Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts

[mystery-ak]

 Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts
by Aris Folley - 01/25/23 6:00 AM ET

Some senators are eyeing a divided Congress as an opportunity to tackle reforms to Social Security, as the program faces significant solvency issues in little more than a decade.

Changes to Social Security are a perpetually heavy lift for Congress, but they’ve gained traction as some House Republicans float cuts to it as part of debt ceiling negotiations.

“A wise senator said that whenever you see reforms shore up those kinds of programs, it usually takes a divided Congress,” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) told The Hill this week.

“So, maybe that historically bodes well for something that would make sure that Americans have a secure retirement system,” he added.

Senate Republicans are generally leaving debt ceiling negotiations to the GOP-controlled House.

But separately, there has been growing chatter from both parties in the upper chamber about potential ways to help protect Social Security, which some estimates say is on track to becoming insolvent in about 12 years.

Reports surfaced last week that Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Angus King (I-Maine) are working toward a bipartisan compromise to help protect the program, unrelated to debt ceiling negotiations. Semafor, which broke the news, reported the effort could lead to an investment fund specifically to help shore up Social Security.

The senators’ offices confirmed to The Hill last week that both Cassidy and King “have been working on a legislative solution,” but said the “plan is not finalized.” 

more
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3829067-senators-eye-social-security-reforms-as-some-in-house-gop-consider-cuts/

[cato potatoe]

Something has to give, and soon.  My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970.  SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.

[Kamaji]

Something has to give, and soon.  My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970.  SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.

Agreed.  And it should be means-tested, so that the benefit is reserved to those who really need a security net.

[Smokin Joe]

Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
There are a lot of ways to 'save money', but those who paid for a benefit are mentioned first. Regardless of what anyone says, that's how it was sold to the recipients, and some of us have paid in over half a century (still not collecting benefits), chasing the moving targets of exemption and full benefits.
I'm not against the idea of means testing, nor against reforms to move those just coming into the workforce into something different, but with the war on my profession, the rampant printing of money to pay off people not even Americans here and abroad, and the inflation that has fostered, along with the rest of the policies that now, despite my best efforts guarantee I will have to continue working as long as I am able, even if I collect the SS benefits I am told are due me. Government policy and the outright attack on my industry while subsidizing "alternatives" has not only directly affected me, but devastated my portfolio.

For those of you in better shape, I am happy. I get it. You don't need it, so you are willing to toss it, even call it an "entitlement" like welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, but there are a lot of people who put their faith in a program they paid into who will be left in the cold.

If nothing else, just give me my money back, and I'll get by. Don't bother to tax it again.

[EdinVA]

Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
There are a lot of ways to 'save money', but those who paid for a benefit are mentioned first. Regardless of what anyone says, that's how it was sold to the recipients, and some of us have paid in over half a century (still not collecting benefits), chasing the moving targets of exemption and full benefits.
I'm not against the idea of means testing, nor against reforms to move those just coming into the workforce into something different, but with the war on my profession, the rampant printing of money to pay off people not even Americans here and abroad, and the inflation that has fostered, along with the rest of the policies that now, despite my best efforts guarantee I will have to continue working as long as I am able, even if I collect the SS benefits I am told are due me. Government policy and the outright attack on my industry while subsidizing "alternatives" has not only directly affected me, but devastated my portfolio.

For those of you in better shape, I am happy. I get it. You don't need it, so you are willing to toss it, even call it an "entitlement" like welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, but there are a lot of people who put their faith in a program they paid into who will be left in the cold.

If nothing else, just give me my money back, and I'll get by. Don't bother to tax it again.

And how about the nearly $60 billion in foreign aid?

[Smokin Joe]

And how about the nearly $60 billion in foreign aid?

Yep, to people who aren't Americans who aren't even here...

[DefiantMassRINO]

I look forward to being dead well before I reach the eligibility age for Social Security.

[Kamaji]

Where is the discussion of limiting Welfare benefits (not paid for), especially for illegals--or how about just evicting them altogether? Where is the talk of putting the FedGov back in its Constitutional cage and reducing expenditures that way?
There are a lot of ways to 'save money', but those who paid for a benefit are mentioned first. Regardless of what anyone says, that's how it was sold to the recipients, and some of us have paid in over half a century (still not collecting benefits), chasing the moving targets of exemption and full benefits.
I'm not against the idea of means testing, nor against reforms to move those just coming into the workforce into something different, but with the war on my profession, the rampant printing of money to pay off people not even Americans here and abroad, and the inflation that has fostered, along with the rest of the policies that now, despite my best efforts guarantee I will have to continue working as long as I am able, even if I collect the SS benefits I am told are due me. Government policy and the outright attack on my industry while subsidizing "alternatives" has not only directly affected me, but devastated my portfolio.

For those of you in better shape, I am happy. I get it. You don't need it, so you are willing to toss it, even call it an "entitlement" like welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, but there are a lot of people who put their faith in a program they paid into who will be left in the cold.

If nothing else, just give me my money back, and I'll get by. Don't bother to tax it again.

What benefit did you pay for?  Not social security, or medicare, for that matter.  You paid income taxes to the federal government - and your employer paid an excise tax on your employment - you most certainly did not pay for an annuity or any other contractual or binding benefit.

It's painful when your favorite ox gets gored, ain't it.

[GtHawk]

Something has to give, and soon.  My preference would be to increase the full retirement age from 67 to 72 for people born after 1970.  SSA is already a ripoff for the high wage earners … we don’t need to soak them any more to fund this scheme.

How about excluding anyone that crossed the border illegally...forever.

[Smokin Joe]

What benefit did you pay for?  Not social security, or medicare, for that matter.  You paid income taxes to the federal government - and your employer paid an excise tax on your employment - you most certainly did not pay for an annuity or any other contractual or binding benefit.

It's painful when your favorite ox gets gored, ain't it.

Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So  quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Tell that F.I.C.A. guy to stop deducting/withholding my employee contribution to Social Security from my paycheck if I'm not paying into Social Security.

[Kamaji]

Tell that F.I.C.A. guy to stop deducting/withholding my employee contribution to Social Security from my paycheck if I'm not paying into Social Security.

Have you actually paid attention to what you're paying?  It's right there in the IRC, in relatively clear language - it's an income tax, plain and simple.  You're not paying for anything you're entitled to any more than you are when you pay the regular income tax, or the AMT, for that matter.

[Kamaji]

Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So  quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.

Actually, no, you're not.  You're paying an income tax.  The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact.  Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.

Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.

[EdinVA]

Actually, no, you're not.  You're paying an income tax.  The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact.  Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.

Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.

The continual efforts to impose guilt on folks for following the law is tiresome.  Congress does what congress does and trying hold folks responsible for congressional corruption and deceit is beyond reasonable.We all made a deal to pay the tax and we all allowed the government to piss it away. 

[berdie]

Actually I did pay for Social Security. When I signed up, that is what we were told. As for Medicare, yeah, I'm paying for that even now, or didn't you know that the government gets a couple grand a year for the basics, and I pay for additional coverage to take up the slack in that. Total cost is about 3500/year. So  quit glorying in my ox getting gored, it may be your ox someday, too. If you are independently wealthy, good on you, but that can change. Ten years ago I was sitting pretty, events since have done away with that. Life happens.

When you and I went to work...nobody asked if this deduction was what we would like to have. It was a law, there was no choice. So in that respect, I will agree that it was like any other kind of tax.
However, the US Government sold it as an annuity of sorts. This is not Bernie Madoff we are talking about...it is the freakin' US government. People had a choice to invest or not in these Madoff  schemes, Social Security...no such choice.

I agree that the burden for elder care should be on families and churches if they can't take care of themselves. But that is no longer the case as it was in the past. The Walton's Era is dead. Most of the Family are in worse shape financially than the person who needs the help. Churches can only do so much.

From what I have read, SS was a way to keep people out of "the poor house" (there is actually the remains of one in my area, it ain't pretty) and off the streets. Even though not Constitutional, it served the needs (and bought the votes) at the time. So...why was this not voted down at the time, as opposed to people getting all ringtail about it now?

So, in closing this long post, I will say that maybe our illustrious Critters need to cut foreign aid and immigrant aid for a start. AND their own salaries before they renig on their obligations to the citizens of this country.

[berdie]

Actually, no, you're not.  You're paying an income tax.  The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact.  Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.

Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.

@Kamagi, I'm gonna take a leap here and assume you are a relatively younger person. You look at what the deduction is for SS/Medicare  and know you could invest those funds in a more efficient manner.

In truth, we all could have, given the choice.

[Fishrrman]

"Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts"

C'mon, guys.
All you young, willin' Republicans.
See this rail?

Go ahead and grab ahold of it.
It won't hurt you.
Really...

[Kamaji]

@Kamagi, I'm gonna take a leap here and assume you are a relatively younger person. You look at what the deduction is for SS/Medicare  and know you could invest those funds in a more efficient manner.

In truth, we all could have, given the choice.

@berdie I'm perfectly happy to assume, simply for the sake of argument, that all of us could have invested those funds that were taxed under the so-called social security tax, but that doesn't change the fact that those funds were extracted from us under the aegis of the U.S. federal income tax, which means that we weren't buying anything at all with those taxes, we were merely paying an income tax.

Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is quite explicit about that, to wit:

(a)Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).

"[ T]here is hereby imposed on the income of every individual" - this exactly mirrors the language used in Section 1, where the general income tax is imposed; to wit (with respect to unmarried individuals):

(c)Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual"

The same language when used in different parts of the same statute are generally given the same meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

Accordingly, the social security taxes are nothing more than just another income tax we pay, regardless of the lies that were told to sell the tax to teh American public originally.

[Idiot]

"Senators eye Social Security reforms as some in House GOP consider cuts"

C'mon, guys.
All you young, willin' Republicans.
See this rail?

Go ahead and grab ahold of it.
It won't hurt you.
Really...

As I quickly approach receiving SS.  Congress critters...keep your #%$@ hands off of it!

[Smokin Joe]

Actually, no, you're not.  You're paying an income tax.  The fact that you were lied to when the tax was first enacted, and that you continue to buy the lie, doesn't change that fact.  Read the d*mned tax code for once to see what you're actually liable for, and stop inhaling the smoke.

Boy, WADR, you're beginning to sound like a liberal on that one - it's my entitlement and I paid for it - which I know you are not, and therefore I find this one particular lacuna of yours to be most curious.

You show me no respect, so I must assume you think none is due. I know what we were told. If we were lied to or the law has been changed, well that's on those who did that, may they all rot in Hell.
BTW, having millions of pissed off old people who know how to deliver paybacks is not wise domestic policy. Give people nothing to lose, and they will guarantee you lose something, and they have over 182 billion years of collective life experience to figure out how to do all that.
Just saying there might be a lot of rich cats around, for starters.

[Cyber Liberty]

I can spot a Shill story from the headline these days.....

[berdie]

@berdie I'm perfectly happy to assume, simply for the sake of argument, that all of us could have invested those funds that were taxed under the so-called social security tax, but that doesn't change the fact that those funds were extracted from us under the aegis of the U.S. federal income tax, which means that we weren't buying anything at all with those taxes, we were merely paying an income tax.

Section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is quite explicit about that, to wit:

"[ T]here is hereby imposed on the income of every individual" - this exactly mirrors the language used in Section 1, where the general income tax is imposed; to wit (with respect to unmarried individuals):

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual"

The same language when used in different parts of the same statute are generally given the same meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

Accordingly, the social security taxes are nothing more than just another income tax we pay, regardless of the lies that were told to sell the tax to teh American public originally.

I understand this @Kamaji . But as I already said, this the Federal Government we are talking about...not Bernie Madoff.

If the intent of the SS and Medicare is "just another" tax then the deductions should be added to the FICA...not shown as separate line items on a payroll check stub. It would reduce confusion about intent. But then, I guess, it would increase the amount of tax paid when filing at the end of the year and reduce the amount of tax owed.

In any event, the "fund" should never have been included in the general fund. It's dishonest.

[Kamaji]

I understand this @Kamaji . But as I already said, this the Federal Government we are talking about...not Bernie Madoff.

If the intent of the SS and Medicare is "just another" tax then the deductions should be added to the FICA...not shown as separate line items on a payroll check stub. It would reduce confusion about intent. But then, I guess, it would increase the amount of tax paid when filing at the end of the year and reduce the amount of tax owed.

In any event, the "fund" should never have been included in the general fund. It's dishonest.

So you want to continue being lied to, and you want to continue to believe the lie?  Your choice.  But subjective choice cannot change what the plain language of the statutes says, and that is that the so-called social security tax is simply another income tax larded up on top of the regular income tax.  It most definitely is not the payment of some sort of purchase price for a retirement annuity.

[Smokin Joe]

So you want to continue being lied to, and you want to continue to believe the lie?  Your choice.  But subjective choice cannot change what the plain language of the statutes says, and that is that the so-called social security tax is simply another income tax larded up on top of the regular income tax.  It most definitely is not the payment of some sort of purchase price for a retirement annuity.

You are having fun, aren't you?  We need a middle finger emoji.

[Restored]

Make everyone on Social Security Disability re-apply for benefits.