timo2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I've scheduled in a 20% SS haircut on my spreadsheet. If I'm fortunate enough to still be alive at 82. DW will only be 75 though.
To add and clarify (and no doubt someone will correct me if I get this wrong):
Policymakers (members of Congress and the like) basically earn the same retirement benefits other Federal workers get, based in time of service and age. The former system (Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS) was the one that paid a defined benefit pension, and the employees didn't participate in Social Security. The "new" system (Federal Employees Retirement System, or FERS) began in the 1980s, and covered all new employees going forward, with those under CSRS given the option to switch. FERS retirement benefits consist of the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP (basically a 401K) and a tiny pension, along with the ability to participate in the Federal health insurance program (by paying premiums) in retirement. The majority of CSRS participants have already retired, or will soon.
The frequently-circulated nonsense that members of Congress get lifetime pensions after one term, etc. is just that -- nonsense. The only Federal employee that gets a lifetime salary is the President.
It's time to do something about it instead of just talking. We seem to be able to cut taxes without any consideration of the long term effects but ignore our major problems without any thought whatsoever.
That was profound!Well that should tell you everything you need to know.
These are just numbers in a spreadsheet, no? There's no lockbox holding FICA/SS money separately. Incoming FICA is commingled with other money coming into the government. If dollars commingle on the way in, SSA can draw from the same big pile when needed in the future.
Not true. The SS trust fund is in special Treasury securities. The FICA/SS money is as separate as it can be and accounted for to the penny. SS can only draw from those bonds and current SS taxes, and cannot draw from General Revenues.
Now, you could argue that the Government already spent the excess and issued bonds to replace it, but those bonds Treasuries so are quite real as long as the U.S. Government is around.
My thinking is that this means the IOU’s are coming due and this will need to be addressed right away. I mean come on, I don’t think Al Gore got his lock box, so isn’t the money going to come from the general fund and start to contribute to the annual budget deficit?
Seems very unlikely that "cashing in the IOUs" spurs anything.Cashing in the IOU’s will hopefully spur action.
That is the current rule.I read it as 20% cuts immediately across the board - existing and future.
I used to believe that no congresscritters would back a bill that balanced the SS income/outgo. Such a bill would require either raising taxes or cutting benefits, and those are both politically DOAs.
But, I was wrong. HR 860 (Social Security 2100) would actually do the trick. The big numbers come from raising taxes.
The bill has one sponsor and 203 cosponsors. If they can get 14 more reps, they will have a majority of the House on board. IMO, that's a big deal.
The OASDI benefits have been greater than the taxes in every year since 2010. The annualized spreadsheet is table VI.A.3 here: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2019/VI_A_cyoper_hist.html#282924I read something that said that SS will stop bringing in more than they are paying out in 2020. This will require that they start tapping the Trust Funds. My thinking is that this means the IOU’s are coming due and this will need to be addressed right away. I mean come on, I don’t think Al Gore got his lock box, so isn’t the money going to come from the general fund and start to contribute to the annual budget deficit? 2035 is just the point where there are no more IOU’s to cash. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be issues long before that. Cashing in the IOU’s will hopefully spur action.
Congress folks have to work 5 years to get a pension, so 1 term won't make it, but 2 will and they don't have to be consecutive.
Run for Senate though and retire after 1 term:
Frankly either one is a pretty sweet deal... wonder who voted for it... ?
But ".... senators are eligible for a pension after one term, but it won’t be their full salary."
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/congressional-pensions-update/
"CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service....."
It's FERS now, and the pension would be quite small with only 6 years of service (one term Senate).I hope that people read the whole article, as it more properly and fully explains the calculation. Seems to be pretty much the same policy, CSRS or FERS, that my spouse retired from with 35 years.
What they are not allowed to say is: "The Trustees recommend that lawmakers do absolutely nothing until the last minute, if at all, to ensure that they get re-elected, since they would not have raised taxes."
Yet another example for my European/Asian friends where they say "Why doesn't this get fixed, since it is so far away and you know it is coming?", and I just have to shrug my shoulders and say I don't know.
Why don’t they simply eliminate the “cap” on annual deductions? Seems this would have the least impact on those that can least afford it.
joeea, do you have an opinion you'd like to put forward or a point you'd like to make?Who would you guess would be opposed to that change?
joeea, do you have an opinion you'd like to put forward or a point you'd like to make?
I think that is the simplest solution myself along with gradually raising the age FRA.Why don’t they simply eliminate the “cap” on annual deductions? Seems this would have the least impact on those that can least afford it.
Congress folks have to work 5 years to get a pension, so 1 term won't make it, but 2 will and they don't have to be consecutive.
Run for Senate though and retire after 1 term:
Frankly either one is a pretty sweet deal... wonder who voted for it... ?
But ".... senators are eligible for a pension after one term, but it won’t be their full salary."
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/congressional-pensions-update/
"CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service....."
I hope that people read the whole article, as it more properly and fully explains the calculation. Seems to be pretty much the same policy, CSRS or FERS, that my spouse retired from with 35 years.
It's FERS now, and the pension would be quite small with only 6 years of service (one term Senate).
Who would you guess would be opposed to that change?
Who would you guess would be opposed to that change?
I agree.The public perception of Social Security since its inception (I think) is that it isn't a welfare program since the benefit you get bears some relation to what you contributed, with the calculation structured so that the lowest earners get proportionally more. If the cap is removed without proportionately increasing the benefit for higher earners to some extent relative to their contributions, it becomes a welfare program financed by the rich. That's a very significant change that could erode popular support.