Future of Social Security

[Ron Scott]

I mean, removing cap does close about 70% of the gap and also kicks the can on "HAVE TO REDUCE BENEFITS RIGHT NOW" about 25 years further down the road. Seems like raising that or eliminating it all-together should be a part of the solution. But that assumes this link between the payroll taxes and the benefit payouts has to remain the way it has been.

To me, a preferable would just pay this program out of the general budget rather than these dedicated funds that are little more than accounting entries. Might even pave the way to getting a UBI someday if we free ourselves from this assumption that SS has to be paid for out of dedicated revenue streams and funds.

Agree.

The dedicated fund approach seems to me like it’s run its course. Shifting to your general budget idea (and treating SS “contributions” like any other tax) can help straighten out everyone’s thinking about the SS benefit, hopefully as one that is directed to those in need vs. everyone who paid the tax for a specific period of time. Society can then think about reducing taxes by eliminating the benefit for those who don’t need it—or don’t need a SS check every month that is larger than those less fortunate!

Thinking of SS as some kind of annuity is not helpful long term.

[mistymoney]

And again, all we have to do is raise the FICA cap so high income earners are paying tax on all of their income like those under $170k.

BTW, this can put a big dent in the shortfall, but not eliminate it altogether.

What I like about it is it finally discards the myth that SS is an “insurance annuity plan” that pays back what was put in with interest. Then we can treat the “contributions” as what they really are: taxes. And we can start defining realistic eligibility requirements for recipients.

SS is a welfare program for old people. People who don’t need it shouldn’t get it and those who need some should get it on a sliding scale—not based on how much in SS taxes they paid. What sense does it make give more welfare $$ to people based on the fact that they EARNED MORE than others?

This could also eliminate the stupidity of taxing SS payments. You give me $100 and take $15 back? Stop the bullshit and just give me my $85. Etc.

The current plan seems nice until you stop to think how ridiculous it is.

These are your opinoins, not facts. Your postings in general are very light on facts, and very heavy on opinoins. Further, it seems you don't know the difference between the two.

Can you explain to us how you’re not confusing facts with conventions?

social security exists. it has rules and equations. These are facts.

I - like others on this thread - seek to identify potential changes to those rules to understand specific future outcomes for beneficiaries. This is speculation.

You continually push an idea of changing social security to need-based benefit. That is your opinoin.

And it is fine to have such an opinoin! But your constant pushing it into every nook and cranny of any discussion you think you can shoe-horn it into is not. We are all well aware of your opinoin. I disagree with it. And that is my opinoin.

It has been pointed out that the savings of your proposal would be minimal, and the costs of administering it would be great. You remain undeterred! Which again - fine! - but it points to your opinoins on this not being based purely on finances, more so as some emotional desire for social security to be need-based. That is also fine, if that is what you like.

But most people don't.

[Ron Scott]

And again, all we have to do is raise the FICA cap so high income earners are paying tax on all of their income like those under $170k.

BTW, this can put a big dent in the shortfall, but not eliminate it altogether.

What I like about it is it finally discards the myth that SS is an “insurance annuity plan” that pays back what was put in with interest. Then we can treat the “contributions” as what they really are: taxes. And we can start defining realistic eligibility requirements for recipients.

SS is a welfare program for old people. People who don’t need it shouldn’t get it and those who need some should get it on a sliding scale—not based on how much in SS taxes they paid. What sense does it make give more welfare $$ to people based on the fact that they EARNED MORE than others?

This could also eliminate the stupidity of taxing SS payments. You give me $100 and take $15 back? Stop the bullshit and just give me my $85. Etc.

The current plan seems nice until you stop to think how ridiculous it is.

These are your opinoins, not facts. Your postings in general are very light on facts, and very heavy on opinoins. Further, it seems you don't know the difference between the two.

Can you explain to us how you’re not confusing facts with conventions?

social security exists. it has rules and equations. These are facts.

I - like others on this thread - seek to identify potential changes to those rules to understand specific future outcomes for beneficiaries. This is speculation.

You continually push an idea of changing social security to need-based benefit. That is your opinoin.

LOL!

When someone states that SS should be fixed by increasing taxes it is not “speculation”. It is their (perfectly acceptable) opinion about addressing the shortfall. I think SS seems like a welfare program at its core and should be treated as such, with the amount of the payments reflecting human need vs. taxes paid in.  This my opinion.

As can be seem from the responses to the poll, opinions differ without a real consensus. This is to be expected and different opinions should be appreciated—in my opinion.

[mistymoney]

And again, all we have to do is raise the FICA cap so high income earners are paying tax on all of their income like those under $170k.

BTW, this can put a big dent in the shortfall, but not eliminate it altogether.

What I like about it is it finally discards the myth that SS is an “insurance annuity plan” that pays back what was put in with interest. Then we can treat the “contributions” as what they really are: taxes. And we can start defining realistic eligibility requirements for recipients.

SS is a welfare program for old people. People who don’t need it shouldn’t get it and those who need some should get it on a sliding scale—not based on how much in SS taxes they paid. What sense does it make give more welfare $$ to people based on the fact that they EARNED MORE than others?

This could also eliminate the stupidity of taxing SS payments. You give me $100 and take $15 back? Stop the bullshit and just give me my $85. Etc.

The current plan seems nice until you stop to think how ridiculous it is.

These are your opinoins, not facts. Your postings in general are very light on facts, and very heavy on opinoins. Further, it seems you don't know the difference between the two.

Can you explain to us how you’re not confusing facts with conventions?

social security exists. it has rules and equations. These are facts.

I - like others on this thread - seek to identify potential changes to those rules to understand specific future outcomes for beneficiaries. This is speculation.

You continually push an idea of changing social security to need-based benefit. That is your opinoin.

LOL!

When someone states that SS should be fixed by increasing taxes it is not “speculation”. It is their (perfectly acceptable) opinion about addressing the shortfall. I think SS seems like a welfare program at its core and should be treated as such, with the amount of the payments reflecting human need vs. taxes paid in.  This my opinion.

As can be seem from the responses to the poll, opinions differ without a real consensus. This is to be expected and different opinions should be appreciated—in my opinion.

stating an opinoin of what "should" be done is different from speculating as to what those who actually have to power to make changes will actually do and what the effect to the program will be.

[Just Joe]

In light of recent White House events and DOGE - has anyone's opinions changed?

[Sandi_k]

In light of recent White House events and DOGE - has anyone's opinions changed?

Dudek would be happy to crash the whole system.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/acting-social-security-chief-now-shut-agency-after/story?id=120046608

[mistymoney]

In light of recent White House events and DOGE - has anyone's opinions changed?

seems more at risk than previously