Good Article about ongoing Social Security Funding on Market Watch

[Taco]

I only mentioned means testing, as opposed to across the board cuts for all currently collecting, because I think that those SS recipients who are cutting it close financially should be protected.

How would the SSA know who is cutting it close financially and who isn’t?

 

[GenXguy]

How would the SSA know who is cutting it close financially and who isn’t?

They don't need to know about everyone individually. Just set the benefit cut curve so it doesn't reduce benefits for those receiving lower SS benefits and cut them progressively more as you go up the scale. Cut them back further for people with pensions or otherwise high income so we can distribute more to needy seniors who don't qualify for SS.

 

[Texas Proud]

They don't need to know about everyone individually. Just set the benefit cut curve so it doesn't reduce benefits for those receiving lower SS benefits and cut them progressively more as you go up the scale. Cut them back further for people with pensions or otherwise high income so we can distribute more to needy seniors who don't qualify for SS.

Why

SS is not supposed to be a welfare program... there are a lot of welfare programs for people who are poor and those that do not qualify for SS...

Do not change a retirement system to distribute welfare...

 

[ncbill]

They don't need to know about everyone individually. Just set the benefit cut curve so it doesn't reduce benefits for those receiving lower SS benefits and cut them progressively more as you go up the scale. Cut them back further for people with pensions or otherwise high income so we can distribute more to needy seniors who don't qualify for SS.

That'll be me!

And what I expected in any case, since past SS reforms preserved benefits for those of us on the lower end.

 

[pb4uski]

From OP:

View attachment 54149

Yes, I realize that the dependent spouse benefit is your pet peeve and that you bring it up incessantly. It's a little annoying.

 

[pb4uski]

Exactly. It's a head scratcher.

I think at the reearch work that the plan referred to in the article was based on was probably before the recent legislation that eliminated WEP.

 

[pb4uski]

...Just set the benefit cut curve so it doesn't reduce benefits for those receiving lower SS benefits and cut them progressively more as you go up the scale. Cut them back further for people with pensions or otherwise high income so we can distribute more to needy seniors who don't qualify for SS.

Horrible idea.

 

[Gumby]

I believe that the initial selling point for Social Security was that workers would pay in to a system while they were working and later take out of the system when they could no longer work due to age. It was not advertised or viewed as a way to transfer money from workers to non-workers. And I would bet that most people still see it that way. There are special welfare programs for those who simply cannot work (including SSDI) and the social security payments themselves already are rigged in favor of lower income workers by virtue of the bend points in the PIA calculation and the progressive taxation of benefits. If regular social security should ever be changed into just another system to transfer money from those who worked and saved to those who did not work or save, I think support for the entire system will crumble.

 

[GenXguy]

Yes, I realize that the dependent spouse benefit is your pet peeve and that you bring it up incessantly. It's a little annoying.

You missed the point, which is "The OP brought it up". And then the person I responded to said benefits were based on what you contributed, which is clearly not the case with the spousal benefit. So, I didn't really bring it up out of the blue.

If you find it annoying, as they often say, move on to the next one.

I think at the reearch work that the plan referred to in the article was based on was probably before the recent legislation that eliminated WEP.

Yeah, that's my point. But despite the projected shortfall in being able to pay benefits, which has been known well before the legislation, they still eliminated it. That's the head scratcher, which you responded to, which related back to this post that I had responded to: Good Article about ongoing Social Security Funding on Market Watch

 

[GenXguy]

Why

SS is not supposed to be a welfare program... there are a lot of welfare programs for people who are poor and those that do not qualify for SS...

I used to think so, but since I know some people in that situation, I know how difficult they are to qualify for. Some people can't get disability for debilitating conditions. Some people can't get assistance for having a relatively small amount of assets. They have to pay over $500/mo just for Medicare Part A, which they can't afford along with part B and supplemental, they don't get SS at all. Etc. Etc.

Have some compassion for the poor elderly.

 

[Gumby]

Poor seniors are what is called "dual eligible", where Medicaid steps in to help with the cost of Medicare premiums and out of pocket costs. Seniors & Medicare and Medicaid Enrollees | Medicaid

Social welfare programs like SNAP, Section 8, SSI, etc. are available to qualifying people of any age, and many times the limits and exclusions are more generous for older recipients. In fact, some social welfare programs are restricted only to people who are older. My state has a Department of Aging whose mission is to get older people connected with programs that can help them.

If you feel these programs are inadequate, then work to make them better and more generous, but don't mess around with social security.

 

[youbet]

How would the SSA know who is cutting it close financially and who isn’t?

Likely just income based with the same pros and cons as similar situations such as ACA subsidies and IRMAA, etc.

 

[NomDeER]

Have some compassion for the poor elderly.

You can have compassion for the elderly poor while still thinking that the solutions should come outside of the Social Security system.

 

[Gumby]

You can have compassion for the elderly poor while still thinking that the solutions should come outside of the Social Security system.

Yes, you can. One of the problems with tying elder poverty relief to the social security system is that then the people paying for that relief are limited to only those making wage income, and then only to the extent that income is less than the Social Security wage cap of $176,100. The millionaire and billionaire business owners, hedge fund managers, etc., don't have to pay a dime to help out. Much better to alleviate elderly poverty with programs funded from general tax revenues, like SSI, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.

 

[NanoSour]

I notice there is no plan to save defense spending from imploding on itself. Or maybe I missed that post. Must be FM that there is always money for that line item.

 

[RetireBy90]

I used to think so, but since I know some people in that situation, I know how difficult they are to qualify for. Some people can't get disability for debilitating conditions. Some people can't get assistance for having a relatively small amount of assets. They have to pay over $500/mo just for Medicare Part A, which they can't affotd

Er… I’m no expert, nut my Medicare Part A is not a cost, only Part B and then what you add to that. May be I’m wrong.

Have some compassion for the poor elderly.

I do have compassion, I spend about 10 hours each week with food distribution for needy at our church and contribute about $10K a year to fund our programs, so I do have compassion and act on it.
I do have an issue with those that take advantage of assistance. IRS reports clearly show that top 10% of income individuals pay somewhere like 80% of the income taxes collected.
If you or Warren Buffet think they don’t contribute fair share, you are free to send a check above and beyond taxes owed.
OP was about what could close the debt gap in SS. I would suggest part of the problem is benefit creep without a means to pay for them. I am proud we worry about others and have compassion as a country but…

 

[GenXguy]

Er… I’m no expert, nut my Medicare Part A is not a cost, only Part B and then what you add to that. May be I’m wrong.

Well, I was talking about those poor elderly, not you.

Medicare Part A is free if you: (from medicareinteractive.org)

• Have at least 40 calendar quarters of work in any job where you paid Social Security taxes in the U.S.
• Are eligible for Railroad Retirement benefits
• Or, have a spouse that qualifies for premium-free Part A

If you do not meet the criteria above, you will likely pay a monthly premium for Part A. Your monthly Part A premium will depend on how many years you or your spouse worked in any job at which you paid Social Security taxes in the U.S.

In 2025, your monthly Part A premium will be:
$0	If you or your spouse worked for 40 quarters (10 years) or more or you were a federal employee on January 1, 1983, or a state or local employee anytime after March 31, 1986.
$285	If you or your spouse worked between 30 and 39 quarters (7.5 and 10 years)
$518	If you or your spouse worked fewer than 30 quarters (7.5 years)

So, regarding the poor elderly I was speaking of, it's $518 for Medicare Part A, plus they have to pay for part B and a supplemental plan. And they don't qualify for Medicaid because the cut-off is extremely low in my state. And no SS benefits, either.

OP was about what could close the debt gap in SS. I would suggest part of the problem is benefit creep without a means to pay for them.

Yeah, and we have to "mess with SS" to preserve the benefits for those who most need them, otherwise everyone will get a haircut. Removing the spousal benefit since they didn't necessarily pay into it, either, was just one of the ways that was mentioned in the OP.

 

[teej1985]

They don't need to know about everyone individually. Just set the benefit cut curve so it doesn't reduce benefits for those receiving lower SS benefits and cut them progressively more as you go up the scale. Cut them back further for people with pensions or otherwise high income so we can distribute more to needy seniors who don't qualify for SS.

They used to do that. But then they just got rid of WEP/and GPO.

 

[GenXguy]

They used to do that. But then they just got rid of WEP/and GPO.

That was only for government pensions, but I did respond about that change as well... going in the wrong direction.

 

[RetireBy90]

Well, I was talking about those poor elderly, not you.

Medicare Part A is free if you: (from medicareinteractive.org)

• Have at least 40 calendar quarters of work in any job where you paid Social Security taxes in the U.S.
• Are eligible for Railroad Retirement benefits
• Or, have a spouse that qualifies for premium-free Part A

If you do not meet the criteria above, you will likely pay a monthly premium for Part A. Your monthly Part A premium will depend on how many years you or your spouse worked in any job at which you paid Social Security taxes in the U.S.

I'm not sure what someone that didn't work 10 years is "due". Certainly there are those that can't work and there are those that choose not to and some between where working 55 years wasn't in the cards. However it seems to me those that disputing what this segment should pay for Medicare is focusing on the few while forgetting the huge funding problem we were talking about.

 

[GenXguy]

I'm not sure what someone that didn't work 10 years is "due". Certainly there are those that can't work and there are those that choose not to and some between where working 55 years wasn't in the cards. However it seems to me those that disputing what this segment should pay for Medicare is focusing on the few while forgetting the huge funding problem we were talking about.

You are the one who brought up that Medicare Part A was free as if I was posting incorrect info about the many people who don't get it for free. So, I posted the requirements and source to prove my case. I don't think anyone here is forgetting about the huge funding shortfall - that's what this thread is about. I even responded about it myself multiple times.

 

[RetireBy90]

You are the one who brought up that Medicare Part A was free as if I was posting incorrect info about the many people who don't get it for free. So, I posted the requirements and source to prove my case. I don't think anyone here is forgetting about the huge funding shortfall - that's what this thread is about. I even responded about it myself multiple times.

unsubscribe

 

[pb4uski]

You are the one who brought up that Medicare Part A was free as if I was posting incorrect info about the many people who don't get it for free. So, I posted the requirements and source to prove my case. I don't think anyone here is forgetting about the huge funding shortfall - that's what this thread is about. I even responded about it myself multiple times.

Pick any nots lately?

... About 99 percent of Medicare beneficiaries do not have a Part A premium since they have at least 40 quarters of Medicare-covered employment, as determined by the Social Security Administration. ...

2024 Medicare Parts A & B Premiums and Deductibles | CMS

2024 Medicare Part D Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts

www.cms.gov

 

[GenXguy]

Pick any nots lately?

2024 Medicare Parts A & B Premiums and Deductibles | CMS

2024 Medicare Part D Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts

www.cms.gov

OK, yes, there are the Part B and Part D costs as well, but I did mention other parts as well as supplemental cost in an earlier post, so those pile on to the Part A costs for people that don't qualify for free, but I think my reference was more specific about the requirements for Premium Free Medicare Part A, which the previous poster seemed to think was free for everyone. Those other costs in the article you referenced just add on to that.

It makes sense that most people on Medicare would get Medicare Part A for free because many of the others who can't get it for free can't possibly afford the high cost, along with the other Medicare parts and supplemental. That goes along with what I've been saying.

 

[pb4uski]

WADR, if 99% of people get Part A for free because they have paid in for at least 40 quarters, then the 1% slip through the cracks isn't an urgent public policy problem in my opinion. I'm sorry your friends didn't pay for 40 quarters to qualify and got caught in the crack, but why? 40 quarters isn't a high hurdle.