A solution to keep Social Security solvent

[BrianL306623]

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?

[OneDayMatisyahu]

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.

😠

[SpringIsHereVA]

@OneDayMatisyahu  👍

---

[*** @OneDayMatisyahu wrote:

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.

😠  ***]

---

[jm32886909]

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.

[RaymondO668575]

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]

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]

@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 ~

[SlappyHappyBoy]

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?

[jm32886909]

Agree 100% about AARP not doing enough to protect SS Trust Fund and the benefits we earned from a lifetime of work. AARP accepts ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR from United Healthcare. Check the AARP Mission Statement. No explicit statement supporting SS. Just vague wording about "advocacy". Top exec for AARP was paid 2.5 million dollars last year, more than most of us earn in a lifetime. "He who pays the piper calls the tune"

[MichaelM873962]

I think it's time to create a new non-profit interest group for seniors. Most organizations, companies etc... become outdated over time and forget about their original mission. AARP has reached that stage.

[RaymondO668575]

"You wrote, " How about some Action?"

Reminds me of a a JFK speech.  "Ask not what your country can do for you but what

you can do for your country" 

What can you do?

[jm32886909]

First things first, request AARP to change their mission statement to include explicit support for long term viability of Social Security Trust fund and opposition to any reduction of current benefits. Oligarchs want to end SS. Please speak up. It may already be too late

[GAKKIEZ]

Why would you think this is a good idea for AARP to change their mission statement now?  Everything was okay under the previous administration but not now?  AARP members are on both sides of this issue when economic feasibility is considered. 

[RickS467730]

I understand your frustration, but it’s important to clarify that while there are concerns about potential changes to Social Security and Medicare, the idea that Trump or his allies are determined to "end" these programs is not accurate. Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to protect Social Security and Medicare, though some of his policies, like proposed budget cuts or payroll tax reductions, have raised concerns about their long-term funding.

That said, it’s important to note that payroll tax cuts would primarily affect future funding for these programs and wouldn’t directly impact those of us currently receiving Social Security or Medicare benefits. The programs have trust funds to ensure payments for current beneficiaries, but any changes to payroll taxes could have long-term implications for future recipients.

As @BrianL306623 has pointed out AARP just wants us to flood emails to congress without any real direction or any opinion of their own. 

[BrianL306623]

@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!

[RaymondO668575]

""incoming administration wanting to end SS "

Did you look at the Republican Senators who voted against the recent

Social Security Fainess Act? They would be worth following.

I imagine one could write a letter to a Senator or House Rep and mention they

are a Member of AARP and that would add clout to the letter with the popular

AARP brand.

As I mentioned in another post. We need not ask what they can do for us, but what we

can do for them.

-rko

[RickS467730]

I get why this vote is frustrating—it seems like a no-brainer to support Social Security benefits, especially for people like teachers and firefighters who’ve been affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset. But the situation is a bit more complicated.

The bill, called the Social Security Fairness Act, would repeal those provisions, which is great for the people impacted. But it also comes with a big price tag—about $200 billion over the next decade—and could speed up the depletion of Social Security funds by six months. Some of the senators who voted against it said they were worried about how this would affect Social Security’s long-term stability and the federal budget.

I don’t think their vote means they’re against Social Security itself. It seems more like they’re being cautious about the financial impact and looking for a way to balance helping people now with keeping the program sustainable for the future. It’s definitely something worth keeping an eye on, though, because everyone deserves a fair shot at the benefits they’ve earned.

[RaymondO668575]

You wrote, "It seems more like they’re being cautious about the financial impact and looking for a way to balance helping people now "

This may be true if things like the tax structure stays the same. But it is not staying the same, With "Project 2025: which guidleines will be filtered

in after the new President is sworn in will result in the tax structure changing drastically.

Namely that the ultra-rich will have a huge tax cut and the middle class taxes

will go up.  This will result in less money going into social programs like Social

Security and Medicare. 

This is the realistic impetus of these 20 Senators to freeze social security progress now so they can dismantle it later.

You wrote,"I don’t think their vote means they’re against Social Security itself"  but that is a passive term, you really are not sure of their motives. 

Hence the need for more research on the voting records and comments of these 20 senators.

-RKO

[RickS467730]

It’s amazing how misinformation gets spread. Trump has publicly denied knowing about or agreeing with Project 2025. In fact, he has distanced himself from those associated with it.

That said, it’s still important to focus on the specifics of this vote. While some senators may have broader policy goals that concern you, others might have opposed the bill because of its immediate financial impact—like the $200 billion cost over the next decade and the strain it could put on Social Security’s solvency.

From what we’ve seen, these senators tend to vote along the lines of less spending. Their voting patterns often reflect fiscal conservatism, which may explain their opposition to this bill.

As for the claim that the ultra-rich will get a huge tax cut while middle-class taxes go up, it’s important to clarify that during Trump’s first term, his tax cuts benefited individuals across all income brackets, not just the ultra-rich. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act benefitted most individuals in many ways. Social Security and Medicare, which are funded primarily through payroll taxes, would not be directly impacted by income tax changes. Any significant tax reform would need congressional approval and would be carefully debated to ensure it doesn’t harm these vital programs.

That said, any further discussion about taxes should be moved to another thread, as this one is focused on Social Security and Medicare.

[jm32886909]

Trump just nominated (and the Senate approved) the author of Project 2025 to be Director of the office of Management and Budget. Trump is lying about not knowing anything about Project 2025. Thats not all he is lying about. Wake up! They want to reduce, eliminate or privatize SS.

[RaymondO668575]

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

[jm32886909]

My access to this bulletin board was denied after posting comments on threat to SS. 

[BrianL306623]

Yeh, where is Ralph Nader when you need him not that he really made a difference? He turned 90 this year.

Editorial team with MoveOn?  Fact check what? You might find a lot of good information in this thread posted by @GailL1 & @Tonster521.

There are 3 pages of conversation and contributors to this subject.

[RaymondO668575]

CheckYouTube for the Ralph Nader Radio show although he is not championing

Social Security, for that you are better with Senator Elizabeth Warren. 

With our editorial team we are taking stock who is championing what issues.

Fact check whatever we are writing about, lest the writer look like a fool. I personally like PolitiFact for the purpose of fact checking.

-rko

[GailL1]

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

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.  

[BrianL306623]

@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

[MichaelM873962]

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.

[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 Socia... 

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

[BrianL306623]

@GailL1 That is an interesting tool. UNder my plan, Social Security will be sustainably solvent for the next 75 years and beyond. Here are my inputs:

• Slow Benefit Growth for Top 70% of Earners
• Raise Age from 67 to 68
• Limit Spousal Benefits for High Earners
• Subject All Wages to Payroll Tax

In 2050 my plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 13% and increase payable benefits by 9%. My plan would increase taxes by 18%. However, if I understand this correctly, the reduction in benefits and increase in taxes only affects the higher earners, including Congress!

I am sure there would be push back, yet you cannot please everyone!

[GailL1]

@BrianL306623 

What is the income limit you are using for the high income earners?