GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

Well this deserves a hearty sarcastic SHOCK & SURPRISE!

This is what you voted for folks.

A someone likely in that lower age bracket, I support this. I've long came to terms that the age increase should occur for people like me.

I'll also note that if you buy into the idiotic "the ACA is a republican plan" idea simply because one major component was advocated by some republicans at some time, then this is a great bipartisan/democratic bill since it includes means testing.

I don't subscribe to the above, and definitely recognize this as a predominantly conservative focused bit of reform. Despite that, I'm actually happy to see means testing in there, as I think for the purposes of SS it's proper.

poweRob said:

GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation to significantly cut Social Security.

The bill introduced by Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69.

Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom. People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%. But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half.​

Well this deserves a hearty sarcastic SHOCK & SURPRISE!

This is what you voted for folks.

Click to expand...

You don't want means testing for social security? I find that hard to believe.

The countries going broke, hard choices are coming sooner or later. The later they come the harder they will be.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Aristaeus said:

We need to pay for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy somehow.

Click to expand...

Educate yourself and see who pays for what.. lol

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

We need to pay for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy that Trump will bring in somehow.

Aristaeus said:

We need to pay for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy that Trump will bring in somehow.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the link education is helpful so you know what you are talking about... cheers
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Zyphlin said:

A someone likely in that lower age bracket, I support this. I've long came to terms that the age increase should occur for people like me.

Click to expand...

I might be OK with an age increase, if there are exceptions for certain categories of workers. It's one thing for someone like me who sits at a desk to work till they're nearly 70 before getting SS, but a little different for someone like my uncle who worked manual labor jobs all his life. He was a pretty physically broken down man at 60, much less at 69.

And as an aside, anyone working a desk job, like writers and politicians and the like, who want to comment on how working until you're 69 is no big deal, don't, shut up about it. A few months ago, I can't remember who it was, but it was a very wealthy guy who was still "working" at 74 or whatever, and saying how it's no big deal, we all should be working into our 70s, etc. I wanted to punch the guy in the face because you know that asshole likely doesn't even have to make his bed in morning, cook a meal, mow the yard, go to the grocery, much less have to spend 8 or 9 hours a day on his feet serving breakfast or ringing up customers at the gas station or installing AC units, etc.

I'll also note that if you buy into the idiotic "the ACA is a republican plan" idea simply because one major component was advocated by some republicans at some time, then this is a great bipartisan/democratic bill since it includes means testing.

Click to expand...

We probably need means testing, but can accomplish much of the same thing with taxes - lift or raise the cap and you do much of the same result, but on the front end instead of the back. And the problem with means testing it except at a high level (which wouldn't do all that much good) is the fear that SS becomes a welfare for poor old people program and loses a lot of important and powerful political support. If the upper middle class doesn't GET SS, they aren't going to care much about benefits or anything else - just another program for the undeserving poor they got to fund with their taxes.

Zyphlin said:

As someone likely in that lower age bracket, I support this. I've long came to terms that the age increase should occur for people like me.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem. Those who benefit the least from age adjustments collect the least amount from S.S.. In all reality, it is just a minor stop-gap that claims praise relative to little benefit.

If you were to subject all wage earners to S.S. taxation... such policy would reduce the future S.S. budget gap by 76% relative to the alternative suggested.

I'll also note that if you buy into the idiotic "the ACA is a republican plan" idea simply because one major component was advocated by some republicans at some time, then this is a great bipartisan/democratic bill since it includes means testing.

Click to expand...

The A.C.A. and S.S. are completely different programs that attempt to achieve different objectives. If we had a public option, you'd have some ground. However, private sector dominated healthcare is advocated by the GOP... no denying this.

I don't subscribe to the above, and definitely recognize this as a predominantly conservative focused bit of reform. Despite that, I'm actually happy to see means testing in there, as I think for the purposes of SS it's proper.

Click to expand...

Means testing for basic services is ripe with inefficiency. For example, middle class workers and taxpayers are likely to be punished for achievement, which only advocates a race-to-the-bottom result of such policy. What would be the point of this reform if those who benefit no longer do so?

Partsguy57 said:

Take a look at the link education is helpful so you know what you are talking about... cheers
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Here's some reading for you! Cheers!

https://mises.org/blog/myth-half-americans-dont-pay-federal-taxes

For the record, I'm always a bit confused by this talking point. There aren't any special deductions (except EITC) for the lucky duckies who don't pay federal income tax, they just don't make much money. A lot of them are young and work part time and file for refunds, or are old and do the same thing. Lots more have kids, and that lower their taxes, so maybe decrease the take home for poor families with kids is the idea? We do need more kids in poverty.

Maybe you want to raise YOUR taxes by lowering the standard deduction, and exemptions, or eliminating mortgage interest and charity so taxes across the board including your own go up? Or a tax surcharge on the poor? Most of them do pay a flat tax on their wages of around 15%, so maybe bump that up a bit, but just for people at the bottom - they've got it too easy now...

Means testing is LONG overdue.

No one should be getting a penny of SS if they do not need it.


I did not read the whole thing...but I think this idea is a step in the right direction....which should be to eventually kill SS and people that are senior and poor simply apply for welfare like everyone else that needs government assistance.

DA60 said:

Means testing is LONG overdue.

No one should be getting a penny of SS if they do not need it.

Click to expand...

Oh HELL no! :2mad:

As long as I've paid into it I had better damn well get what I was promised when I reach retirement age!

I'm sick and tired of all this "pay this or pay that" so someone else "who needs it" gets it instead of me.

I don't look at Social Security as the same as Welfare. I look at it like a savings/pension plan; an investment for MY future old age fiscal security.

Otherwise you can s**t-can the whole deal and refund what I paid up to now and stop taking any more. I'll stick the whole lump sum into a pension plan of my own and to hell with anyone else. :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

Oh HELL no! :2mad:

As long as I've paid into it I had better damn well get what I was promised when I reach retirement age!

I'm sick and tired of all this "pay this or pay that" so someone else "who needs it" gets it instead of me.

I don't look at Social Security as the same as Welfare. I look at it like a savings/pension plan; an investment for MY future old age fiscal security.

Otherwise you can s**t-can the whole deal and refund what I paid up to now and stop taking any more. I'll stick the whole lump sum into a pension plan of my own and to hell with anyone else. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

With respect...if you need it...fine. If you don't...'hell' no.

I don't care who has paid what into it. People pay money to welfare programs (through taxes) that they will never use. This is no different. SS is still a tax.

I find it utterly ridiculous that wealthy people receive SS payments when the system is going bankrupt...that is total nonsense.

SS should be killed and replaced with welfare.

And anyone that put money into it who do not need it should look upon it as supporting those less fortunate then themselves.

I regret if you were - in the end - deceived. But life is full of disappointments. And surely by now you realize that EVERYTHING the government promises must be taken with a GIGANTIC grain of salt.
I.E. assume everything the government says is a flat out lie and/or is flat out wrong.

SS was never going to work...and, IMO, no one but the poor should have depended on this for their retirement. I certainly never did...no offense.

Again...never depend on the government for anything but ****ing everything up. You will sleep better at night.

Captain Adverse said:

Oh HELL no! :2mad:

As long as I've paid into it I had better damn well get what I was promised when I reach retirement age!

I'm sick and tired of all this "pay this or pay that" so someone else "who needs it" gets it instead of me.

I don't look at Social Security as the same as Welfare. I look at it like a savings/pension plan; an investment for MY future old age fiscal security.

Otherwise you can s**t-can the whole deal and refund what I paid up to now and stop taking any more. I'll stick the whole lump sum into a pension plan of my own and to hell with anyone else. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you buddy but this was hashed out a LOOOONNNNGGGG time ago in the courts. Basically what they said in order to pass constitutional muster amongst other things was that Social Security is a TAX. The benefits are charity given by government, subject to government whim. You and everyone else has NO account, and the government can stop paying you whenever and however it so chooses. Social Security is NOT a retirement pension plan. The sooner you realize it the better. Otherwise you will be making some very unwise decisions. Just a heads up for you.

PirateMk1 said:

Hate to break it to you buddy but this was hashed out a LOOOONNNNGGGG time ago in the courts. Basically what they said in order to pass constitutional muster amongst other things was that Social Security is a TAX. The benefits are charity given by government, subject to government whim. You and everyone else has NO account, and the government can stop paying you whenever and however it so chooses. Social Security is NOT a retirement pension plan. The sooner you realize it the better. Otherwise you will be making some very unwise decisions. Just a heads up for you.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

...but dag nabbit I don't have to like it.

PirateMk1 said:

Hate to break it to you buddy but this was hashed out a LOOOONNNNGGGG time ago in the courts. Basically what they said in order to pass constitutional muster amongst other things was that Social Security is a TAX. The benefits are charity given by government, subject to government whim. You and everyone else has NO account, and the government can stop paying you whenever and however it so chooses. Social Security is NOT a retirement pension plan. The sooner you realize it the better. Otherwise you will be making some very unwise decisions. Just a heads up for you.

Click to expand...

What ?? I thought the government worked for me, was my friend..... they cared for me....lol I pity any fool that looks to the government for their " retirement " savings, their livelihood, for their means of survival. The founding fathers were so very clear what government is, becomes, it amazes me how so many in the country looks to the government as their savior, to the government as the ultimate problem solver. In the end this group of people will always end up bitterly disappointed angry and pointing fingers at those that said big government is not the way to go. Some never learn....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

Click to expand...

yep, and Medicare will probably be next on the chopping block. sad times. i've paid a lot into those programs, and now they're likely to breach the contract.

Captain Adverse said:

Oh HELL no! :2mad:

As long as I've paid into it I had better damn well get what I was promised when I reach retirement age!

Click to expand...

if you're over 55, i doubt that the Republicans will screw with you too hard. that's a big voting block, and they can't (well, at least not yet) suppress the vote enough to keep seniors away from the polls. my guess is that this will be a phase in, and that GenX and later generations will get screwed the hardest.

GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation to significantly cut Social Security.

The bill introduced by Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69.

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

Click to expand...

I really do not believe that Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas) is going to be very popular within even his own party with this idea. Seriously. The GOP wants to stay in power. :roll:

I'd personally like to take all my SS money paid in over the past 30 years and have the government give me the money. I can make it grow better than the government using it.

Saving for one's own retirement is an individual responsibility.

I approve of these types of changes though they are too subtle.

Ockham said:

I'd personally like to take all my SS money paid in over the past 30 years and have the government give me the money. I can make it grow better than the government using it.

Click to expand...

If I did what you are talking about I would still place it in to a FDIC bank. I trust private institutions just like I would our lawmakers. :shrug:

Bob N said:

If I did what you are talking about I would still place it in to a FDIC bank. I trust private institutions just like I would our lawmakers. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I would invest it, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, land, EFT's, domestic and international. And I would use it as I chose to, whether I retired at 55 or retired at 75.

Ockham said:

I'd personally like to take all my SS money paid in over the past 30 years and have the government give me the money. I can make it grow better than the government using it.

Click to expand...

And then when another crash like in 2007/2008 comes you'll have millions of bankrupt people who can never retire, but that wouldn't happen to you, so who cares, right?