Possible Social Security Fix

[TUMU]

Interesting opinion.
I pretty much agreed with all of it. Especially the minimum 3% of all income, for what Soc Sec identifies as high income earners.


There’s an easy fix to fund Social Security. Does Congress have the courage to do it? | Opinion
BIGSTOCK

Just 6% of Americans enjoy a big break on their FICA payments. Reducing that would make things easier for the other 94%.
There’s an easy fix to fund Social Security. Does Congress have the courage to do it? | Opinion
BY DON BENDETTI
SPECIAL TO THE KANSAS CITY STAR
14 hours ago
There is an easy solution to Social Security funding — should Congress have the courage to pursue it. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is a U.S. federal payroll tax. All workers pay FICA, which is deducted from each paycheck. However, there are a few things most people do not know about these taxes.

First, there are two components to the tax: Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%). These amounts, which come up to 7.65%, are also matched by your employer and credited to your account. Social Security is the money you receive each month after you retire, which could be as early as age 62. Medicare is your government-provided health care benefits, which you typically begin to collect at age 65. Either benefit can start earlier based on certain circumstances.

But what many people do not know is that the 6.2% Social Security tax is only paid on annual income below $168,600 for 2024. This ceiling number increases each year with inflation. And self-employed people pay both the employer and employee portion for themselves, totaling 12.4% up to the earnings cap.

So, when high earners reach this ceiling, they stop paying for the year. It’s like getting a temporary raise for some. Yet, the 1.45% Medicare tax continues to be paid on all earnings, with no cap.

According to the Social Security Administration, roughly 6% of covered workers exceed the earnings cap every year. That leaves most of us — 94% — to pay the tax on all of our earnings.

My question is why do those 6% of high earners get to stop paying while others who earn less have to pay on all of their income each year? And at the same time, because such high earners can afford to, they normally take more income tax deductions and deferrals than the rest of us — including things such as contributing more to their 401(K) accounts, health savings accounts and individual retirement accounts, deducting mortgage interest, deferring compensation, taking advantage of breaks for stock ownership and so on.

So now, in my opinion, we can realize the most rational solution to the Social Security funding issue. Besides cutting all the unnecessary political pork barrel and quid pro quo spending, the Social Security tax should be paid on all income by all workers, as it is currently done with the Medicare tax. If not that, another option would be to reduce the Social Security rate after a certain income level is met to something like 3% instead of capping it altogether. This still would not only ensure Social Security benefits for future generations, but it would also provide additional funding to support other critical federal and state programs.

And easy solution, yes. Congress having the courage to do it, not so much.

Now I know this suggestion will cause some angst among some high earners. And since I was once one of them, I understand the feeling. So, if someone has a more equitable solution for saving this critical benefit for current and future generations, please speak up.

Don Bendetti retired after 30 years of experience as a human resource executive with large domestic and international organizations and eight years teaching at the graduate and undergraduate university level. He lives in Kansas City, Missouri.

 

[lawpoke87]

Those 6% of high earners get to stop paying at a certain income cap because their social securities payment calculation is also capped at a certain income number. Weird someone doing a story on SS doesn’t understand the reasoning.

All of that said, it’s not a bad idea. You’re going to either increase the SS tax or decrease benefits. Increase the tax on the rich is much more politically attractive than reducing benefits or increasing SS tax on all workers. Will our leaders have the courage to finally tackle this problem? I’m not holding my breath.

 

[aTUfan]

privatize.

instead of the gov taking my money, it goes into my owe retirement account. upon retirement I get monthly non-taxed withdrawals and upon my death it goes to my heirs.

 

[astonmartin708]

privatize.

instead of the gov taking my money, it goes into my owe retirement account. upon retirement I get monthly non-taxed withdrawals and upon my death it goes to my heirs.

No hell no.

 

[aTUfan]

No hell no.

If my ss deduction, about 10k/yr, had gone into my owe retirement account. After 50 years of working, my retirement account would be worth over $1,000,000.00.

in retirement I dont touch the principle, i live off the intrest 40k+/yr, 4%.

Now I am not dependent on the gov, and it is part of my estate.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If my ss deduction, about 10k/yr, had gone into my owe retirement account. After 50 years of working, my retirement account would be worth over $1,000,000.00.

in retirement I dont touch the principle, i live off the intrest 40k+/yr, 4%.

Now I am not dependent on the gov, and it is part of my estate.

And all of the lower wage employees are dependent on the state, and you can't walk for the homeless in the US, who are in bad health. Only a few latin American countries do it like you are talking about, and latin american countries are no models on how to run a country.

All first world countries run on a system that works on the same principles as ours. If your city was like San Francisco, you'd be bitching about that. Everybody doesn't live on your principles of only look out for yourself in everything you do.

Talk about the government(legislatures) borrowing from it and not paying it back. That's a big part of the problem.

 

[lawpoke87]

And all of the lower wage employees are dependent on the state, and you can't walk for the homeless in the US, who are in bad health. Only a few latin American countries do it like you are talking about, and latin american countries are no models on how to run a country.

All first world countries run on a system that works on the same principles as ours. If your city was like San Francisco, you'd be bitching about that. Everybody doesn't live on your principles of only look out for yourself in everything you do.

Talk about the government(legislatures) borrowing from it and not paying it back. That's a big part of the problem.

If a non government entity had done with its employees retirement accounts what our government has done with SS they would be in prison. They knew the demographics. They knew the actuary tables. Yet they chose to take the SS excess to the general budget to spend as they wish. Without a single thought to the retirees down the line. This debt isn’t even on on balance sheet. You would be shocked to discover how many people actually believe the money is sitting in the SS trust fun for future payouts. The maintenance of SS is one of the more disgraceful acts in the history of our federal government.

 

[drboobay]

Those 6% of high earners get to stop paying at a certain income cap because their social securities payment calculation is also capped at a certain income number. Weird someone doing a story on SS doesn’t understand the reasoning.

This here.

It is generous of you to assume lack of understanding.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If a non government entity had done with its employees retirement accounts what our government has done with SS they would be in prison. They knew the demographics. They knew the actuary tables. Yet they chose to take the SS excess to the general budget to spend as they wish. Without a single thought to the retirees down the line. This debt isn’t even on on balance sheet. You would be shocked to discover how many people actually believe the money is sitting in the SS trust fun for future payouts. The maintenance of SS is one of the more disgraceful acts in the history of our federal government.

They need to put regulations in place that stop this abuse from ever happening again. Then they need to put in unfair regulations that would make it solvent within a set of variables. Things like raising the age of retirement a few years, or raising the cap you have to pay in without raising the cap you get in payments, or cutting the payments to the wealthy that think of the whole thing as small change, or raise the % taken out of your check a certain percentage.(except for those who make a set amount of minimum income)

Then they need to do a study about how long it would take for SS to become healthy again, and sunset the temporary changes they made for that period. I think they need to do all of that, and lessen how much they need to do that to any one individual, and shorten the period they need to do it.

1)For instance adding 4 years to the retirement age if it would make it solvent in 15 years. 2)Or if raising the cap on collection from 168k to 200k without payment above that cap would make it solvent in 15 years. 3)Or paying 1/2 the maximum amount to folks who earn 800K+ per year would make it solvent in 15 years. 4)Or raising the social security amount taken out of your check by 1.5% would make it solvent in 15 years etc, etc.

Then they should raise the retirement age by 1.5 years, raise the cap to 185K without payment above that cap, cut payment to those making 1M+ per year by 25%, and raise the tax % taken out of your check by .75%. Ideally doing all this would make it solvent in 10 or 12 years, and you sunset it there. You put in requirements that have to be met to sunset it, stats that mean it is a healthy solvent fund. So it wouldn't be set for a specific time that arrives when those stats are met, and give solid estimates on when that could take place. You write the bill up such there are no loopholes that certain groups can get out of the increased cost to them for that initial time period, such that they cannot delay the sunset when those stats are met, and that ways of abuse can never happen again.

Everybody suffers a little for the shortest period possible, except those that cannot provide for themselves after the changes. It's over as soon as it can be, and we move on with a SS that can never again be made insolvent by the government.

I'm sure my figures are all off, I just threw #'s in there to give you an idea about the sort of plan I was proposing. For instance it might be 25 years for any of those individual plans would make it solvent. And 16 years before all of those plans together would make it solvent. I'm just wanting to set up guidelines of the kind of plan I think would be better for the public, in how it would least affect any one individual drastically, and keep it to the shortest period.

They aren't fair to anybody, but it would be a short term fix to get it back in a workable state, and stop it from ever becoming problematic again. I might change my mind, depending on how long it would take to make it solvent, but I can't say anything about that until I see a study on it. If it takes 43 years to make it solvent with this sort of plan, I'd have to think about it a little more. That would be harder to convince the public to withstand these changes for that long.

 

[lawpoke87]

Haven’t they’ve raised the full benefit age to 67 from 65?

 

[TUMU]

This here.

It is generous of you to assume lack of understanding.

I think Don Bendetti is aware there is not only a limit of annual income that is subject to social security tax, there is also a maximum dollar amount of social security payouts an individual can receive a year.
Don had been a high income earner as a HR executive, can't imagine he doesn't know both sides of maximum tax and maximum payout.

 

[drboobay]

They need to put regulations in place that stop this abuse from ever happening again. Then they need to put in unfair regulations that would make it solvent within a set of variables. Things like raising the age of retirement a few years, or raising the cap you have to pay in without raising the cap you get in payments, or cutting the payments to the wealthy that think of the whole thing as small change, or raise the % taken out of your check a certain percentage.(except for those who make a set amount of minimum income)

Then they need to do a study about how long it would take for SS to become healthy again, and sunset the temporary changes they made for that period. I think they need to do all of that, and lessen how much they need to do that to any one individual, and shorten the period they need to do it.

1)For instance adding 4 years to the retirement age if it would make it solvent in 15 years. 2)Or if raising the cap on collection from 168k to 200k without payment above that cap would make it solvent in 15 years. 3)Or paying 1/2 the maximum amount to folks who earn 800K+ per year would make it solvent in 15 years. 4)Or raising the social security amount taken out of your check by 1.5% would make it solvent in 15 years etc, etc.

Then they should raise the retirement age by 1.5 years, raise the cap to 185K without payment above that cap, cut payment to those making 1M per year by 25%, and raise the tax % taken out of your check by .75%. Ideally doing all this would make it solvent in 10 or 12 years, and you sunset it there. You put in requirements that have to be met to sunset it, stats that mean it is a healthy solvent fund. So it wouldn't be set for a specific time that arrives when those stats are met, and give solid estimates on when that could take place. You write the bill up such there are no loopholes that certain groups can get out of the increased cost to them for that initial time period, such that they cannot delay the sunset when those stats are met, and that ways of abuse can never happen again.

Everybody suffers a little for the shortest period possible, except those that cannot provide for themselves after the changes. It's over as soon as it can be, and we move on with a SS that can never again be made insolvent by the government.

I'm sure my figures are all off, I just threw #'s in there to give you an idea about the sort of plan I was proposing. For instance it might be 25 years for any of those individual plans would make it solvent. And 16 years before all of those plans together would make it solvent. I'm just wanting to set up guidelines of the kind of plan I think would be better for the public, in how it would least affect any one individual drastically, and keep it to the shortest period.

They aren't fair to anybody, but it would be a short term fix to get it back in a workable state, and stop it from ever becoming problematic again. I might change my mind, depending on how long it would take to make it solvent, but I can't say anything about that until I see a study on it. If it takes 43 years to make it solvent with this sort of plan, I'd have to think about it a little more. That would be harder to convince the public to withstand these changes for that long.

I like this. Very practical. Many small changes instead of one big change.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Haven’t they’ve raised the full benefit age to 67 from 65?

Ok, to be more correct, raise it again. To 68.5 in my example.

 

[drboobay]

I think Don Bendetti is aware there is not only a limit of annual income that is subject to social security tax, there is also a maximum dollar amount of social security payouts an individual can receive a year.
Don had been a high income earner as a HR executive, can't imagine he doesn't know both sides of maximum tax and maximum payout.

Precisely.

He is casually omitting this to make a more compelling argument.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Throwing in a small sin tax, might help it get there a little faster as well.
(.5% on gambling/liquour/marijuana/cigarettes)

 

[TUMU]

Haven’t they’ve raised the full benefit age to 67 from 65?

Yes, maybe 10 years ago, because of the projected short fall that was realized about the same time, along with many of us baby boomers are living longer than what was expected 40 years ago.
Along with the mismanagement by government of Soc Sec funds collected and some other things, we have the big mess now.
No easy fix. Most everyone going to have some pain to fix what's broken.

Soc Sec and national debt, both problems need to be addressed and fixed.
Both political parties need to come together, compromise and fix. Haha.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Soc Sec and national debt, both problems need to be addressed and fixed.
Both political parties need to come together, compromise and fix.

My laughter was on this phrase. Can you see congress even getting close to coming together. You are right, but I can't even comprehend how this type of bill would be butchered, if it ever was even proposed.

 

[lawpoke87]

Throwing in a small sin tax, might help it get there a little faster as well.
(.5% on gambling/liquour/marijuana/cigarettes)

One of the problems is that we’re running a $2T yearly deficit in a time with no national crisis. We’re going to have to find additional revenue sources because no one in DC is cutting spending. SS is only one of the areas where we need additional revenue….lots of additional revenue. Where does it come from and how does taking say $1T yearly out of the economic equation affect things like gdp growth, jobs, etc…

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You’re going to either increase the SS tax or decrease benefits.

You could decrease the benefits by $5/mo to all of those in any bracket but the lowest as well.

That way sinners, retirees, wealthy, upper middle class, middle class, youth, and older, all take a little bit out for a short while.

 

[TUMU]

One of the problems is that we’re running a $2T yearly deficit in a time with no national crisis. We’re going to have to find additional revenue sources because no one in DC is cutting spending. SS is only one of the areas where we need additional revenue….lots of additional revenue. Where does it come from and how does taking say $1T yearly out of the economic equation affect things like gdp growth, jobs, etc…

I don’t have answers. Some people smarter than me, need to address what you ask and the devastating consequences if not fixed. The additional new debt every day is a big problem.

 

[TUMU]

You could decrease the benefits by $5/mo to all of those in any bracket but the lowest as well.

That way sinners, retirees, wealthy, upper middle class, middle class, youth, and older, all take a little bit out for a short while.

I'm still working, my choice and paying into Soc Sec.
Could be retired and receiving Soc Sec. I'm helping Soc Sec, lol.
Won't work until 70, probably wait until 70 to start receiving Soc Sec, unless life expectancy shortened.

 

[lawpoke87]

I don’t have answers. Some people smarter than me, need to address what you ask and the devastating consequences if not fixed. The additional new debt every day is a big problem.

You don’t gain political favor by cutting what people are getting from the government or taking more taxes from people. Thus we tend to do neither. Just watch the debt grow and grow. Politicians are fortunate that most of the electorate either don’t understand the debt service equation or simply don’t care. Nothing will be done until the level of debt service becomes unsustainable. Things go downhill fairly quickly once the point of unsustainable is reached. I’m convinced it’s not a matter of if but when.

 

[HuffyCane]

You don’t gain political favor by cutting what people are getting from the government or taking more taxes from people. Thus we tend to do neither. Just watch the debt grow and grow. Politicians are fortunate that most of the electorate either don’t understand the debt service equation or simply don’t care. Nothing will be done until the level of debt service becomes unsustainable. Things go downhill fairly quickly once the point of unsustainable is reached. I’m convinced it’s not a matter of if but when.

I’m convinced it’s a miracle it hasn’t already happened and worry it has but we haven’t seen the consequences yet due to the sheer size of the economy/government.

 

[watu05]

Social Security "fixes" would have been a lot less painful had they been started earlier. The inability of Congress to address the issue only means it will be more painful later. Our current system was the result of a 'fix' adopted in the 90's when Congress was capable for agreeing on legislation. Now we have a party in control of the House which can't even agree within itself. Whatever the 'fix' is...delaying qualification or increasing income or whatever, it needs to start now.

Future generations are definitely not going to call Boomers "the greatest generation".

 

[lawpoke87]

Social Security "fixes" would have been a lot less painful had they been started earlier. The inability of Congress to address the issue only means it will be more painful later. Our current system was the result of a 'fix' adopted in the 90's when Congress was capable for agreeing on legislation. Now we have a party in control of the House which can't even agree within itself. Whatever the 'fix' is...delaying qualification or increasing income or whatever, it needs to start now.

Future generations are definitely not going to call Boomers "the greatest generation".

Pointless to “fix” SS without addressing the current deficits as a whole. We need a broad based deficits reduction plan which includes SS as a keep piece of the package. The only way such a large project gets started is if the Biden Admin makes a proposal. We know where this is headed. Time for some leadership from our political leadership on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Pointless to “fix” SS without addressing the current deficits as a whole. We need a broad based deficits reduction plan which includes SS as a keep piece of the package. The only way such a large project gets started is if the Biden Admin makes a proposal. We know where this is headed. Time for some leadership from our political leadership on both sides of the aisle.

You know the Biden Admin won't make that proposal. You also know that if they did the GOP wouldn't let it go anywhere. The Gaetz's & Marjorie Taylor Greene's of the party are crippling the GOP.(Our worst instincts are epitomized in the Gaetz's & Green's. ) They can't even stop infighting, much less come to an agreement on any real legislation.

 

[lawpoke87]

You know the Biden Admin won't make that proposal. You also know that if they did the GOP wouldn't let it go anywhere. The Gaetz's & Marjorie Taylor Greene's of the party are crippling the GOP.(Our worst instincts are epitomized in the Gaetz's & Green's. ) They can't even stop infighting, much less come to an agreement on any on any real legislation.

On large bills such as the one it would take to attack our budget woes the White House almost always has to set that agenda. Regardless of which party holds the Oval Office. Up to the Biden Admin to tell the American people the gravity of our current situation and make a proposal. Then they must hold the other party’s feet to the fire to work with them for a solution. The White House will have to set that agenda and lead. They have the bully pulpit

 

[astonmartin708]

I like this. Very practical. Many small changes instead of one big change.

The problem is that the changes would be unlikely to ever sunset.

 

[astonmartin708]

On large bills such as the one it would take to attack our budget woes the White House almost always has to set that agenda. Regardless of which party holds the Oval Office. Up to the Biden Admin to tell the American people the gravity of our current situation and make a proposal. Then they must hold the other party’s feet to the fire to work with them for a solution. The White House will have to set that agenda and lead. They have the bully pulpit

Neither party will do this.

 

[lawpoke87]

Neither party will do this.

^^^ 100% correct

 

[astonmartin708]

So let’s form a new party that will. Change the world for the better.

 

[lawpoke87]

So let’s form a new party that will. Change the world for the better.

Such a tall task given the money and media control of the two major parties. Anytime a third party threat enters the political scene the media backed by the two political parties go on the attack.

 

[aTUfan]

The problem is that the changes would be unlikely to ever sunset.

Quit Giving money to people who never contributed

 

[Gmoney4WW]

On large bills such as the one it would take to attack our budget woes the White House almost always has to set that agenda. Regardless of which party holds the Oval Office. Up to the Biden Admin to tell the American people the gravity of our current situation and make a proposal. Then they must hold the other party’s feet to the fire to work with them for a solution. The White House will have to set that agenda and lead. They have the bully pulpit

As far as I know, the longest they've ever taken to pass a spending bill has been feb 5, for 2021. It took them till Mar 24 this year. Thats 1 week short of 6 mos, to have them pass a final budget bill, instead of delaying it again with stop gap spending. How do expect the administration or the GOP would handle themselves with a bill requiring real cooperation and compromise?

Even if the White House wanted to propose something like this, Trump wouldn't let them pass a bill like this now. You saw what he did to the immigration bill. The democrats compromised as much as they ever have recently, and Trump blocked it, such that the democrats couldn't use it on the campaign trail. He wouldn't take the win by passing the bill, and try to turn it into an argument for the Republicans.

Do you honestly think Trump wouldn't block a bill like this? A reformed spending bill, which deals with fixing our social security system, and begins working on our deficit problem would go nowhere right now. I don't have much hope for a similar bill during the next presidential term, but it has no shot now.

You know what kind of stranglehold Trumps lapdogs have in congress. They block anything Trump doesn't want. That's the problem with defense bills for Israel & Ukraine right now. He's having our Speaker of the House meet with him in the next day or so, wanting him to kneel and take orders. If he doesn't follow those orders then Trump will likely have him tossed out, and go for Speaker of the House #3.(four if you skip back and count Paul Ryan)

 

[lawpoke87]

As far as I know, the longest they've ever taken to pass a spending bill has been feb 5, for 2021. It took them till Mar 24 this year. Thats 1 week short of 6 mos, to have them pass a final budget bill, instead of delaying it again with stop gap spending. How do expect the administration or the GOP would handle themselves with a bill requiring real cooperation and compromise?

Even if the White House wanted to propose something like this, Trump wouldn't let them pass a bill like this now. You saw what he did to the immigration bill. The democrats compromised as much as they ever have recently, and Trump blocked it, such that the democrats couldn't use it on the campaign trail. He wouldn't take the win by passing the bill, and try to turn it into an argument for the Republicans.

Do you honestly think Trump wouldn't block a bill like this? A reformed spending bill, which deals with fixing our social security system, and begins working on our deficit problem would go nowhere right now. I don't have much hope for a similar bill during the next presidential term, but it has no shot now.

You know what kind of stranglehold Trumps lapdogs have in congress. They block anything Trump doesn't want. That's the problem with defense bills for Israel & Ukraine right now. He's having our Speaker of the House meet with him in the next day or so, wanting him to kneel and take orders. If he doesn't follow those orders then Trump will likely have him tossed out, and go for Speaker of the House #3.(four if you skip back and count Paul Ryan)

I don’t care what Trump would or would not do. This is a crisis. The Admin is under a duty present to problem and set forth a proposed solution. If Trump wants to torpedo it then the Dems use it in their fall campaign.

Truth be told, neither party has the bravery to propose meaningful SS reform and debt reduction. It is what it is and why we are speeding toward a fiscal calamity. Neither party has the high ground here

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I don’t care what Trump would or would not do. This is a crisis. The Admin is under a duty present to problem and set forth a proposed solution. If Trump wants to torpedo it then the Dems use it in their fall campaign.

Truth be told, neither party has the bravery to propose meaningful SS reform and debt reduction. It is what it is and why we are speeding toward a fiscal calamity. Neither party has the high ground here

True, on the first paragraph. I never meant to imply either party had the high ground. I was only pointing out that it would never get through congress if it were even proposed. The immigration bill and a proposed bill of this nature, which made big compromises,(similar to immigration bill) would be a strong argument against Trump in the campaign. Apparently they don't see it that way.

It really wouldn't pose much of a risk for the Democrats. They wouldn't have to give in to whatever compromises they made against Democratic positions during this term. I can guarantee you Trump would never let it get through congress. The Democrats would probably never have to show their true mettle by even voting on it. A lot of the progressives wouldn't want to vote on it, from my impression on the issue.

 

[HuffyCane]

I don’t care what Trump would or would not do. This is a crisis. The Admin is under a duty present to problem and set forth a proposed solution. If Trump wants to torpedo it then the Dems use it in their fall campaign.

Truth be told, neither party has the bravery to propose meaningful SS reform and debt reduction. It is what it is and why we are speeding toward a fiscal calamity. Neither party has the high ground here

Mostly true. Elements of the Republican Party tried for years, mostly in the late 80’s and 90’s, to undertake common sense Main Street reforms. What they got for their trouble was endless attack ads scaring seniors to the polls to vote them out of office. Which happened enough the moderates on both sides won’t touch it now. Indeed, much of the modern day framework of anonymous attack ads supposedly unconnected to candidates found its genesis in this type of fear mongering/electioneering. What they also got was some colleagues in league with rogue elements of Wall Street looking to do things like privatize the operation. For every patriot Republican trying to reform SS and make it buoyant, there was a crank in a safe seat lobbing bombs or spinning fairy tales of a Wall Street take over who could get a better return and lower the tax rate. Seated next to them was a salad bar of Democrats looking to raise the rate and expand the number of beneficiaries because they couldn’t get their aging New Deal programs through traditional budget means. Some are still doing it. Though Obama’s people do get credit for conceding that reforms were needed, but they realized they didn’t have any political cover and started talking about taking any improvements from reforms and a portion be paid out to an expanded number of beneficiaries. Basically we need to spend 40% of proposed savings. Good plan there guys. Gore borrowed from both camps. He said Bush wanted to put Social Security at risk and that he had a “lock box” plan to reform it (which was an off the shelf plan proposed by Republican reformers two years prior defeated by the Dems in a party line vote including Gore himself) but that those savings such help expand payments above inflation and allow more people on the rolls before retirement. At least Gore wanted to ensure long term financial stability of the fund before we start paying for things Medicaid should be paying for but can’t get through Congress.

Tocqueville warned that one of the very few flaws in our system is that we can’t manage or restrain entitlements paid directly to voters. I’m afraid your answer is that our system just isn’t cut out for comprehensive entitlement reform. It may take a large group of Mattis like figures, unimpeachable in their patriotism and unquestioned in their disinterest in political ambition, to have a direct discussion with the American people about it. Literally a cadre of General Washingtons. And the context will be that we can no longer protect the nation if the current path continues. Such a conversation will have to be impeccably timed, but would likely come too late.

And if you are scoring at home. If you had taken all the new spending under Biden and put into SS, it would be solvent for the next 40 years. Enjoy those bridges and tax breaks for EV scamsters folks!

 

[TUMU]

I've voted in every Presidetial election since I was of voting age.
With that being said, I am so frustrated with the the political landscape. Both parties are at fault for the mess we are in, the lack of addressing and coming to agreement with compromise to fix the problems.
The extremist to the far side of both parties are ridiculous in my opinion.
We need better from both political parties.

 

[aTUfan]

blame game.

 

[astonmartin708]

Quit Giving money to people who never contributed

There are quite a few wealthy folks who I could say the same about outside of this social security conversation.