give you a benefit estimate. What they don't do is explain how those benefits are calculated.

 

They take what you contributed, adjust for inflation, and calculate interest - so it's a mandatory savings program to this point. But instead of using the same interest rate for everybody, they look at how much you have contributed and base the rate on that. Those who have contributed very little to SocSec over their lifetimes get one rate of return, maybe 5%. As you contribute more, the rate they use goes down. For those who have contributed the most, they actually use a negative rate of return!

 

I too found it very difficult to look up - it isn't on the website. I think I found it in a congressional report a few years ago. The 5% figure may be a bit off, my memory is shaky, but I'm confident that the interest rate regresses to just below zero. In any event it explains why high-contributors want to privitize the system: the interest on their savings is shifted to those who contributed less. They would do better keeping their own money and putting it in the bank themselves.

[Chef Jim]

I hear you, and Im with you in principle. I believe I have been pretty consistent in regards to that sticking point you have, but Chef, we are much more heavily indebted than people realize, even conservatives. We need to pay down this debt, it is unsustainable, and I agree that in this instance, reducing the S.S for people (for example) that make over $400,000 makes sense. I know it goes against many of our principles, but we are so deep in the red that we have to bend the rules until we get this debt down, and the reality is that this makes sense.

 

He didn't say reducing SS for people making over $400k he said:

 

and he suggested reducing or eliminating benefits to Americans with a "substantial non-Social Security income" while retired.

 

There is the word eliminating and what on earth would they consider substantial Non-Social Security inome? If they're going to potentially eliminate my benefit then they should allow me to opt out of the system. I'll take care of it myself.

[John Adams]

There is the word eliminating and what on earth would they consider substantial Non-Social Security inome? If they're going to potentially eliminate my benefit then they should allow me to opt out of the system. I'll take care of it myself.

 

Thank you.

 

The argument will go "people who opt out will need care if they fail to save so we must provide for everyone."

 

Motherment.

[IDBillzFan]

If they're going to potentially eliminate my benefit then they should allow me to opt out of the system. I'll take care of it myself.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again only because it makes liberals piss themselves for lack of a way to understand it; give me the chance to opt out of SS and the government can keep what I've put in so far. I'm creeping up on 50. This is a great gig for them.

 

But no.

[John Adams]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again only because it makes liberals piss themselves for lack of a way to understand it; give me the chance to opt out of SS and the government can keep what I've put in so far. I'm creeping up on 50. This is a great gig for them.

 

But no.

 

That can't happen because you can't be trusted to take care of yourself.

[Chef Jim]

Thank you.

 

The argument will go "people who opt out will need care if they fail to save so we must provide for everyone."

 

Motherment.

 

But this "eliminating" SS for those with "substantial" retirement income is not taking care of everyone. Only taking care of those who did not plan. Now once again I have to problem helping those who are truly in need but for those who'd rather spend their disposable income on big screen TVs, boats and homes they couldn't affort to begin with....fug em.

 

It's not that hard. You save $100 per week from the age of 25 to 65 and invest it conservatively you'll have a nest egg that can generate nearly $70k a year. I know I've put more than that into SS and I'll recieve nowhere near that amount. So let me keep my money and do with it what I know is right.

[MrNix]

The more you pay in, the bigger your benefit at retirement.

I understand my statement and how it works. My question was for the poster who said that benefits are paid to those who never contributed to the system. I can't find any reference that says people who haven't worked can collect it?

[KD in CA]

Someone can collect social security without working and paying into the system? why do i get sent a statement that tells me how much my benefits are based upon my past earnings? I tried to find this answer online, but best i could do was find the minimum payment which is still based on some minimum years of work.

 

Yes, someone can collect without paying into the system. I know people who immigrated to the US in their 60s, never worked a day in this country and receive a SS check every month. There are billions lost to loopholes and outright fraud in the system.

 

But rather than address that, all we'll hear is how some people should continue to pay more.

[Magox]

He didn't say reducing SS for people making over $400k he said:

 

 

 

There is the word eliminating and what on earth would they consider substantial Non-Social Security inome? If they're going to potentially eliminate my benefit then they should allow me to opt out of the system. I'll take care of it myself.

Well he did say reducing or eliminating. Anyway, the point that I was making was that I liked the idea of increasing the age for S.S benefits, the details can be hashed out later. Also, in regards to reducing pay for those with more most likely will need to be an option on the table. Remember, it's not an issue of how to do it, but how to achieve this politically, which is a reality that everyone has to keep in mind. So there will have to be compromise with the other side of the aisle, and obviously this fits the bill.

[Bill from NYC]

Yes, someone can collect without paying into the system. I know people who immigrated to the US in their 60s, never worked a day in this country and receive a SS check every month. There are billions lost to loopholes and outright fraud in the system.

 

But rather than address that, all we'll hear is how some people should continue to pay more.

 

Agreed. I don't ever hear anybody discussing this.

 

Other than this, of the handfull of issues I might be considered to be "liberal" about is Social Security. I have an issue with people not paying after they make 100K, or whatever the limit is. Sorry, but a person making 80 is subject to paying SS tax on all of his income, while a person making a million only pays on 10% or so. This is NOT to say that I think the higher earners shouldn't receive a bigger benefit, because they would deserve it.

 

But then again, I can understand how people would not want to do this considering how money is given away as you stated.

[Chef Jim]

Agreed. I don't ever hear anybody discussing this.

 

Other than this, of the handfull of issues I might be considered to be "liberal" about is Social Security. I have an issue with people not paying after they make 100K, or whatever the limit is. Sorry, but a person making 80 is subject to paying SS tax on all of his income, while a person making a million only pays on 10% or so. This is NOT to say that I think the higher earners shouldn't receive a bigger benefit, because they would deserve it.

 

But then again, I can understand how people would not want to do this considering how money is given away as you stated.

 

Sorry man, but it there is a cap on the benefit there needs to be a cap on the contribution.

[erynthered]

I want my money back!!

[KD in CA]

Bottom line: like all Ponzi schemes, SS will eventually crash in a spectacular disaster.