AARP efforts to protect Social Security

[rker321]

I got news for all of you. In view of the fact on how this Administration does things, I wouldn't be too sure that anything and everything could happen. 

[JAYHAWK144]

I'm wanting to see what AARP's position is on the taxation of Social Security benefits and the apparent fact that the limits of income for married tax filers $32,000 (any type including IRA withdrawals) required to tax were not indexed and have been the same since the bill to start taxing them was enacted in 1983.  I plugged the $32,000 base for taxing Married income tax filers into the inflation calculator from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the current buying power cost would be $81,978.24 . I'm sure that when this bill was enacted there was no objection as this was indeed a high bar to exceed for the average retired citizen.

What was and is AARP's position.

[erikm219989]

---

@GailL1 wrote:

---

@erikm219989 wrote:

---

@g654307s wrote:

I have just joined AARP to get involved with protecting social security.   While Trumps says he wants to protect, it seems the Republicans led by Ryan want to destroy it via privatization. Does ARRP have specific newsletters or communities on this topic? Also, where can I find information on AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect social security?

Thanks.  GS

---

This is basically the same reason I decided to join the AARP Community. I have Medicaid and get a Social Security deposit each month to help me pay bills and stuff, and would be in serious trouble and going homeless if these benefits were lost.

---

Then both of you should realize the truth that there has to be some changes to Social Security so that it will last and not get so low on available funds that benefits have to be reduced. 

---

And for changes to Social Security that aren't any kind of cuts to happen, we need to be electing Democratic candidates instead of Republican candidates.

By the way, I forgot to mention here before that it was due to being found to have disabilities that had kept me from maintaining any kind of job status that I had gotten these benefits.

[GailL1]

---

@erikm219989 wrote:

---

@g654307s wrote:

I have just joined AARP to get involved with protecting social security.   While Trumps says he wants to protect, it seems the Republicans led by Ryan want to destroy it via privatization. Does ARRP have specific newsletters or communities on this topic? Also, where can I find information on AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect social security?

Thanks.  GS

---

This is basically the same reason I decided to join the AARP Community. I have Medicaid and get a Social Security deposit each month to help me pay bills and stuff, and would be in serious trouble and going homeless if these benefits were lost.

---

Then both of you should realize the truth that there has to be some changes to Social Security so that it will last and not get so low on available funds that benefits have to be reduced. 

Social Security Trustee Report (Summary) 2017

Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce the long-term financing shortfall of both programs. The Trustees recommend that lawmakers take action sooner rather than later to address these shortfalls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Congressional Research Service 09/12/2017 - Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ra...

Summary:

Social Security’s income and outlays are accounted for through two federal trust funds: the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund.   Under their intermediate assumptions and under current law, the Social Security trustees project that the DI Trust Fund will become depleted in 2028 and the OASI Trust Fund will become depletedin 2035. Although the two funds are legally separate, they are often considered in combination. The trustees project that the combined Social Security trust funds will become depleted in 2034.  At that point, revenue would be sufficient
to pay only about 77% of scheduled benefits.

If a trust fund became depleted, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits.   However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.

It is unclear what specific actions SSA would take if a trust fund were depleted.   After insolvency, Social Security would continue to receive tax income, from which a majority of scheduled benefits could be paid.   One option would be to pay full benefits on a delayed schedule; another would be to make timely but reduced payments. Social Security beneficiaries would remain legally entitled to full, timely benefits and could take legal action to claim the balance of their benefits.

Maintaining financial balance after trust fund insolvency would require substantial reductions in Social Security benefits, substantial increases in income, or some combination of the two. The trustees project that following insolvency of the combined funds in 2034, Congress could restore balance by reducing scheduled benefitsby about 23%; the required reduction would grow gradually to 27% by 2091.   Alternatively, Congress could raise
the Social Security payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 16.0% following insolvency in 2034, then gradually increase it to 16.9% by 2091.

Trust-fund insolvency could be avoided if outlays were reduced or income increased sufficiently.   The sooner Congress acts to adjust Social Security policy, the less abrupt the changes would need to be, because they could be spread over a longer period and would therefore affect a larger number of workers and beneficiaries.   Even if changes were not implemented immediately, enacting them sooner would give workers and beneficiaries time to plan and adjust their work and savings behavior.

~ read more at both the links provided ~

[GailL1]

---

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I completely disagree with Gail. I'm not disputing any of her technical analysis, but  I couldn't care less what her technical analysis of the law is.

FDR promised Americans Social Security would be tax free and it should be.

---

If FDR and the legislators at the time, wanted that to be the case - they should have built it into the actual law.  THEY DIDN'T !

From SNOPES:

SNOPES: Social Security Changes

The Claim:  . .. . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

The Facts:    It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.

A lie is still a lie no matter how often you repeat it - 

A fantasy, fairy tale is not real -

We need to live in reality -

I give you REALITY - You give a FAIRY TALE

The more you repeat this, the more others become confused and continue to repeat it, just like they do for numerous other things which they "hear" -

People here talk about an informed electorate, people here talk about mandatory voting -

How could we ever have either of those things if lies continue on and on -

Education is a good thing what keeps them dumb is when they think education is some thing which "somebody told them, or they read it on the internet".

Don't keep people dumb, CriticalThinking -

[Olderscout66]

Here's a thought:

Each year, you pay no tax on the part of your SS retirement that YOU contributed, divided by your years of life expectancy at the time you retire. So if at retirement you had contributed $300,000 and you were expected to live 30 MORE years, each year your taxable income would be reduced by $10,000 from the total retirement income including SS. 

To fix the system FOREVER increase the cap to $250,000 and index it to increase so the amount covers 90% of total income and add another "bend" in the benefit calculation at $118,500 by 3%.

[CriticalThinking]

I completely disagree with Gail. I'm not disputing any of her technical analysis, but  I couldn't care less what her technical analysis of the law is. FDR promised Americans Social Security would be tax free and it should be.

[erikm219989]

---

@g654307s wrote:

I have just joined AARP to get involved with protecting social security.   While Trumps says he wants to protect, it seems the Republicans led by Ryan want to destroy it via privatization. Does ARRP have specific newsletters or communities on this topic? Also, where can I find information on AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect social security?

Thanks.  GS

---

This is basically the same reason I decided to join the AARP Community. I have Medicaid and get a Social Security deposit each month to help me pay bills and stuff, and would be in serious trouble and going homeless if these benefits were lost.

[NOTHAPPENING]

---

GailL1 wrote: 

Employees need to to understand and pay taxes on whatever benefits they receive from an employer because by any other name these benefits are part of their salary and are the cost of employment.   

---

I think you will see this some time soon. Right now they are tracking the value of health benefits but still not taxing. Many companies have menu programs where you select the benefits you want. If you had to pay for any of those benefits yourself, you WOULD be using already taxed money!

[GailL1]

---

@CriticalThinking wrote:

Since a pair of 1938 Treasury Department Tax Rulings, and another in 1941, Social Security benefits have been explicitly excluded from federal income taxation

---

So what - those were JUST rulings, not law changes.

Times change especially when it comes to trying to save the program and there was no tax on the money to begin with on the employer side.  Consider it only as "deferred taxation".

You do realize that this tax on benefits goes directly into the Trust Fund and right now it is a huge part of keeping the program solvent. 

Personally, I think that 50% of it should be taxed on everybody without setting some arbitrary income numbers to it.

After all - people are taxed on their tax deferred retirement plans when they begin to take them.  

Employees need to to understand and pay taxes on whatever benefits they receive from an employer because by any other name these benefits are part of their salary and are the cost of employment.