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

From someone whose first job paid $2.36/hr and seeing the avg. income in south, $113,000 still looks like a LOT of money but, you are absolutely correct. Perhaps there should be some adjustments for where you live - both in deductions and distributions. I know that some states supplement the SS disability but not sure they do for Soc. Sec..
 

no , where you live is irrelevant with ss . that is where high cost of living area's are nice .

you get ss based on higher wages and then relocate to cheapsville with that bigger check
 
Doing something to get attention is working. Facts should be the driving force behind the need to address Soc. Sec. payments. Maybe if presenting legislation to address the long term is transparent and explained in lay men terms not legal terms people would be willing to accept changes. But until now over the terms of many presidents ignoring the future in favor of looking good now that hasn't happened.


Bottom line people want to know how it will affect them. If it doesn't then they don't care.
 

funding the 25% ss is short is a drop in the bucket . shoot a few less tomahawks and it is covered . it really is not a lot in the scheme of things .

medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue
 
mathjak107 said:
funding the 25% ss is short is a drop in the bucket . shoot a few less tomahawks and it is covered . it really is not a lot in the scheme of things .

medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue
Click to expand...

I think when it comes to medicare (and fixing the ACA), Congress has a hard time saying no to the big lobbyists from the medical device industry, the insurance industry, Big Pharma, etc. They all want to protect themselves, and Congress wants to protect their jobs, thus the public ends up getting screwed. No one speaks for us, the voting public, except in an election year. Thus if anything gets done, it's to the benefit of those with the most power and the best lobbyists.

Agree with your comment about SS and maybe just trimming a bit from other places. Or, here's a novel idea: Have Congress pay back the money they've "borrowed" from Social Security over the years to balance the budget. Wonder how much that comes to and if it would fix the issue. Congress sure has no problem borrowing for other things and adding a few billion on to the deficit.
 
Regardless of the formula they use, I think we will see large cuts in both SS and Medicare for everyone other than the very lowest income brackets. Where else are they going to get the money to cover the lowering of business taxes from 35 to 15% and alternative minimum tax for business? That is a massive amount of money no longer coming in. Do you really think it will trickle down and create millions of high paying jobs that will take in more in taxes?
 
mathjak107 said:
medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue
Click to expand...

For Sure! No one in Washington talks about Medicare, but that program is going to be in crisis mode well before Social Security. At the rate medical costs are rising, I don't give Medicare much more than another 4 or 5 years before it is in serious trouble. SSDI funding was set to run out in early 2017, but Congress "manipulated" the numbers so as to push that issue down the road another year or two. Medicare, however, is a massive program, serving over 60 million seniors, and keeping that program solvent is going to force Congress to earn its pay. The actions that will certainly have to be taken to keep Medicare alive will go a long way towards determining what happens to SS.
 
The Republicans have had Social Security and Medicare in their sights for quite some time. I strongly suspect that if they get too carried away with that in addition to killing the ACA without a replacement that they may be shooting themselves in the foot - seriously damaging the party's future prospects. The wealthy may like it, but the average citizen will be outraged - especially those left with no medical resources.
 
Butterfly said:
I agree, Dragonlady. SS/Medicare is still the third rail and I think they know that if they want to keep their cushy congressional seats they should act with great caution in considering cutting benefits.
Click to expand...

Problem is.. they think they can get away with it if they defer it out 10 years so that it won't affect anyone over 55... Do they think we seniors don't care about our kids? My kids are 47 and 45.. they have worked and paid into FICA.. but they will be short changed big time. Not fair. Especially when it can be fixed as easily as lifting the cap on FICA withholdings.
 
Dragonlady said:
The Republicans have had Social Security and Medicare in their sights for quite some time. I strongly suspect that if they get too carried away with that in addition to killing the ACA without a replacement that they may be shooting themselves in the foot - seriously damaging the party's future prospects. The wealthy may like it, but the average citizen will be outraged - especially those left with no medical resources.
Click to expand...

Well, the Republicans pulled off what virtually everyone thought was impossible-their candidate won the presidency. After that, I see the Republicans as being able to continue pursuit of their agenda, without the Public actually understanding the ramifications.
 
Trump already has his eye on a second term - if he cons the people too much and keeps too few of his promises, he may turn out to be a one tern wonder. None of the medical supplies people (including the big pharmaceutic companies) will fare very well if people have no insurance and/or cannot afford to pay for their equipment/services/medicines. Less insurance means fewer customers.

ACA is and has been since it's inception a target at least partially because it's Obama's and the Republicans have fought long and hard to keep him from accomplishing anything to discredit him - both because he's a Democrat and the first African American president (and if they can discredit him enough - maybe the last)

I definitely want to protect it for my kids - they range in age from 55 to 61 - also my grandsons and great grandsons and great grand daughters. It's bad enough that the have to wait until past 65 to collect - given the age discrimination in the job market. They killed pensions - and now they want to take SSI!
 
BobW I don't blame you. Take your SS at 62 while you still can! I'm thinking they will eventually change the minimum age as well. Your initial post of the points of the proposed bill sure have a different "tone" than Yahoo's interpretation of it. I did see that the SS administration was planning a 23% cut across the board by 2033 or 2034. I actually saw this on their site twice...once on the home page, then it was removed. Then I got a message from them within my account about it. I wish I'd taken a screen shot of it. I am preparing myself financially for such a cut should I live that long. Many others do not have that option.
 
i would bet my bottom dollar they will refund ss when the time comes . it is no different than the refunding of the budget when it expires . ss is such an important part of american life as well as a relatively small amount needed to replenish it . you see how fast these wars are funded .

80 million voting baby boomers says we see little change for those of us of age . there is really nothing done that did not either grandfather you or give you a window to react before the change .

the youngin's may get a different deal but i would bet we get just what we would have gotten whether we file early or not .
 
Retirement funding got changed on the fly for a lot of us. Companies phased out their pension plans while replacing them with 401k's. I took a hit on that. If I had been younger or older I would have fared better. That's the way the world works, things are always subject to change and sometimes change works in your favor, sometimes it works against you, and sometimes it doesn't make that much difference.
mathjak107 said:
i would bet my bottom dollar they will refund ss when the time comes . it is no different than the refunding of the budget when it expires . ss is such an important part of american life as well as a relatively small amount needed to replenish it . you see how fast these wars are funded .

80 million voting baby boomers says we see little change for those of us of age . there is really nothing done that did not either grandfather you or give you a window to react before the change .

the youngin's may get a different deal but i would bet we get just what we would have gotten whether we file early or not .
Click to expand...
 
Surprise! Republicans Just Introduced a Bill That Would Completely Reform Social Security
If passed, the Social Security Reform Act could have wide-reaching implications for seniors.
Sean Williams
Dec 17, 2016 at 7:21AM


•It would reduce cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for higher-earning individuals, while at the same time increasing benefits at a faster pace for lower-income retirees. In particular, individuals earning in excess of $85,000 and couples with more than $170,000 in earnings would have their COLAs completely cut out beginning in December 2018

•Johnson's legislation would begin phasing out the taxation of Social Security benefits beginning in 2045 and ending by 2054. Currently, Social Security taxes a percentage of benefits if an individual earns more than $25,000 annually, or a couple earns more than $32,000.

•The bill would place a cap on the benefit amount for spouses and children of higher-earning retired and disabled individuals.

•It would eliminate the retirement earnings test, which applies only to people receiving benefits before hitting their full retirement age (FRA). In 2017, the Social Security Administration can withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 in wages earned above $16,920, and $1 in benefits for every $3 in wages earned above $44,880 if you'll hit your FRA in 2017 and are already receiving benefits. The earnings test would disappear by 2023, giving elderly working Americans the ability to double-dip with their wages and Social Security benefits.

•Finally, Johnson's legislation would raise the minimum benefit available to people who worked throughout their lifetime but failed to earn a lot.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/9243d0b9-5408-30e4-9827-d50b329e21a7/surprise!-republicans-just.html

The article posted high lights of the legislation. The only benefit for us, my wife and me would be the phase out taxing our soc. sec. in 2054. I don't think I'll live to 113 to get that benefit. Meanwhile some of that seems to favor low income and penalize high earners. Is that a bad thing?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top