Survey: Voters Oppose Most Social Security Changes

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Here are my thoughts.
Increase the income subject to social security by 3% over inflation each year. This amount gets benefits.
For amounts over the limit tax at 3% with a matching amount by the company but no benefit for this amount.
If a taxpayer makes over the limit (105,000 appox) and their spouse makes less than 1/2 then they have to pay the extra to make up for their spouse. One big reason social security is going broke is that it pays stay at home spouses 1/2 the income of the taxpayer. Give them the choice of paying extra or giving up this benefit. If a high income person pays in they should get the money they pay in but they should not be subsidized and in this situation they are subsidized.
This does not get us much but at least we are not subsidizing the well off.
Raise the social security rate to 7%. This is $150 for a person making 45,000
Raise the age limit from 67 to 68 starting with those who are slated to retire at 67.
Done.
Medicare: Lots of ways to save this but it might involve banning some really high cost but low benefit procedures from getting any more than the low cost ones.
Raise Medicare costs to 1/2% extra.
Done.

Jane of OH 4:41PM July 16, 2011

I am opposed to an increase in the age to 69 and even when it was increased to 67, and I do feel the limit can be increased to above 106.800. What I would like to see is the government review foreign aid and make cuts there because 2 more billion to Pakistan when the people of this country are hurting does not set well with me. The government has to stop giving our money away to other countries that waste about a third of it. There are billions unaccounted for that was wasted in Iraq and there is your social security money and our government does not care about the waste they just want more tax money from us and that is wrong.

don of MN 7:20PM November 10, 2010

Any federal government employee hired after 1986 is covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). FERS employees pay into Social Security at the same rate as those who work in the private sector. Federal government employeess hired prior to 1986 are covered under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), and those employees do not pay into Social Security. When CSRS employees retire they are NOT eligible for Social Security benefits UNLESS they had also worked in the private sector at some point in their life and paid Social Security taxes on their private sector income. If CSRS employees have less than 30 years of Social Security earnings (which is usually the case), any social security they are paid is reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).
I am a General Schedule government employee, and as such have no knowledge of the types of benefits and tax systems in place for our politicians.
I work as an analyst for a federal law enforcement agency, and am covered by the FERS system. I work from two to eight hours of unpaid overtime every week. I am not complaining, because I believe in what I do and am proud to be a public servant. Contrary to what the media reports, there are many other government employees that share my attitude and work ethic.

MS of MO 8:50AM August 05, 2010

I facilitated a session of Americans Discuss Social Security in 1998. Not surprising, raising the earnings limit - the only idea that didn't affect most of them - was the only remedy garnering majority support. The fact is, entitlements need to be reformed, most especially Medicare. With Social Security, it needs to be modernized from a 1930s program that's had bandaids applied over the years. For instance, my first stepmother passed away, the second was married to my father for a handful of days short of 10 years, but she got a minimal and outdated payment. Surprisingly, my mother, who was divorced from my father 36 years prior to his passing, instead was the one to receive the spousal benefit, having been married to him the requisite 10 years. Another example: an estranged couple, as part of their divorce settlement, didn't put through the divorce until they had been "married" for 10 years so as for her to get claim to Social Security based on his higher earnings. The purpose of the earnings limit was because higher earners get less of a return and wouldn't support the program without it (back in the 1930s). Today, there probably could have it lifted, but I'd like to see the tax rate lowered in conjunction, not so far as to be revenue-neutral, but still revenue-positive. The retirement age should be raised in recognition of longer life spans, but only with some assurance of health care. Mandatory financial education of youth should also be a requirement of reform, as should automatic enrollment in 401-k/457 programs from day 1, perhaps a mandatory 5% deduction as is the practiced in some institutions of higher education. There are many ideas out there that, if effected early enough, will have minimal impact on people.

BD of WA 2:04AM August 04, 2010

If increasing the Social Security Tax on all individuals and on all income 1.1%would guarantee that the system would be solvent, then this is the way to go! After all, this should be a pay-as-you-go program and not a burden to future tax payers. Additionally, these collected taxes should be set-a-side and not thrown into the General Revenue to be spent just because they are there. We would not be in this fix today had this been done when the program started nor would we be trying to fix the program today.

Kermit Thatcher of FL 8:27PM August 03, 2010

Of course all people should pay a social security tax on all wages that they make. The wealthy have to rely on the less wealthy and government to protect their wealth so should pay for it.

jim erwin of MI 6:11PM August 03, 2010

All government workers and all of Congress from the president on down and any other appointees need to be paying too.
Any special agreements excluding anyone needs to be removed, deleted in very quick fashion as they are already supported with Taxes.
This would clear up most if not all of the deficits. These same politicians and their staff would now be making decisions that impact them as well.
Then see where we are, before thinking about removing the cap. With the situation that 47% of the people no longer pay any taxes it time to make sure that everyone that can is paying their fair share that especially includes politicians and government workers of all types.

Randy of OR 5:29PM August 03, 2010

We need to increase the Cap from $106,800 to $400,000 and from $500,000 up increase the rate to 1.5% to 7.5%. By doing that we would almost eliminate the deficit caused by an incompetent and corrupt Congress. Any senior who makes over $500,000 in income does not need to received $1200 a month in income, which would be tip money for them. I worked 50 years of my life contributed to Social Security and Medicare and also was investing money for my retirement. What happened, corrupt and greedy corporations and unethical CEOs is what happened to millions of seniors who thought they would have enough to retire on. I lost most of my money and pension, due to incompetency and greed. Now that I am 70 years old and disabled, I have to depend totally on Social Security and a reduced pension. We must also demand Congress make a law that prohibits Congress or any government agency from ever accessing the Social Security Fund, ever again. Right now it is filled to the hilt with IOUs, thanks to a spendthrift Congress who was taking money without letting taxpayers or seniors know about it. I worked until I was 65 and would have contiuned to work if I had not suffered a stroke. Most seniors would prefer to continue working instead of trying to live on $1200 a month.....our members of both Houses should try living on Social Security. The day of bloated pensions must end. No one should get over $75,000 per year in pensions. Our members of Congress and senators can retire after one term with a pension of $200,000 per year. That is obscene and chicanery, sorry but no one is worth $200,000 per year. Especially not our members of Congress who allowed and caused this financial debacle.

Ann Geary of IA 4:12PM August 03, 2010

Remove the cap on earnings eligible for FICA taxes. Maybe companies would curtail the large salaries and the number of people who receive them!
Increase the age for early benefits to 63, the same number of year's increase as the regular retirement age when it went from 65 to 67.
Wealthy individuals(actors, producers, professional athletes, lawyers, doctors) and top executives who have annual pensions over $100,000 do not need to receive any SS benefits. These individuals have substantially large resources--stocks, IRAs, and 401ks in addition to the pensions. All you have to do is read an annual report and the annual shreholder's proxy to see who these people are and the enormous bags of money they have.

Ken of WI 3:26PM August 03, 2010

The initial age for retirement should be increased. People are living much longer today than they did in the 1930s when Social Security was initiated. Having worked part time until laid off at the age of 78, I felt much more productive and happier than I would have sitting at home or doing busy work every day as a volunteer. A combination of part time work for pay and interesting volunteer work is ideal for the active older adult of today. For those who do not enjoy good health, the system should be there to provide support benefits under disability status.

active adult of CA 2:27PM August 03, 2010