Better yet, have you listened to the arguments of PB4, marko & others? Their argument is one of fairness & fulfilling a commitment (explicit, implied, whatever...clearly a commitment). While most of us on this thread seem to agree that some SS adjustments are required, views of “fairness” will likely vary (especially by generation) but, it’s a tough argument to make that changing the rules when it’s too late for a retiree/prospective retiree to adjust is anywhere close to “fair.”
I think we should look at "fair" from both sides of the issue. Is it fair to tell workers who struggle to earn less than $30,000 per year that they must pay taxes so retirees who earned $130,000+ per year for decades can get SS benefits of $30,000 per year? (Especially when those retirees say they intend to use the SS benefit for another European trip.)
Or to tell them they have to live up to a "commitment" that somebody else made before today's workers were even voters (or at least, before they made up a substantial portion of the voting population)? I don't think that is anywhere close to "fair", either.
I think that parents should care for their children when the kids are young. The parents should also provide the kids an opportunity to be productive workers. Given that, I think it is "fair" that the children should care for the parents in their old age. Different societies have different ways to do that. In concept, SS is a "fair" component of our current system.
But, that doesn't mean that I think the formulas that worked for the WWII generation will work for the Boomers, the numbers just don't add up. I don't think it is "fair" to expect the taxpayers to make up all the difference. I don't think this problem should come as a surprise to the older generation. We've known about this for a long time, and consistently refused to push on politicians to make pro-active changes.
I think it is much harder for the low income near retirees to adjust because their SS benefits are paying for the necessities. So, I don't like flat percentage cuts (and raising the FRA is a flat percentage cut, and longevity extension is a higher income issue). If we're going to reduce benefits, I'd rather adjust the PIA formula.
Really? Have you read Fleming?.
it’s been roundly criticized; it’s as much a repudiation of Communism during the McCarthy era as anything; it was narrowly decided 5-4, with the Chief Justice voting in dissent. And, probably most importantly for this discussion, it was a decision that “due process” versus the 5th Amendment’s “takings clause” is what applies to SS; note that the first listed criteria in due process is “fairness.”
No, I hadn't read it. I just posted the conventional interpretation. I read the dissent today.
To me, the people who crafted SS used words from private, advance funded pension plans to make SS more politically palatable. The the laws actually created a paygo income transfer system. In his dissent, Douglas bought into the pretty words and didn't follow the money. He was in the minority. I cannot predict what a future SC would do. The justices are word people, not numbers people.
There are posters here who said they lost thousands in the 2015 changes. Maybe some enterprising lawyer will find grounds for a class action suit there.
