“Frank is a business leader, with a tremendous track record of transforming large corporations,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “He will be responsible to deliver on the Agency’s commitment to the American People for generations to come!”
The president-elect promised on the campaign trail to slash Social Security taxes. However, experts have raised concerns about the costs of scrapping income taxes on Social Security checks and how the program’s finances would be impacted.
The American Federation of Government Employees SSA General Committee took a measured approach in a statement Thursday, defending the workforce’s recent progress on customer service metrics and offering to work with Bisignano if he is confirmed.
“A new commissioner will arrive at SSA after historic improvements made under former Commissioner O’Malley in cooperation with AFGE, including a 6.2% improvement in productivity, as well as increased employee morale and engagement,” the group wrote. “AFGE stands ready to work in good faith with a new commissioner who will reciprocate and who will honor their legal and contractual obligations with the union and the employees . . . Retaining talent and improving workforce morale should be goals we can work towards together.”
And outgoing Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., indicated that he wants assurances from Bisignano that he would protect the agency’s workforce from further job losses.
The major change we have heard of is removing income taxes on Social Security benefits. Later we learn those taxes go to the Social Security trust fund rather than the general fund. Yes its a reduction in taxes but hardly a “slash.”
The other thing is low income aren’t taxed. So this is mostly a tax cut for the middle class. Nice idea. Seems unusual.
Republicans have been trying to shut down Social Security for decades. It is generally regarded as the third rail of politics. I doubt they have the votes.
Most recent was George W Bush’s plan to invest Social Security trust funds in the stock market. Sounds good when stocks are doing well but that is certainly not always. Not very likely.
Figuring out how to fund Social Security and Medicare as the numbers change is clearly a priority. But we don’t hear much about a plan. Best they can do is commission a study and implement changes some time in the future–after passing Congress has left office.
Increasing FICA tax to raise income is one approach. Another is raising regular retirement age so benefits are reduced if you retire at age 62. Some combination of the two is likely. Removing the income cap on FICA payments seems likely.
I would like to have a choice to invest in index funds vs treasuries.
The money belongs to the employees who paid into the system and not the government to spend on their pork barrel projects of Iraq war and bridge to no where and DEI studies.
That was just a nonsense talking point for a campaign. Anyone informed knows that there is no such thing as a trust fund. At least not in the sense of funds sitting somewhere. All, and I mean ALL, the money is spent, each and every year, without exception. Then later, when benefits are due to the people collecting social security, the new money coming in (plus some borrowed money if necessary) is used to pay those benefits.
So, the only way ANYTHING would have ever been invested in the “stock market” is if government went out and borrowed money and used that borrowed money to buy stocks. And that could have only led to utter disaster … because over time, government would own all, or a very large part, of every public company out there. Once that happens, government controls, literally and directly controls (via voting their shares) much of US industry. Sure they “claimed” that government wouldn’t vote their shares, but once they have substantial, or even controlling, interest, they don’t even have to vote their shares for their wishes to be granted in almost all cases.
Benefits are already reduced if you retire at 62 and the FRA (full retirement age) has been moved back a few years. It was age 66 for me. If you were born in 60 or later it is 67.
The irony is totally lost on those who complain about “socialism” - a Republican proposal that would have turned the private enterprise system into a quasi-government controlled collective.
Yes, and increasing the full retirement age to keep up with longer life expectancy is one way reduce cost of Social Security. They usually make the effective date sometime in the future giving future retirees time to plan ahead.
I suspect the ability to collect a check at 62 is sacred. That can’t change. But the reduction amount could be adjusted.
You guys are missing the “real” solution: do nothing. If no-one does anything, then the exhaustion of the stash of Treasuries will automatically result in the 25%, or so, cut in benefits. The important thing is, no-one’s fingerprints will be on the cut. Both sides have the advantage of pointing their finger at the other side and blaming them.
