Candidate's Plan to Save Social Security

[Debinnov a]

A presidential candidate [mod edit] just told Neil Cavuto in an interview that his plan for Social Security is to gradually over two years increase the retirement age by two years. He also mentioned that he felt retirees with $3M or more and/or receiving more than $200,000 yearly in retirement income, would lose their Social security and would probably be happy to give up their Social Security for someone in need.

I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. I don't fall into this category, but I have enough that I could get caught in a means tested plan like this. For my retirement plan to work, I really need 75% of my Social Security. I'm concerned that someone will decide that I saved too much and don't deserve to get my Social Security, that I paid into for years.

I just realized this may also belong to the political thread, so I understand if it is moved.



Sent from my KFTHWA using Tapatalk

[aaronc879]

I think those cut-offs are more than generous and wouldn't be surprised if SS was reduced on a gradual basis before those limits. If I had $100K/yr pension I wouldn't expect to get SS and would not mind giving it to someone who worked for 30 years and is only getting $800/mo.

[braumeister]

A candidate who is not currently even the front runner for his party's nomination has a plan.

Do you realize how many hurdles that has to overcome to ever become legislation?

Don't lose any sleep over it.

[youbet]

Because the limits mentioned ($3MM in assets and/or $200k in income) are fairly high, it's going to be tough to build a case that having your SS trimmed through means testing is going to be a true hardship for you.

I think the real issue is how much of the burden of our SS should today's young people bear vs how much we geezers should bear ourselves. Frankly, I'm a big boy and I'm ready to pull up my diaper and share the pain. I don't think today's young people should be paying increasing amounts into SS and waiting longer and longer to collect to fund gray beards who can get by on a bit less.

[Debinnov a]

What if you didn't have a pension or anything other than savings that you couldn't get a safe withdrawal rate from without a high equity position, which is risky? Just seems to penalize us for working hard and living beneath our means. A pension, of course would be great, but many only have savings.

Sent from my KFTHWA using Tapatalk

[robertf57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronc879 I think those cut-offs are more than generous and wouldn't be surprised if SS was reduced on a gradual basis before those limits. If I had $100K/yr pension I wouldn't expect to get SS and would not mind giving it to someone who worked for 30 years and is only getting $800/mo.

Could that be because it seems you wouldn't be affected? I believe that those who paid into social security will not be happy to give it to someone else. If they felt inclined to give money away, they already can. I prefer to choose my own charity, thank you...

[Senator]

If I was actually making that much, and retired, I would prefer they raise the employment taxes, not income taxes...

There are many other ways around this.

Require 20 years of working, not the current 10.
Average the past 40 years, not the current 35.
Adjust the bend points.

[Alan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debinnov a I just realized this may also belong to the political thread, so I understand if it is moved. Sent from my KFTHWA using Tapatalk

[mod hat on]
I moved it to the politics forum and removed the candidate's name.
[mod hat off]


A LONG way to go before this candidate a) gets elected and b) has a realistic chance of getting the proposal through.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debinnov a Just seems to penalize us for working hard and living beneath our means.

Much of our Federal Income Tax (graduated) system relies on penalizing people for working harder. Say "No!" to overtime, stay in the 15% tax bracket. Say "Yes!" to overtime and wind up in the 25% tax bracket.

Attaching further means testing to SS will simply make the search for the "sweet spot" in income all the more important. "How can I have the monetary resources to ensure a decent lifestyle without working my butt off for dollars that are heavily taxed or cause my SS to be reduced?"

It's just an extension of a game most are playing now.

[timo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Because the limits mentioned ($3MM in assets and/or $200k in income) are fairly high, it's going to be tough to build a case that having your SS trimmed through means testing is going to be a true hardship for you.

it sounds like the proverbial foot in the door.

and just because a front runner didn't say it out loud doesn't mean others aren't thinking it.

[RenoJay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I think the real issue is how much of the burden of our SS should today's young people bear vs how much we geezers should bear ourselves. Frankly, I'm a big boy and I'm ready to pull up my diaper and share the pain. I don't think today's young people should be paying increasing amounts into SS and waiting longer and longer to collect to fund gray beards who can get by on a bit less.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan A LONG way to go before this candidate a) gets elected and b) has a realistic chance of getting the proposal through.

And most realize that the candidate most likely to push for shared pain (means testing for those collecting) between the various age groups in regard to the SS funding catastrophe isn't the one originally mentioned in this thread.

[Ian S]

If SS ever becomes truly means tested and turned into another welfare program, you can kiss it goodbye. Plus, to have a meaningful impact on the projected shortfall, means testing would have to start around $50K annual income and would hit the middle class quite hard. Check out these FAQ's: Social Security FAQs | Social Security Works

How many of the folks who are clamoring for cuts to SS and other social programs were raising their voices in opposition to the trillions spent on unnecessary wars? We can preserve and even expand these programs without cutting them. We're the wealthiest most powerful country in the world. We say we're exceptional, we should act like it.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Because the limits mentioned ($3MM in assets and/or $200k in income) are fairly high, it's going to be tough to build a case that having your SS trimmed through means testing is going to be a true hardship for you.

while it's true that SS makes up a smaller portion of retirement placement for higher income workers, they and their employers still paid into the system

one of the principles of SS is that need is presumed, putting income or means testing into the mix violates that principle

due to increased longevity among my cohort, I don't have that much of a problem increasing the FRA - however, I have a huge problem with income or means testing the benefit

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronc879 I think those cut-offs are more than generous and wouldn't be surprised if SS was reduced on a gradual basis before those limits. If I had $100K/yr pension I wouldn't expect to get SS and would not mind giving it to someone who worked for 30 years and is only getting $800/mo.

very magnanimous of you but $100K doesn't necessarily maintain the standard of living for someone who was a $250K annual earner at the end of his/her career, for example

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Because the limits mentioned ($3MM in assets and/or $200k in income) are fairly high, it's going to be tough to build a case that having your SS trimmed through means testing is going to be a true hardship for you.

I eagerly await the details of the asset classes and means by which asset data will be collected, reported, verified, and integrated with the Social Security payment system by a smaller, less intrusive government.

[longranger]

If net worth becomes the basis for SS eligibility, how long before there are taxes levied on people based on net worth?





I have compassion for the poor who really need social security to get by. On the other hand for people who have lived way beyond their means and have no savings HANDS OFF!For many on this board having SS will be the difference between an austere retirement and enjoying a few luxuries.

[robnplunder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debinnov a I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts on this. I don't fall into this category, but I have enough that I could get caught in a means tested plan like this. For my retirement plan to work, I really need 75% of my Social Security. I'm concerned that someone will decide that I saved too much and don't deserve to get my Social Security, that I paid into for years.

I probably would not fall into the category but I cannot support his plan. It's my decision what to do with the money, not the government's. I have plan for the money. Sorry.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette I eagerly await the details of the asset classes and means by which asset data will be collected, reported, verified, and integrated with the Social Security payment system by a smaller, less intrusive government.

that's one of the reasons that ACA subsidy credits aren't means tested - too problematic

[FUEGO]

This wouldn't bother my early retirement plan. If I have $3 million (in real terms), I'll be living high on the hog, so won't really be adversely impacted with the loss of $20-22k/yr in SS for DW and me.

I also expect there would be exemptions or deductions from the $3 million threshold that would allow us to have more than that and still qualify for SS. If it's $3 million per person ($6 million for a couple), then I doubt we'll ever have that much in real terms.