That’s the wet dream of the American Enterprise Institute. {{ LOL }}
intercst
3 Likes
Biggs and Shapiro estimate that approximately 80% of beneficiaries would get a “smaller reduction than they would under uniform percentage benefit cuts.”
What about those receiving the highest benefits? The authors estimate they would “receive a roughly 40% cut”
That plan doesn’t touch the third rail. It grabs it with both hands and shoves it up SS recipients’ …
6 Likes
That plan doesn’t touch the third rail. It grabs it with both hands and shoves it up SS recipients’ …
As the article suggests, it converts SS from a plan that everyone benefits from, to “welfare” paid for by people who bear the benefit cuts. That destroys the broad consensus for preserving the program, making it easier to kill entirely.
Of course, the alternative is Plan Steve, restrict benefits to only those too broken up and feeble to keep working, while driving the able bodied, regardless of age, back into the workforce.
Or cut everyone the same amount, which would drive those with little other income back into the workforce. The flaw in that plan is there is no other means of support for those too broken up and feeble to keep working through their 70s and 80s, until they drop.
Steve
1 Like
I don’t think so. 80% get a smaller cut & the wealthy get a 40% haircut.
The majority would go for that. Of course, then social security is a welfare program rather than an entitlement program.
Biggs and Shapiro estimate that approximately 80% of beneficiaries would get a “smaller reduction than they would under uniform percentage benefit cuts.”
What about those receiving the highest benefits? The authors estimate they would “receive a roughly 40% cut”
Also from the article:
One possible solution the authors submit would be for the president to cap benefits at approximately $2,050 (in 2024 dollars).
To receive $2050/mo, at “full retirement age”, would require an annual income, when approaching retirement of $100,000/year. About 25% of people age 55-64 pull down that much, or more. So, apparently, some 75% of people would see no cut. They should be OK with that, if they are well informed.
Steve
How to fix Social(ism) Security!
The Captain
In the immortal words of Elon the Magnificent(just ask him), “There will be some temporary hardship”.
1 Like
They have us all talking about how to save SS by cutting benefits on the theory that no tax increases ever, even by lowering the rates and increasing the threshold, is acceptable - ever. I think the predatory capitalists have won.
9 Likes
Ho ho ho. “If they are well informed”. If they are really well informed, they would know that the income tax started at 3% for mid-level earners, and 5% for the really well salaried folk.
Curious the mot obvious solution isn’t mentioned anywhere: End the payroll cap. If you’re making more than $176,000 per year, that’s when you probably won’t notice it (much.) There are people who hit that cap in the first month. A few even sooner.
Of course that would run counter to the theory of “drown it in a bathtub” by allowing the super wealthy to (gasp) have a modestly increased burden for the good of the rest of the citizens. Can’t have that, obviously.
11 Likes
Cut tax deductions for corporations by eliminating any/all deductions for business. Cut THOSE “welfare” benefits to those “not worthy” and there is plenty of revenue to keep SS running with no shortfalls.
iirc, the income tax was supposed to be temporary, to pay for WWI, part of the $8B raised via taxes, in addition to the $17B in Liberty Bonds. As I showed, the US was making good progress in getting the debt paid down, then the haggis hit the fan in 1930, and the rest, as they say, is history.
But one of the line items for the administration that “knows nothing about Project 2025”, even though the administration is being packed with people who worked on "“Project 2025”, is to kill the IRS. There is another data point in my contention that the high tariffs are a way to sneak in a flat tax.
Steve
2 Likes
Yes, and making Social Security a welfare program is a way to kill it.
Everyone contributes and everyone gets a payment from the insurance plan gets broad support. Welfare programs are a hard fight.
2 Likes
Which is why the “welfare for the rich” needs to be cut FIRST.
4 Likes
After 40 years of the Proles being brainwashed? “giving money to the rich is job creation. Giving money to the Proles is Communism”
Steve
3 Likes
Goofy nails it. When someone works a year, and they pay the same into the SSI system as CEOs/hedge fundies are, let alone Lebron, Judge, etc etc sports megastars - are paying into it with one or two paychecks, I mean WTAF. It could be made more palatable to the “JCs” if the company contribution stopped at $175K or whatever.
It doesn’t matter that CxOs & megastars don’t (generally) need to (and shouldn’t ever) withdraw a dime from SS. This part of the system screams out for a flat tax.
2 Likes
They won in the UK. Remember a couple of years ago how the victory looked?
We go towards demand side econ anyways. If that march gets interrupted it is awkward for those who do not know what they are doing with the economics.
And these high income people already pay income tax on 85% of any payments they receive. And probably at hefty income tax rates.
Removing cap on SSI payments increases what they pay. Will it also increase the cap on benefits paid?
1 Like
There should always be a high cap on income eligible to be taxable for Social Security purposes. Once there is no cap, that incentivizes those taxpayers to shift their taxable income out of the US. Then the govt loses a lot MORE income.
There must always be a maximum monthly payout for Social Security benefits paid to any benefit recipient. Otherwise, the system would be hit with being required to pay out huge–and ongoing–benefits with greatly-reduced revenue.
The USA taxes on worldwide income (one of the very few countries to do so).
3 Likes