Social Security Reform Act of 2016 introduced by Sam Johnson (R)

Bobw235

Bobw235

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
It's characterized in his press release as "legislation that will permanently save Social Security, ensuring this vital program continues to work for today’s workers and beneficiaries and future generations." Just a hunch, but I'll bet this is going to scare lots of folks. Added to the talk about slashing Medicare benefits, and this sure is going to get scary for a number of folks. A copy of the bill in PDF is available on the site.View attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdf

http://legislation that will perman...ers and beneficiaries and future generations.


  • Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers.
  • Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.
  • Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.
  • Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.
  • Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.
  • Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.
  • Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.
  • Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.View attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdfView attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdf
 

Yes, scary for sure, here is Yahoo Finance's take on this....

GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security.

On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation to significantly cut Social Security.

The bill introduced by Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69.

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom. People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%. But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html


http://samjohnson.house.gov/contact-me/3rd-d-tr-ct-contact-nformat-on.htm
 
Of course it's being touted by the author of the bill as a way to "save" social security and that it looks out for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
 

I don't understand why they simply don't uncap the earnings like they already do for Medicare. Yes. I appreciated getting that raise in take home pay every August or so once I maxed out, but I would have much rather paid the difference and help keep the fund solvent.

My son, who is 53, doesn't plan on getting anything from SS. His kids, in their early 20s, will likely never see a penny of it either.
 
This will get interesting and there will be no end to opinions about it until it gets settled. My initial opinion is that they dang sure need to look at things and figure out the best way to handle it because there are fundamental problems. Somewhere along the way they need to take a long-term view of it to keep it solvent and they need to do that before it gets to the point that there is no fix.
 
I wish that instead of looking at each individual program they would convene a group of people to look at each item in total to come up with a long range solution. Don't look at Social Security, look at financial/retirement security. Don't look at Medicare or the ACA look at healthcare in total. We need some real, lasting changes that can strengthen our society instead of shoring up or tinkering with programs that are not working for us. I would like to see programs, private or government run, that a person could invest in when they enter the workforce that would provide protection and benefits for them and their families from the cradle to the grave.
 
I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced before the election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.
 
Bobw235 said:
I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced before the election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.. Ryan and his merry band have been very open about their intentions.. They have made no secret about wanting to cut benefits.. NOW they have a President who will likely sign it into law.. yey.
 
I hope this bill creates some serious discussion, AND action, in Washington. It has been known, for years, that SS and Medicare will be facing some serious shortfalls in the future...but these topics have been ignored, thus far. The sooner Congress begins to debate, And Fix, these programs, the better for everyone. The longer they delay, the more likely that the solutions will be extreme.
 
Well, I am going to have to pay attention to these ongoing developments like I've never paid attention to anything before. I have 1-1/2 years before I turn 66, which is when I planned to apply for S.S. Maybe it would be best to apply 'early' and take the lessor about, since the 'full' S.S. pension amount will be gutted anyway. ??
 
Top House Republican Unveils Plan To Gut Social Security

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform the program that features major benefit cuts.

I'm get my don't blame me " I voted Democatic" bumper sicker ready:)
 
Last edited:
The Inspector said:
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform the program that features major benefit cuts.

I'm get my don't blame me " I voted Democatic" bumper sicker ready:)
Click to expand...

And with majorities in the House and Senate it'll breeze right through.
 
Bobw235 said:
I'm likely taking Social Security early next year, when I turn 62. My wife will follow me the following year.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that a person sign up for SS as soon as they become eligible. You can get more, per year, if you wait...but the overall payout depends upon how long you live. The wife and I signed up as soon as we become eligible, and we have already gotten 2 1/2 times more than I paid in during my entire working career (the wife was a homemaker)...I've been drawing payments for about 12 years, and she about 7. Besides, if the government starts playing games with SS, they are less likely to mess too much with those who are already "Grandfathered" in....I hope.
 
Don't forget about Medicare.

"Public divided on the ACA, many unaware of proposed Medicare changes

The public is divided over the Affordable Care Act
A second major issue likely to be considered by the 115th Congress – possible changes to Medicare – has not resonated widely with the public. Overall, only about half of the public (51%) has heard a lot (12%) or a little (39%) about a proposal to change Medicare to a program that would give future participants a credit toward purchasing private health insurance. About as many either have heard nothing (48%) or don’t know (1%).
Those who have heard about possible changes to Medicare oppose these changes by a wide margin. Among the small share of Americans who have heard a lot about the proposal, two-thirds (67%) oppose it, while just 32% favor it. Opinion is divided among the much larger group who have heard little or nothing about the proposal (41% favor, 40% oppose, 19% don’t know)."

http://www.people-press.org/2016/12...tion-but-outlook-for-his-presidency-improves/
 
tnthomas said:
Well, I am going to have to pay attention to these ongoing developments like I've never paid attention to anything before. I have 1-1/2 years before I turn 66, which is when I planned to apply for S.S. Maybe it would be best to apply 'early' and take the lessor about, since the 'full' S.S. pension amount will be gutted anyway. ??
Click to expand...

Bobw235 said:
I'm likely taking Social Security early next year, when I turn 62. My wife will follow me the following year.
Click to expand...

Don M. said:
I would suggest that a person sign up for SS as soon as they become eligible. You can get more, per year, if you wait...but the overall payout depends upon how long you live. The wife and I signed up as soon as we become eligible, and we have already gotten 2 1/2 times more than I paid in during my entire working career (the wife was a homemaker)...I've been drawing payments for about 12 years, and she about 7. Besides, if the government starts playing games with SS, they are less likely to mess too much with those who are already "Grandfathered" in....I hope.
Click to expand...

Ditto to all of the above..
 
Hoot N Annie said:
I don't understand why they simply don't uncap the earnings like they already do for Medicare. Yes. I appreciated getting that raise in take home pay every August or so once I maxed out, but I would have much rather paid the difference and help keep the fund solvent.

My son, who is 53, doesn't plan on getting anything from SS. His kids, in their early 20s, will likely never see a penny of it either.
Click to expand...


earnings are already means tested . the lower your income the more you get out in comparison to your share paid in . we are also double taxed on it if your earnings are higher. we pay taxes on ss money going in and coming out .

without changing the ss formula which is your 35 highest years you would be paying everyone who is a higher earner and their spouses more if they earn more . which if you didn't ,on top of everything else that ss means tests already , that would be unfair .

it becomes much to unfair to ask higher earners to keep putting more and more in and get out less and less .

paying more out would just defeat the increase and not paying more out would be most unfair if you are asking for more money .

we saw a 300% increase in medicare premiums for 2016 because we sold an investment in 2014. no one was on medicare yet nor retired yet they wanted what amounted to a 600 a month INCREASE on top of the normal medicare premiums for a couple . had we sold it in 2013 instead there would be no increase .

luckily i got it appealed and won on a technicality
 
I've been collecting SS for the last two years.. even though I have continued working full time. It didn't seem to be much of an advantage to wait..
 
depends .

it all depends whether you want to be more dependent on markets and rates if you need to live off your portfolio. it can also matter how long you live if maximum income and balance is what you want .

if one person in couple lives to 90 which is a 50% chance today you can see almost a 6% real return . that is adjusted for inflation . that return by delaying can rival a balanced portfolio in decent times but with zero risk .

we are delaying because the 55k in ss we will see cuts our portfolio dependency by a lot .
 
Bobw235 said:
I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced before the election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.
Click to expand...

Nobody from either side will win any election if they propose to cut anything. So of course they're not going to propose any such thing before an election. We are our own worst enemy. With the R's in power, if they do anything to fix SS and MC (and we all know they need fixing) they will be demonized by the other side no matter how good the plan. And it would be the same the other way around.
 
Well, it certainly scared me!! The government takes social security OUT of our paychecks every week - it cannot be that dire! With pensions gone and a lot of people financially illiterate this will create a nightmare! We all need to keep an eye on this.

They also want to raise the Full Retirement Age to 69, what the heck? This comes the day after a big article ran to say the average age of death is now dropping. We are not necessarily healthier than our parents (again, thanks to government meddling but will save that for another discussion) More people take SS at 62 than any other age - why do they think we'll wait until 69? Hardly anybody I know is healthy enough to be able to work that long - let alone WANT to. We are scrambling (at 60 & 61) to try to wait until 66-1/3 when we planned on 65 all this time. I guess the billionaire's club will rule the world!

One other note - if they took off the income cap to garnish wages then they would have to pay OUT larger amounts. It was originally designed to help the poor. Anyone with a salary over $113,000 (or whatever it is now) should be smart enough to take care of themselves over the minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top