Survey: Voters Oppose Most Social Security Changes

July 30, 2010 RSS Feed Print

The federal government is considering a variety of ways to tweak Social Security benefits for people younger than age 55 in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office recently analyzed the financial impact of 30 potential Social Security changes including tax increases, benefit cuts, and raising the retirement age.

[See Government Analyzes 30 Social Security Changes.]

A Gallup and USA Today poll of 1,020 adults released this week asked Americans their feelings about six of these potential Social Security fixes. The Social Security change with the most support (67 percent in favor) is requiring high income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages. Most adults (63 percent) also say it is a good idea to limit benefits for wealthy retirees.

Workers pay into the Social Security system on earnings up to $106,800 in 2010. If wealthy retirees were taxed on all of their income above $106,800 annually, but did not earn extra benefits based on those contributions, the Social Security trust fund’s projected deficit would be completely eliminated, according to a U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging report released in May. If the additional taxes count toward benefits, 95 percent of Social Security’s future shortfall would be corrected. However, wealthy workers would face significant tax increases if this proposal were implemented. An individual making $400,000 per year, for example, would pay $18,178 more per year and his or her employer would pay a matching amount, according to Committee on Aging calculations.

[See 12 Ways to Fix Social Security.]

Americans are generally opposed to most of the other changes that Gallup inquired about. Just over half (53 percent) of adults think further reducing benefits for early retirees is a bad idea. And 57 percent of the survey respondents say they disagree with cutting Social Security payouts for all Americans under age 55. Clear majorities of workers are also opposed to increasing the age retirees can receive their full benefits (63 percent) and against increasing Social Security taxes for all workers (64 percent).

Most of these fixes would not reduce Social Security’s future funding shortfall unless implemented in combination. For example, a 5 percent cut in Social Security payouts for new beneficiaries beginning in 2010 would reduce the deficit by 30 percent. Increasing the age future workers are eligible for full Social Security benefits from 67 to 70 also eliminates less than a third of the deficit, according to the Senate report.

[See The 100 Best Mutual Funds for the Long Term.]

Increasing Social Security taxes on all workers, however, would make the Social Security system sustainable for the foreseeable future. If the amount workers and employers each pay into the system was increased by 1.1 percent from 6.2 percent to 7.3 percent the deficit would be eliminated and the program would remain solvent for at least 75 years. For a worker making $43,451 in 2010 the tax increase would be $478 a year.

Tell us, should taxes be raised for the wealthy to sure up Social Security?

Tags:
retirement

Reader Comments Read all comments (25)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

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

Planning to Retire

Planning to Retire

Associate editor Emily Brandon tells you how to get ready financially for retirement and to make your golden years the best they can be.

advertisement

EASY RETIREMENT CALCULATOR

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


Latest Video

advertisement