6 Likely Social Security Changes

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I don't know of any reason for their to be a cap on the wage earners income that can be taxed for SS. The cap should be removed. All income should be subjected to SS Tax!
I can see some weak logic for a cap on the Employers portion subject to tax but I believe that the number of people in the higher income bracket are a small portion of a companies payroll and that additional tax will not have as detrimental impact as has been discussed.

Mike Hickey of AZ 1:35PM November 20, 2011

Social Security is the only goverment run department that works, it does not have costs over runs like Pentagon Contracts it only needs modifications as time changes, the IOUs in the "Social Security Trust Fund make it the Federal Goverments # 1 creditor Communist Red China is # 2 creditor. Our Republicans do not say to the Commie Creditor, your debt is an entitlement and we are going to stop payment. We only do that to retired hard worker American citizens. Our "Rogue Rich " have nothing but contemt for them.

John O'Donnell of CT 11:35AM October 26, 2011

It's time to reconfigure benefit issuance to those who choose to start having families at a later age. I know of three young women who married older men and had children - all planned - with them. These were all second families for the older men (and first families for the women). All the men had excellent careers and retired young and all the kids got social security when their daddies starting drawing the benefit. This is NOT right. If you choose to have kids who you know will be minors when you retire, you are also choosing to support them and they should NOT get SS just because the retired parent does. An absolutely unnessary waste of SS dollars. All three told me they didn't need the money but they weren't going to turn down the checks. They all traveled - had time shares - kids didn't work to save money for college, yada yada. I and my husband have worked fulltime for 30+ years (am age 52 and he is 53) and our kids have all worked. We have three children, all grown and all fending for themselves. No Hilton Head or Aruba for our kids when they were young. We didn't get those nice "bonus" checks for them and now people tell us we won't get it for ourselves. That had better be a rumor! And I agree with Beth from MN - my rich sister never worked and she'll get half of her husband's SS when he draws (already retired at age 57) and my father in law is 92, been retired 30 years now and surely didn't pay in what he's used. I have numerous aunts who didn't work either and they collect 1/2 the SS pymt of hubby's. Time to rehaul that stuff - and quit punishing the hard worker.

Peggy S of WI 8:05PM August 25, 2011

If we lowered the retirement age necessary to qualify for Social Security benefits from 65 to 55, and increased benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars so that retirees could actually live on them, we would provide a powerful stimulus to the economy and help our country recover from this latest bank-fraud-induced financial nightmare much more quickly. I've heard numerous thoughtful, well-educated people present the data on how this could be accomplished and it's compelling.
Why not provide a voice for rationality instead of just using a temporary payments problem to scare people into giving up a perfectly well-managed system that strengthens the country's financial position internationally?
Thom Hartmann provides the argument here:
"One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).
The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.
Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.
If enough Boomers left the job market, it would even flip the current dynamic of too-many-people-chasing-too-few-jobs upside down, and create a tight labor markets. Tight labor markets drive up wages.
And as wages go up, tax revenues – which are paying for Social Security (among other things) – would increase.
Additionally, these new-into-the-workforce people can then pay off student loans, buy new houses and cars, and otherwise drive the economy from the bottom up. Which will further increase tax revenues further strengthening the Social Security system."
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/08/cash-geezers-lower-retirement-age-55-now
Only rightwing cant stands between US and a truly recovering economy.
Suzan
Welcome to Pottersville 2
http://welcome-to-pottersville2.blogspot.com

Suzan of NC 8:57AM August 24, 2011

I have worked as an accountant for 30 years, putting in extremely long hours. I've missed many of my children's events, had to cancel vacation, etc. I'm not an executive. I'm middle-management, making below the SS max. Everytime I get close, the SS max is raised.
I don't agree that all of the seniors worked hard. My mother-in-law and aunts didn't work outside the home, and they all get 50% of their husbands' benefits. THEY didn't pay into the system.
If I didn't work, my husband and I wouldn't have enough money to put into a 401(k) for retirement. Yet, my in-laws have a government pension and 1.5 times the SS my father-in-law pait into. They have more money in retirement than they had when he worked.
REMEMBER

Beth of MN 2:59PM August 05, 2011

Social Security benefits should be based on updated actuarial data that increases the age for benefits gradually to reflect the extraordinary increases in life expectancy and good health into later years.
The Social Security taxes should also be on all earned income, and not be capped as it is now. That action, alone, would create a much longer period of fiscal stability for the SS program.

Charles Cable of CA 10:01AM August 04, 2011

to start with,dennis of n.j. is is spot on,anyone who paid into the system is entitled to benefits.
personal accounts,is a back door way to sabotage the basic tenants of the system.this half baked idea was last trotted out by the last pres. bush, and was soundly rejected by more than 70% of the people.
many knowledgeable people including senate majority harry reid contends that even if nothing is done,the program is solvent fo the next twenty years.
the fear mongering by the neocons is a brazen attempt to dismantle the system( which they never have liked ) and turn it,s management over to the fat cats on wall street.so that they can gamble with the peoples money.

bruce b of NV 11:32PM August 03, 2011

As a realist, I'm speculating that under Obamacare it wouldn't be reasonable to maintain medicare and medicade. To do so would result in three Gov't medical entitlement programs. Social Security, on the otherhand, could be grandfathered for those currently drawing their benefits, and revamped for the newer generation thereby eliminating their need to be dependent on the government. The government has proven they cannot be trusted to ensure your "golden age" is happy and free of stress.

Sandra of TX 6:39PM August 03, 2011

Here you all go again calling Social Security an entitlement,I paid for and I am "entitled" to get that money

Dennis of NJ 5:44PM August 03, 2011

Accusing President Obama of "trying his hardest to turn this nation into a socialist state" is a stupid comment. We already have socialist programs in the country. Which should we eliminate: let's start with national parks, public libraries, subsidies to oil, gas, and agriculture industries, medicare and social security. All the foregoing are socialist programs and were not implemented by Obama, but by previous administrations and Congress. Let's get real here. Should we eliminate all socialist programs? The Scandinavian countries all have socialist economies and are democracies. In many measurements, they are all better off then we are. Don't think for a moment that capitalism does not have a dark side.

Mike of IL 12:16PM August 03, 2011