Proposed SS changes

[Niuatoputapu]

This could be a political posting rather than a money issue, but I only ask about one money aspect of Jeb's proposal.

The linked article notes that the proposal includes an adjustment of the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), specifically changing the PIA factors from 90%-32%-15% to 93%-21%-5%. The timing and/or phasing of such an adjustment is not mentioned.

I calculate this would reduce my future PIA by 32% since like most of us, most of my AIME (Average Indexed Monthly Earnings) is after the first and second bend points.

I'm sure the press will concentrate (if they pay attention at all) on the extended retirement age and proposed use of chained-CPI, but those seem minor to the proposed change to PIA factors. Am I missing something?

Bush Proposes Social Security and Medicare Reform Plan | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

 

[Big_Hitter]

Interesting - what would that do to benefits for a maximum earner at FRA?

 

[Options]

Regarding all current proposals, see this discussion:

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=175501&start=50

Particularly:

Well, you don't have to worry about presidential candidate proposals. You have to worry about actual laws that get passed. Something as contentious as social security often has a long lead time, debate, and news cycle. In addition, they usually have longer implementation times to telegraph those changes, due to the large number of people that it impacts. For example, the Social Security Reform Act of (was it 1984?) which raised the retirement age was done in stages, and still isn't complete. Full Retirement Age (FRA) was raised from 65, now 66, and will be 67 when I retire....If it looks like Congress is going to pass a law dropping Social Security for the wealthiest recipients, it will probably be phased in, and not take away benefits from people already claiming...

and this:

Sconie wrote:
Of course it is the actual laws that are adopted which will impact social security recipients, not presidential candidate proposals----however, when politicians start publicly advancing and talking about concepts, those same ideas and concepts have a funny way of eventually becoming law. And while it is nice to reflect upon past history and how SS changes have typically been gradually phased-in, that may not be the case-----heck, may not even be possible in the future: When the 1983 changes were announced, the U.S. had $1.4 trillion of debt----a far cry from the $18.1 trillion of debt we have today.


Yes, but the changes have NEVER happened to the Age 62-70 age group which is the discussion here. Whether to delay or not. Changes always happen to the young or mostly to the unborn. And Keep in mind that Social Security has never contributed 1 Penny to the National Debt, so I don't know why you are referencing it here.