Another SS fix proposal

[camfused]

And here is another (partial) SS fix proposal: Capping benefits at $100K per couple.

A proposal would cap Social Security at $100,000. Will it fly?

A Washington think tank proposes capping Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples to shrink a looming deficit in the retirement trust fund.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Al18]

Until I see a politician talking about the SS cuts on a daily basis, I’m ignoring this discussion. The politicians aren’t taking this cut seriously, so why should I?

 

[GenXguy]

And here is another (partial) SS fix proposal: Capping benefits at $100K per couple.

A proposal would cap Social Security at $100,000. Will it fly?

A Washington think tank proposes capping Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples to shrink a looming deficit in the retirement trust fund.

www.usatoday.com

Seems there's one of these every week.

What you didn't mention is that it caps it at just $50,000 for a single person. If there's a cap, it should be per household, not double for a married couple.

If the politicians do nothing, it will automatically cut about 25% across the board.

 

[Pointby2]

What you didn't mention is that it caps it at just $50,000 for a single person. If there's a cap, it should be per household, not double for a married couple

Suddenly, everyone of SS age is getting divorced.

 

[Onda]

Are those politicians going to cut their king-like pensions and benefits?

 

[anethum]

It's a ludicrous proposal which would do little to shore up S.S. The number of couples it would affect in the near-term is probably miniscule. Both spouses would had to have had long, well-paid careers, and would probably have had to wait beyond FRA to start receiving benefits.

Years ago, my parents had a friend who was lamenting that she lost her spousal benefits when she remarried. My dad told her that if she divorced her husband, she could resume getting spousal benefits from her first marriage. She and her 2nd husband divorced but otherwise stayed together, and she did indeed resume getting spousal benefits until her death.

 

[RunningBum]

Suddenly, everyone of SS age is getting divorced.

Or starts SS early to stay under $100K/pair.

 

[pb4uski]

.... What you didn't mention is that it caps it at just $50,000 for a single person. If there's a cap, it should be per household, not double for a married couple. ...

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

 

[Dtail]

Or starts SS early to stay under $100K/pair.

That could add to the 536 threads on this site as to when to take SS.

 

[stepford]

Are those politicians going to cut their king-like pensions and benefits?

Are all civil service, military and public safety workers going to cut theirs?

 

[GenXguy]

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

How's it stupid? As others have pointed out before, it doesn't suddenly reduce your expenses by 50% by living alone. Ask me how I know.

 

[GenXguy]

Suddenly, everyone of SS age is getting divorced.

They better live separately, then, if the cap is per "household" (i.e. living at same address). Otherwise, divorcing won't help if it's per household, which I was suggesting vs. penalizing single households.

 

[foxcreek9]

Suddenly, everyone of SS age is getting divorced.

It suggests a $100,000 cap on the total annual benefit for a couple at full retirement age and a $50,000 limit for a single retiree starting this year. said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at CRFB

 

[fire_medic_730]

Been hearing about Social Security Insovency since the 1980's. Funny the "10 Year Crisis" happens around the Election Cycle.

Are those politicians going to cut their king-like pensions and benefits?

Been saying this since the 1990's. IF Congress had to rely on Social Security for the Bulk of their Retirement, SS would be fixed tomorrow. Congressional PAY and PENSION should NOT be voted on by Congress, It Should Be Voted On by the PEOPLE.

 

[Car-Guy]

Giving this about 2 minutes of thought that it deserves, I'd rank this near the top of the most stupid things I've heard of "recently", so be careful, it may make it to law. Less than 2% of couples pull 100K+ from SS annually. If the were capped at 100k per year it would save very little since the few that make over 100k don't make a lot over 100k, and the overage is all that would be cut.

 

[TickTock]

Less than 2% of couples pull 100K+ from SS annually. If the were capped at 100k per year it would save very little since the few that make over 100k don't make a lot over 100k, and the overage is all that would be cut.

Sure, but what if the cap isn't inflation-adjusted? Fast-forward 24 years (assuming average 3% inflation) and it's the same as currently capping a couple at $50k...

 

[Onda]

How's it stupid? As others have pointed out before, it doesn't suddenly reduce your expenses by 50% by living alone. Ask me how I know.

It is stupid because it changes the payout rules after people paid maximum Social Security taxes for decades under a known formula. And according to the article, it saves $100–190 billion over 10 years. That is less than what one politician effectively spent last week (on nothing) because something felt right “in his gut and bones.”

 

[Car-Guy]

Sure, but what if the cap isn't inflation-adjusted? Fast-forward 24 years (assuming average 3% inflation) and it's the same as currently capping a couple at $50k...

We can "what if" it forever and never get it right. Who knows what these idiots will do. But in 24 years most everyone will probably hit the 50k mark at current inflation rates. Note, I won't be here to see it so that can have at it.

 

[pb4uski]

How's it stupid? As others have pointed out before, it doesn't suddenly reduce your expenses by 50% by living alone. Ask me how I know.

It is stupid because under what you would do as a household they get 1/2 of the benefits in relation to what they paid in taxes as a single person gets in relation to what they paid in taxes. The other thing that is stupid is that you can't see that it is stupid.

 

[target2019]

I was sitting on my think tank, wondering whether this is a crappy proposal or not.

 

[Markola]

That trial balloon landed with a thud.

Congress can’t pull themselves away from their insider day trading long enough to agree on what month it is. Probably best to factor in a 25% haircut to one’s future SS benefit, just to be sure.

 

[GenXguy]

It is stupid because it changes the payout rules after people paid maximum Social Security taxes for decades under a known formula. And according to the article, it saves $100–190 billion over 10 years. That is less than what one politician effectively spent last week (on nothing) because something felt right “in his gut and bones.”

When I asked why it was stupid, it wasn't about the change in payouts that was proposed in the article but how they differed based on household size.

The politician who said that sounds like a moron.

 

[Drake3287]

"And here is another (partial) SS fix proposal: Capping benefits at $100K per couple"

As in no SS for couples making over $100K? That would be crazy, especially after all those people paid into SS for 40 years. Do you know how little $100k is in a state like California?

One easy SS fix, require all public employees to pay into it. Literally millions of public employees aren't required to pay into SS if they have a public pension. In my case, I never paid a cent into SS during my working years because of being a public employee but I'm currently getting $1,500 a month spousal SS. I almost feel guilty getting every month, I certainly didn't pay into it or deserve it.

 

[Montecfo]

Seems there's one of these every week.

What you didn't mention is that it caps it at just $50,000 for a single person. If there's a cap, it should be per household, not double for a married couple.

LOL, exactly. Since that is how everything is.

 

[Montecfo]

I'm dubious of this proposal because all the pain is on recipients.

In an equitable fix all stakeholders will bear some pain.

But anything to keep the discussion going. I never planned to receive SS (and I do not receive it) and people over-rely on it but it is important to stave off poverty and represents an important commitment to American workers.