Conversationalist ⭐

A solution to keep Social Security solvent

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
November 1, 2024
104 replies
39128 views

We recently received an email from AARP requesting us to email Congress for the continued funding of Social Security. While this is a worthwhile endeavor, it does not provide a solution and who knows how many folks will actually send the message. So, I am advocating for AARP to be more proactive in how they and their members reach out to Congress. AARP should have some political clout and therefore should use it to our advantage. The unions would be another avenue to pursue!

There is a report authored by the Congressional Research Service titled, “Social Security: Raising or Eliminating the Taxable Earnings Base”. This report (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/rl/rl32896) was updated on December 22, 2021. The conclusion of this report is as follows:

“Raising or eliminating the cap on wages that are subject to taxes could reduce the long-range deficit in the Social Security trust funds. For example, the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that phasing in an increase in the taxable maximum (for both contributions and benefits bases) to cover 90% of covered earnings over the next decade would eliminate nearly 20% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. OCACT's estimates also show that if all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the current-law base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security trust funds would remain solvent for about 35 years. However, having different bases for contributions and benefits would weaken the traditional link between the taxes workers pay into the system and the benefits they receive.”

In 2022, the maximum Social Security tax - formally called the contribution and benefit base, and commonly referred to as the taxable earnings base or the taxable maximum - was $147,000. It is currently $168,600 and going to $176,100 in 2025. Since 2009, the annual salary for Congressional members is $174,000 and for the Speaker of the House: $223,500, the Majority Leader: $193,400, and the Minority Leader: $193,400. This means even Congress has not been paying their fair share into Social Security.

I am but one person and AARP is millions of people. Will everyone please get this word out?

T

Tonster521

Community Champion ⭐

@BrianL306623 From a fiscal perspective, the SS Program pays more benefits than revenue received. That is a formula for failure. You probably are aware of the proverbial statement, " If you fail to plan, you plan to fail". So, the SS Program needs to increase revenue, cut benefits, or some combination of both. In addition to your suggestion, I believe closing the S Corp tax loophole has great value for increasing FICA revenue especially Medicare taxes as well as Federal Income Taxes. FYI, many businesses (of various sizes) file taxes as a S Corp to avoid or reduce (or possibly evade) paying taxes for both Federal and FICA. Money is paid out as a distribution (i.e., dividend,etc.) in lieu of a salary/earnings which does not increase their federal tax bracket and is not subject to FICA taxes. You do not need to be a huge corporation such as Apple, Amazon, etc. You can be the owner of a small business such as a hot dog stand, financial service (insurance/investments/real estate), law firm, etc.

There are other inequities in the SS Program that are favorable to highly compensated folks. One can look at the PIA formula. Should higher compensation folks who will qualify for SS Benefits at the third Bend Point be contributing at a higher percentage (greater than 6.2%)? In other words, use a percentage similar to the Withholding Percentages for Federal Income Taxes. Currently, higher compensation folks receive three calculations in the PIA formula for 6.2% FICA tax. Most other folks only receive two calculations in the PIA formula for 6.2% FICA tax. From a mathematical perspective, the higher compensated folks receive a great deal especially when SS Spousal Benefits are added to the calculation.

T

Tonster521

Community Champion ⭐

@BrianL306623 From a fiscal perspective, the SS Program pays more benefits than revenue received. That is a formula for failure. You probably are aware of the proverbial statement, " If you fail to plan, you plan to fail". So, the SS Program needs to increase revenue, cut benefits, or some combination of both. In addition to your suggestion, I believe closing the S Corp tax loophole has great value for increasing FICA revenue especially Medicare taxes as well as Federal Income Taxes. FYI, many businesses (of various sizes) file taxes as a S Corp to avoid or reduce (or possibly evade) paying taxes for both Federal and FICA. Money is paid out as a distribution (i.e., dividend,etc.) in lieu of a salary/earnings which does not increase their federal tax bracket and is not subject to FICA taxes. You do not need to be a huge corporation such as Apple, Amazon, etc. You can be the owner of a small business such as a hot dog stand, financial service (insurance/investments/real estate), law firm, etc.

There are other inequities in the SS Program that are favorable to highly compensated folks. One can look at the PIA formula. Should higher compensation folks who will qualify for SS Benefits at the third Bend Point be contributing at a higher percentage (greater than 6.2%)? In other words, use a percentage similar to the Withholding Percentages for Federal Income Taxes. Currently, higher compensation folks receive three calculations in the PIA formula for 6.2% FICA tax. Most other folks only receive two calculations in the PIA formula for 6.2% FICA tax. From a mathematical perspective, the higher compensated folks receive a great deal especially when SS Spousal Benefits are added to the calculation. I thought it may be helpful to include some articles https://www.collective.com/blog/s-corp-social-security and another which has been used as an example https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2641619/joe-biden-is-a-tax-loophole-hypocrite/

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

All good points and information. We have to start somewhere and eliminating the tax cap is the low lying fruit!

T

Tonster521

Community Champion ⭐

@BrianL306623 It is a start. However, I believe there will be a negative reaction if the SS Program does not include the higher taxable earnings base in the PIA formula. Will the higher earnings be included in the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME)? If so, the SS Program will be paying additional (greater) benefits including SS Spousal Benefits (if eligible). And, there may be more than one SS Spousal Benefit payable if the high earner had multiple marriages. Using a high earner who starts SS Benefits at Full Retirement Age in 2024 with the required 35 years of maximum earnings and has only one spouse who is also at FRA, their SS Benefit would be $3,822 and $1,911 per month, respectively. If the spouse did not work and contribute for 40 quarters or 10 years, the Spousal Benefit ($1,911 or $22,932/year) is just about equivalent to the SS Benefit of the average worker who contributed for 35 years or more.Granted, not every person will qualify for the SS Benefits that I used in the above example. However, it should be clear that revisions to the PIA formula and contribution requirements need to be reviewed as well. Perhaps there should be "means testing" to limit SS Benefits. The SS Program which is a social insurance benefit was initially created to keep people above the poverty level after one is no longer able to work. It is not a wealth transfer program to benefit high earners.

Another issue that has not been addressed by Congress is the declining SS base. We have been hovering around a 62% Labor Participation Rate for years https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART . We were at higher rates in the early 2000's (i.e., approx. 66% to 67%) which helped to continue increasing the SS Trust funds. You can review the various stats that the Feds disclose in the link that I provided and will learn that there is only about 168 million in the civilian work force. There are about 268 million eligible based on age (16 yo 64). There are about 100 million not working. However, some are disabled or there are other reasons. Of that number, there are about 42 million that are not disabled and could be working. I believe they are called "discouraged" and not counted in any unemployment stats. This should be a priority for Congress. In other words, create policies and laws that provide employment for our country which will help solve depleting the SS Trusts.

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@BrianL306623

Do you know why the taxable maximum exist in the 1st place? Because it is directly linked to the calculation of benefits - thus by limiting the taxable maximum, the maximum benefit is also limited. Social Security calls this annual limit the contribution and benefit base. As you said, this amount is also commonly referred to as the taxable maximum. For earnings in 2025, this base is $176,100.

That figure rises every year when there is a COLA - This figure is also firmly situated within what is known as the “middle class”especially if one lives in a high cost of living place in the US.

CNBC.com 09/20/2024 - Middle Class Incomes by State

Only extending the solvency of the program for 35 years is not the long range goal - 75 years is more like it AND the last sentence says a lot about why this change isn’t such a good idea if you want to keep the system as is and not just a welfare.system.

From your same CRS link:

However, having different bases for contributions and benefits would weaken the traditional link between the taxes workers pay into the system and the benefits they receive.”

The SS Actuaries also realize that IF an employer has to suddenly increase the amount of matching contributions, especially if it is a lot, this could detrimentally affect employment or hiring of a range of employees to try to make up for some of their increased cost of employment.

The SS Actuaries call this the “behaviorial” reaction by employer - they employers could also offer benefits or other compensation in lieu of some wage increases.

Employees, especially in the higher cost levels, could also be reclassified depending upon their function in the company to be utilized more on a contract basis than salary - then the increase cost of matching contributions would be on the employees dime as a self-employed person. OR if they decided they could Incorporate, there would be NO contributions since their pay would be then a division of profits rather than a W-2 pay check.

How many people do you think are W-2 employees in these real high pay areas? Like at $ 400,000 and above? Would the system get more in contributions this way than say, increasing the rate of contributions for everybody incrementally?

There have been tons of proposals put forth to fix the system. There have been numerous Administration appointed commissions to investigate and suggest proposals. This has been going on since the early 2000’s. Yet, here we are with no fix in store -

For your reading enjoyment - ALL the proposals to change the System with SS Actuarial analysis of each one. And of course, many of them want to extend or add benefits as well as making [some] people pay in more. So pick one, pick several.

SSA.gov Proposals to Change Social Security

You think this is an easy solution just because it sounds easy to do and will affect those to whom many think can afford it, so to speak.

This limit increases normally every year when there is any amount of inflation. So it will probably get higher and higher every year without any action at all. But the benefit calculations will stay the same unless we change that computation - but do we really want to do that - turn it into an even more progressive system than it already is at present.

This does nothing to fix our employment / contribution problems - it takes far less people to do jobs nowadays because of technology and that will probably continue. And we haven’t figured out a way to tax technology for the Social Security system. So (1) person is now paying into the system because they run some machine to do a job rather than the (10) that use to be needed to do the job.

Then we have the problem of people living longer and they draw their benefits for a longer period. I think in the beginning the program was planned just to pay benefits for a few years before the person died. Now it it 25, 30 or even more years of drawing benefits AND we have not changed the contribution rate for this longer draw rate.

Go back to the drawing board or the system will fix itself come 2035 or so when the law stipulate that benefits are cut automatically if benefits cannot be paid out of contributions.

SSA.gov - Social Security Trust Fund Data by year 1957 - 2023

People need to learn how to save - A time when we can no longer work because of old age doesn’t just creep up on us overnight. Social Security was never meant to be a total retirement program but it is for many. SAD !

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

So, where do we go from here? You make good points, and I agree 35 years is not enough, yet we have to start somewhere. No, I do not think it is an easy solution, nor do I think it is perfect, yet I think it is a start! My point is that the Congressional Research Service has put something forward that can begin to 'fix' the SS issue, yet it is not being acted on! You may throw as many darts as you want, yet there has to be a beginning. So, how do we get Congress do get off their collective duffs and do something? My hope is the collective pressure from groups like AARP, the unions across the country, etc., to put their weight on Congress to get it done. Of course, the solution also has to take into consideration of your points, those of @Tonster521, and other minds to make the solution sustainable. I am not a pie in the sky person, I am practical and a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Not my quote! 😉

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@BrianL306623

The CRS reports don’t put anything forward - ALL they do is explain the current process or proposals to Congress - When a proposal is made, the authors(s) request an analysis by the Social Security Acrtuaries and if their proposal doesn’t meet their expectations, they can go back to the drawing board to tweak their proposal and the numbers therein.

Several of these proposals involve raising the taxable maximum but not all at once. Some of them say they will raise the tax max on workers that make more than $ 250.000 or over $ 400,000 (since the current administration had promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $ 400,000). The proposals would leave the current way of raising the tax max in place and just let that figure catch up to the whatever other figure - $ 250,000 or $ 400,000 - when that catch up happens sometimes in the future, then in essence, all W2 income would be taxed for contributions.

But then, unless the benefits formula is changed, this will not accomplish too much because those who are then contributing more would be getting a bigger benefit. So the solution there is to add another (or more than one) bend point to the benefits formula to the already progressive formula.

THE ONLY way that any CURRENT beneficiaries will have their benefits affected is if we DO NOTHING - then the law will take affect sometimes in the future (about 2035 or there about) when insolvency happens - meaning when we can no longer pay benefits out of contributions and other Trust Fund income methods. Those cuts as presently presented based on the numbers would be about a 20%+/_ reduction in benefits.

We can make changes to the contribution %, we can change the full retirement age (FRA)incrementally from 67 to 70 for those who are say, now in their 30’s or 40’s - that would also get rid of the delayed retirement credits which we pay out now at a very nice % for those who don’t file for benefits until 70. Those would no longer apply if we raised the FRA to 70.

We can modify benefits for those who won’t retire for the next 20 - 30 years. We could tax those who get benefits but yet pay no contributions like non-working spouses. We could modify the Family Max benefit amount or cut out some of the Divorced Spouses benefits especially if there are several of them and no dependents involved.

Our Social Security and Medicare systems have become explosive political subjects. That’s why whatever solution has to be a REAL bipartisan effort. I am not sure we are there yet.

We have people that have not prepared themselves for the time in their life they can no longer work. I am sure there are many reasons why they didn’t or couldn’t. Things over time just get more and more expensive and if we have a real inflationary period like we did in 2022 - 2023, then those daily living cost hit them very hard because they have nothing to fall back on - THIS HAS TO CHANGE. We have to stress the importance of retirement savings to those especially younger than 55.

We definitely don’t need to add anything to benefits before we get hold of the financial problems we have with the SS system now. Many of those proposals being put forth are exactly that - added benefits.

People who are now within the systems of Social Security and/or Medicare who make a good retirement income from various sources already pay more back into these systems - They pay MORE in taxes on their benefits, they pay MORE for their Medicare Part B and Part D premiums (IRMAA surcharges). They may pay in more to Medicare if they sell their home - again a surcharge.

Maybe it is time to start thinking in “us” rather than “them”.

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

M

MichaelM873962

Contributor ⭐⭐

How can we get AARP members, union members and other americans working together to address this issue? I'm willing to help if we form a group on https://www.meetup.com/home/?suggested=true&source=EVENTS and establish one shared plan to fix social security. I feel the new republican administration will try and cancel the program or move the funds to a market plan like 401K's.

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

There isn’t ONE shared plan -

SSA.gov - Proposals To Change Social Security

The problem has been going on now for OVER (10 ) years. We have had proposals, we have had various commissions to develop the perfect plan to fix it - but we have managed to only fix a very few things,

You don’t have to worry about any complete changes to the system we have now for at least current to soon to be retirees. It is baked into law and would take a major overtaking to change it and then everybody would have to be onboard cause it has to also pass Congress.

Now maybe we could set up a completely different program for perhaps those about 30 years old or younger - since we seem to be proving that this old way doesn’t work so well financially since we haven’t figured out how to tax some machine doing the work of 10 people to fund the program.

Do you even think that within the AARP umbrella, we could all agree on what to do?

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

T

Tonster521

Community Champion ⭐

@GailL1 @BrianL306623 I am trying to reply to both of you as well as other readers of this interesting topic. It is clear to me that both of you have researched this topic and provided us with you thoughts. I wish more would offer their thoughts. Who knows, there may be some other ideas and/or concepts that may be solutions. More importantly, we need to contact our Representatives directly. I have done this on many occasions (mostly with Medicare issues) and have had positive outcomes. I attend all seminars that my Representative hosts. Although you may not get a chance to talk directly to the Representative because of the number of attendees, you can discuss issues with their staff which is productive.

At any rate, income inequality has been an issue for many years. Instead of closing the difference (especially by increasing minimum wages) it appears to be increasing. I am providing a link to an article dated March 13, 2024 from the Tax Foundation https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/ It is statistical data that may be cumbersome for some. At the least, take a look at Table 1 which provides a Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, TaxYear 2021. The Table informs us that for tax year 2021, the top 10% of tax returns or 15,358,991 reported $7.7 Trillion of income which represents 52.6% of the Adjusted Gross Income ($14.7 Trillion) for 2021. WOW! Most folks do not know this statistic.So, would increasing FICA taxes for this group of about 15 million with about 52% of the Country's AGI place a financial burden on them? Obviously, no. It would be interesting to know the breakdown of the AGI (i.e., how much is payroll, Chapter S distributions, dividends, capital gains, interest, etc.). This is a huge source of revenue for the SS Program whether taxed directly as FICA or taxed as Federal Income Taxes (FIT). The FIT approach can be similar to how SS Benefits are taxed, then transferred to the SS Trust and/or Medicare Hospital Trust. This is like moving money from your right pocket to your left pocket.

It appears to me that FICA proposals/solutions have been focused on the bottom 75% or about 115,192,431 who reported only about $4.1 Trillion ($4,108,645,000,000) of AGI in 2021. There is an interesting article from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) from February 2000 that questions do the high income folks subsidize the low income folks. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7520/w7520.pdf I hope I copied and pasted the article correctly. It is statistical and informative. The final result boils down to whether you use a 2% or 4% discount rate. At 4%, the findings are that the low income folks are subsidizing the high income folks. So, maybe the high income folks can level the field by paying their fair share of FICA. Another question that should have been addressed years ago is the 90% first bend point in the PIA formula for high income folks. As we know, the 90% bend point was created to keep folks above the poverty level. High income folks do not need the 90% bend point calculation. Perhaps that bend point can be developed at the 32% bend point instead of 90% based on some level of income whether taxed or not (i.e., muni nonds, etc.)

R

RickS467730

Contributor ⭐⭐

I completely agree that while AARP encourages us to email Congress, they rarely offer concrete solutions themselves. Everyone recognizes the urgent need for a viable solution to the challenges facing Social Security. However, the key question remains: what exactly should we propose to Congress?

In my view, raising taxes is not the answer. Doing so would only reduce the take-home pay of hardworking individuals, placing an even greater burden on them. Instead, I believe the best path forward is to consider a model similar to the reforms implemented in Sweden during the 1990s.

We should move toward a partial privatization of Social Security—not an all-or-nothing approach, but a balanced strategy. Privatizing a portion, such as half of the program, could introduce greater flexibility and potential growth for individual accounts while maintaining the security and stability of the traditional system for those who depend on it most.

Partial privatization, like Sweden’s model, could give individuals more control over their retirement savings and potentially provide higher returns compared to the current system. It would also allow for diversification, which could improve the program's long-term sustainability. At the same time, retaining a public portion ensures a safety net for those who might struggle with the inherent risks of market investments.

That said, implementing such a plan would require careful consideration of several factors, including transition costs, potential market risks, and ensuring fairness across all income groups. To address concerns about investment risks, individuals could have the flexibility to choose their own level of risk, tailoring their investments to align with their financial goals and risk tolerance. It would also be essential to clarify the government’s role in managing this system and address public concerns about shifting more responsibility to individuals.

R

RaymondO668575

Contributor ⭐⭐

You wrote, "In my view, raising taxes is not the answer."

It is not about raising taxes, it is about not giving the ultra-rich a tax cut. They should pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else.

I'm sure most of them have a tax-loop hole up their sleeve anyway. Speaking of which

reinvestment in the corporation is one good loop-hole that is a win/win for us all.

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@BrianL306623 @Tonster521 @RickS467730 @sktn77a @MichaelM873962

THIS IS A 2019 PROPOSAL FROM REP. JOHN LARSON - it is the only proposal that would fix Social Security for the long term - Of course, it did not pass - why because people wanted more expansion or they wanted to fix something they thought was a problem. He has reintroduced this same proposal title over the years. with each giving more benefits but not getting enough in revenues to close the solvency problem.

So years ago (2019), I took one of Rep. John Larsons’ SS proposals and broke it all down, explaining the changes and asked what people thought about it - not much response, at least not from very many people.

I am gonna post the link to them here - it was a two part post.

It seems to me that most people don’t want yo know what’s in a particular proposal - all they want to know is how much will they get with any expansion or a certainty that they will not have to pay anymore. It is as simple as that. So as long as the proposal taxes somebody else and as long as the proposal gives them something they don’t have now - IT IS A WIN - right?

PART I of II - The Social Security 2100 Act Analysis 02/02/2019 - AARP Social Security Community Discussion

PART II of II - The Social Security 2100 Act Analysis 02/04/2019 - AARP Social Security Community Discussion

Now the above is the 2019 version. If you want to read the latest, well the last one that the SS Actuary analyzed to see how it has changed thru the years - Here it is.

Social Security 2100 Act Proposal introduced 07/12/2023 Rep. John Larson

This proposal is still around although it has been changed several times in the years since. So it doesn’t look to much like the one that I analyzed in 2019. But he keeps trying - adding more expansion and getting as much as possible from raising the tax max cap. Hasn’t helped - I count he has done a total of 3 - 4 of these Social Security 2100 Act Proposals thru the years. Want something that isn’t there - give him a shout and he can probably squeeze it into the next one. [sarcasm]

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

@GailL1 @Tonster521 @MichaelM873962 @RickS467730 @sktn77a

Gail, thank you for the exhaustive & informative analysis of Rep Larson's proposal. I cannot truly say I understand all of it, yet still trying. I wonder why the $400,000 would start a new %, why not everything above the cap? I understand the 'Board' you are on now.

I think @Tonster521 has it right that in spite of what lead sponsors of the bill in the House said, "The time to put an end to this theft is now," the Act is BS and the theft will be under those who do not have the government pension. AND the Act does not even provide for an expansion of the cap. 😞

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@BrianL306623 wrote

I wonder why the $400,000 would start a new %, why not everything above the cap?

When President Biden took over in 2021, he vowed not to raise taxes on anybody making less than $400,000.

Before that time, the figures to raise the cap above a (certain) level were all over the place - $ 200,000, $ 250,000, $ 400,000 -

Simply this is a figure that can be easily used to bring in more or less income so they tweaked it to the $$ needs in the rest of their proposal.

In all of the proposals, they also keep the current method of raising the cap annually if we get a COLA (inflation). and thus at some time down the road, the two cap would then join and ALL employee W2 eor self-employed earnings would be taxes.

But the cap raising is only (1) part of the equation - the cap relates to the top benefit calculated. Raise the cap, raise the benefit - then the math doesn’t do what they want, that is bring in revenues - so the plan also has to include a method to recalculate any benefit or just eliminate any benefit altogether.

You all are making this way too hard - The program of Social Security is based in law and because the way the law is written there are only a few ways to raise revenues unless the law is also changed to tax other income sources. ‘

So if you want to change Social Security there are just a few basics that one needs to decide on -

1. should the Social Security Program be changed to only fix the solvency problem

OR

should it be expanded or expanded and fix some of the things to which people feel they have been cheated (like the WEP/GPO) {LOL]. IOW, do it all in one big swift law revision.

2. Where should the added income come from ? There is only a few placed - (A). contribution increases on everybody who is vested into the program by work earnings (B) raise the cap AND determine how these extra contributions by the higher earners will be figure into benefits OR NOT give any benefit for them (C) expand the income sources of contribution taxation. (D). more taxes or benefits or NOT (E) increase the federal government interest paid on the special treasuries where any money left after paying benefits is kept

So you figure out which IF ANY expansion of benefits and then the revenue sources.

But with so many people, there is never agreement on which of these to do. Somebody is always gonna feel slighted because they think they deserve more of a fair share.

It is a political hot potato, politicians can lose their jobs.
It is a heart string pulling social hot potato,- the needy, the inequality
it is a mathematical and social hot potato that will affect things like employment and our economy.

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@BrianL306623 @Tonster521 and anybody else -

I thought I would give you this link to the tool at this website - I have no idea if it is correct in present time - but it is interesting to test out any theories.

Committee for Responsible Federal Budget (cfrb).org- THE REFORMER - An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security

Some types of analysis have already been done and can be referenced on the page too.

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

@GailL1 thank you, I will check this out.

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Social-Security/How-to-Improve-Social-Security-s-Minimum-Benefit-AARP-Article/m-p/2580758

I did not see anyplace in these reports on how to get any Social Security revenues to cover what they would like to do with this minimum benefit - especially since it would also be linked to these folks retaining their Supplemental Security Income and thus their linked Medicaid.

It is always easier to give stuff and pay for it later - or never. Many Americans live this way - why not government programs too. The BIG CREDIT CARD in the Sky - maybe China will lend us the money. NO - we don’t have to do that - we can just tax the rich.

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

@GailL1 @Tonster521 @RickS467730 @sktn77a @MichaelM873962 Well, the B@$t@rds did it! 😞

Senate approves bill to expand Social Security to millions of Americans - CBS News

M

MichaelM873962

Contributor ⭐⭐

This is progress but we still have to win two major fights.

1. The long term full solvency issue.

2. Republicans plan to gut SS to pay the debt created by tax breaks to the rich.

S

SlappyHappyBoy

Contributor ⭐

I agree with you. What is AARP doing actively in Congress to protect our earned benefits? When Trump takes over and his allies who are hell bent on ending Social Security, Medicare and more, we are dead. What is wrong with these people and why isn't AARP front and center protecting this? How about some Action?

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

@SlappyHappyBoy while I may not agree with your sentiment about the incoming administration wanting to end SS because I have not seen anything concrete attesting to such, I disagree with ending the taxes on tips and SS because those funds go to the SS trust funds.

As for AARP, that is a good question. All they do is send emails and ask us to send something to Congress. I have tried to connect with the AARP marketing on LinkedIn yet nothing!

R

RaymondO668575

Contributor ⭐⭐

I believe we need a watchdog on Congress and Senate on this issue.

I've formed an editorial team, now we need researchers to share

fact checked data.

We can start with AARP by writing an article that will bring in more talent.

Anybody here submitted an article to AARP? If so, did it get published?

-rko

WebWiseWoman

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

I'm going to communicate several personal experiences which some may find offensive given the current political climate; I do not apologize but hope everyone who reads will at least be receptive and understand...

I first worked at 13 for my step-dads biz for maybe allowance money, opening mail, answering phones, etc., along with Mom who was in charge. Then when I was 8 or 9, "agents" showed up and said SS wage taxes must be paid for my and my brothers $1.25 or whatever per week...

Once graduated HS, I found employment with a major company; great fun but lecherous terrible environment; which is what drove it into bankruptcy; unfortunately our last paycheck and "RETIREMENT" investment fund were GONE!

Even better, another retirement fund, Caesars Entertainment, was bought out by the "Kmart of casinos"; the depleted our investments and rode off into the wind...

So, part of ensuring Social Security Retirement should absolutely be ensuring other "retirement" items are real and undeniable, and never just gone...

GailL1

Community Champion ⭐⭐⭐

@WebWiseWoman

Since 1974, we have had the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation -it was founded at the same time as ERISA - Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the foundation for a sound and workable pension insurance program that guaranteed workers' benefits in private pension plans.

I don’t know your dates or companies but it might be a good idea to explore the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - and see if you might have some pension funds just sitting there because they have lost track of you.

About PBGC and specifically - PBGC.gov - Workers and Retirees

I know that Cesears Entertainment and the PBGC have had several law suits in the not so distant past - so depending on the circumstances, you may be able to find some of your previously invested funds.

USA.gov- How to find Unclaimed Money from the Government

Merry Christmas ~

IT‘S ALWAYS SOMETHING . . . . .. . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna

Show more replies

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO