Battle over Mandatory (aka “Entitlement”) Spending

[Huh?]

In my opinion, this is much of a math question as it is a policy question. I know so many people in their late 50's and 60's who have either involuntarily left the work force or are no longer able to work for health reasons. If you raise the retirement age, you are just pushing the problem to SSI.

I think the only practical solution is to raise the cap without raising benefits for those above the cap. We can get 75 years of grace by this one change.

 

[grimes70]

Agree with this and @Huh? . I have no issue with retiring IF you can do so, on your own, before social security benefits kick in, but the current retirement age for SS needs to be kept in line with life expectancy.

So how do people exist if they can neither physically do the work they have spent 40 years doing nor get because they are too old.

Let's have people whose income for tax purposes consists of over 50% invest income that should taxed at the usual rate for SS/Medicare. I believe there would then be adequate funds to fully fund those programs.

 

[Huh?]

Aside from social security, we have to recognize that we are going to spend more on health care as a society as we age. In 2023, we spent 18% of GDP on health care, and it's predicted (reasonably) to rise to 20% to 2032. Right now, 48% of US health care spending is paid by the government.

Those numbers are reasonable from a policy perspective, and we should endeavor to continue to have government fund that going forward through sufficient taxation. Our priorities should be how to improve quality outcomes within that spend - removing our over-reliance on fee for service, lifestyle including nutrition, preventive services and the like.

 

[Paine]

Social security was originally designed as a supplemental income program. If you change that definition, you are asking (young) working people to subsidize that change. I firmly believe that is antithetical to good national policy.

It was not designed as a supplemental income program, it was designed as a social insurance program. It was designed to prevent seniors from living on the street or in poor houses. All insurance works the way you are describing.

In terms of retirement, social security became part of the three-legged stool along with pensions and personal savings. One of those legs has been completed knocked out and the other has been severely diminished due to rising costs of living and income inequality.

Where does that leave our seniors? Increasingly reliant on only social security to provide for their day-to-day existence.

 

[altmin]

This would kill my mother.

Since my dad died we've been helping her contact companies and work through necessary changes. She wants to do everything like it's 1980. Phone calls, mail, checks, paper bills, etc.

She struggles to log onto the computer and check email.

Killing people's mothers is on the list to make government more efficient. Less old people = less expense.

 

[mynameisbond]

I've been working and having income withheld to pay into SS since age 16. Don't tell me it's an "entitlement". Having those funds taken in order to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy is nothing less than stealing from working Americans to benefit the rich.

 

[Huh?]

...

In terms of retirement, social security became part of the three-legged stool along with pensions and personal savings. One of those legs has been completed knocked out and the other has been severely diminished due to rising costs of living and income inequality.

Where does that leave our seniors?

Boo-freaking-hoo. It's not as if those of us in our 60's haven't had the last 40 years to plan for this thing. Pensions were replaced by 401k's forty years ago - that's no longer a valid excuse.

My great-grandparents didn't live separately from their kids in their later years because they were poor. Living separately in our advanced years is not a birthright.

 

[Paine]

Boo-freaking-hoo. It's not as if those of us in our 60's haven't had the last 40 years to plan for this thing. Pensions were replaced by 401k's forty years ago - that's no longer a valid excuse.

My great-grandparents didn't live separately from their kids in their later years because they were poor. Living separately in our advanced years is not a birthright.

Boo-freaking-hoo to the seniors who have worked themselves to the bone over their entire lives and still didn’t make enough money to save and invest in the stock market. They should have to eat cat food in their golden years as penance for this sin.

 

[Huh?]

The general national consensus is not that social security provides an insufficient living for our seniors. It's how do we fund the program going forward so that it's viable for the young people that are currently funding it.

References to cat food in this current day and age are ridiculously hyperbolic.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you saying the SSA retirement age should be raised until at or after current life-expectancy? My mom retired at 68. She is about to turn 80. She was barely able to manage a HS class at 68 and no way she could have done it until she was 77.

And life expectancy from birth in the 1930s was skewed by much higher childhood mortality. People who survived to 65 even then could expect to live over a decade more, which was the majority of Americans (though a smaller majority then than now). As SSA charts indicate here:

Not being able to do the job you've chosen as a career isn't necessarily the same as not being able to work. And, not all people age the same. An extreme example are professional athletes. They may only play into their 30's, but go on to do other things. My mother-in-law retired from fairly stressful banking job and then worked for 5 or more years at a preschool.

I'm not saying that SS age should necessarily be higher than average life expectancy, but I think it should be raised.

 

[Paine]

The general national consensus is not that social security provides an insufficient living for our seniors. It's how do we fund the program going forward so that it's viable for the young people that are currently funding it.

References to cat food in this current day and age are ridiculously hyperbolic.

It’s not hyperbolic when the current administration wants to cut the program rather than expand it.

 

[Huh?]

My guess is that going to try to enact cuts where it's easiest, which is SSI eligibility. That's not old people - it's the state of West Virginia.

While SSI is worthy of examination - it's what is bankrupting the system - I agree with you that current evidence indicates that they will botch it.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Boo-freaking-hoo to the seniors who have worked themselves to the bone over their entire lives and still didn’t make enough money to save and invest in the stock market. They should have to eat cat food in their golden years as penance for this sin.

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

 

[Paine]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

The rich disproportionately benefit from the society we’ve constructed. They can afford to pay slightly more taxes to keep senior citizens out of poverty.

 

[Huh?]

Personally, I think taxing the near-rich and rich more is the best way to put Social Security on solid financial footing for the next three generations.

 

[Paine]

Personally, I think taxing the near-rich and rich more is the best way to put Social Security on solid financial footing for the next three generations.

That we can agree on. In an ideal world, social security works how you’ve described: as supplemental income in retirement. In reality, there are a ton of seniors who only rely on social security benefits to get them through the month. This isn’t because of some personal failing by them.

If this conversation is limited only to how can we provide for social security’s continued existence in its current form, then the answer is clearly to tax the rich more. If the conversation can be expanded to ask how we can provide a dignified existence for all retirees, we have to think bigger.

 

[mpaer]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

So the people that benefit the most are people that get say 50% (pick a different number if you want) or more of their income from Soc Sec Lost of folks get 100%
So you ask "when is it fair to ask them to sacrifice.."
Thats like saying we can balance the budget by doubling down on taxing folks that make less than $30,000

 

[dukeman92]

Right, the reason you have for it being a non-starter is because of the existence of labor-intensive jobs.

I don't see how that matters given that there have always been labor-intensive jobs.

That's not the only reason. There are several. But it's really not worth the pissing match when there is a simple solution. Raise. The. Cap.

 

[PTOHeel]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

If the answer always seems to be tax the rich more, we don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

 

[ChileG]

Is there anything that those who benefit most from social security should have to do to save the program?

The answer always seems to be tax the rich more. From a standpoint of principle, when is it fair to ask those who will benefit the most to sacrifice?

When the difference between the 1% and the middle class isn’t so historically disproportionate? We set up the rules to make those at the top get more and more wealthy while this in the middle have stayed the same. What’s wrong with making more tweaks to the system to level that playing field?
And I’m not saying the middle class or others can’t also contribute.