Conversationalist ⭐

A solution to keep Social Security solvent

104 replies
39369 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?

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

I am still trying. Now, I have reached out on NextDoor. We need an influencer!

OneDayMatisyahu

Conversationalist ⭐⭐⭐

Attention: do not click onto the link 'hartley' has posted - it is a "TinyURL" which it legitimately does not need. This 'hartley' is a new user who has posted at least 2 similar posts with hyperlinks to 'TinyURL' for ssa.gov = high probable fraud/ scam.

Plus the text is too well written - like AI generated.

😠

J

jm32886909

Contributor ⭐⭐

Check the AARP Mission Statement. It has no explicit statement about ensuring the long term viability of the SS Trust fund and opposition to reduction of current benefits. Also check how AARP generates revenue. ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR from United Healthcare, one third from membership dues. Has AARP made any statement on hacking of SS database by the Musketeers? The last comments like this I posted got my ACCESS DENIED to this bulletin board.

R

RaymondO668575

Contributor ⭐⭐

Keep a watchful eye on these senators.

"The 20 GOP senators that voted against the Social Security bill" voted against legislation approved by the Senate late Friday that would bolster Social Security benefits for more than 2 million American citizens working in a range of occupations.

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...

Done with this "new" and "improved"... kinda like dotard improved America...

G

GailL1

@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 ~

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

G

GailL1

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.

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.

G

GailL1

@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.

B

BrianL306623Author

Conversationalist ⭐

@GailL1 thank you, I will check this out.

G

GailL1

@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]

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. 😞

G

GailL1

@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.

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.

Show more replies

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO