avatarBill Myers

Summary

The article discusses the impending financial crisis of Social Security and the contrasting solutions proposed by Democrats and Republicans to address it.

Abstract

The Social Security program is facing a financial shortfall, with projections indicating a 23% cut in retiree payments by 2034. The debate on how to resolve this issue is polarized between the Democratic and Republican approaches. Democrats advocate for raising additional revenue by reinstating the Social Security tax on earnings above $400,000, which would primarily affect the wealthiest individuals. In contrast, Republicans favor cutting costs by raising the standard retirement age to 70, effectively reducing retirees' benefits by 20% if they retire at the current full retirement age of 67. The article emphasizes the potential hardship this could cause for low-income seniors who rely heavily on Social Security benefits. It also touches on the possibility of adjusting the inflation calculation method for retirees, which could have mixed effects due to the unique expenses faced by the elderly, such as higher medical costs.

Opinions

  • The author suggests that the Democratic proposal to tax higher incomes could be a more equitable solution, as it avoids placing additional financial burdens on retirees living on fixed incomes.
  • There is skepticism about the necessity and implications of the proposed gap in the Social Security tax for earnings between 147,000 and 400,000 under the Democratic plan.
  • The author expresses concern that raising the retirement age to 70, as proposed by Republicans, would disproportionately affect those who cannot continue working due to physical demands or employment barriers, potentially forcing them into poverty.
  • The article implies that the current system, which taxes up to $147,000, is outdated and does not reflect the realities of wage inequality and the increasing costs of living, particularly for retirees.
  • The author seems to lean towards the Democratic approach, which aims to generate more revenue from the wealthy, as a preferable alternative to cutting benefits for retirees who are already financially vulnerable.

Social Security, the hidden issue

Do You Want to Pay 20% More Income Tax Forever When You Retire?

Choose to tax the rich CEO -or- the low-income seniors

Photo by Huy Phan on Unsplash

Synopsis

Social Security is running out of money. Control of Congress will determine who gets taxed for it. The Dems and GOP have two radically different approaches.

  • One taxes higher income workers on income not taxed now
  • The other taxes retirees for the rest of their life unless they retire at age 70

Your Choice - Especially if voting in the Georgia Senate runoff race

The trustees project that all retirees will have their payments cut by 23% in 2034, about 12 years from now.

Summary

Today, people can normally retire at age 67 with full benefits, which vary based on total years worked and the amount paid in Social Security taxes. However, there is an upper limit. Payments are adjusted annually based on inflation.

In most cases, retirees will do ok if they have a few hundred thousand more dollars in savings. If they don’t, they may have trouble buying food and medicine, even if they have a paid-for house. I know many who work well into their 80s as part-time grocery baggers just to survive. A 23% cut in income would be devastating to most retirees.

Look at your own paycheck and imaging about a quarter of it suddenly gone, never to return.

Republicans

Prefer to cut costs.

The only way is to reduce payments to retirees who have already paid retirees, even though they have already paid the Social Security tax to receive those benefits. They plan to do this by raising the standard retirement age to 70.

I worked to age 70, but at a desk job that was not physically demanding. I was forced to retire from EDS (a subsidiary of GM) at age 65. I was lucky to find another employer, Argus Media, who would hire me at my regular job and allow me to work until I reached age 70. Few people are that lucky.

If the age is changed and a person retires at age 67, today’s retirement age, their income will be cut by 20% for the rest of their life.

That is a 20% tax on seniors.

Democrats

Prefer to raise additional revenue.

Currently, wages and salaries are taxed up to $147,000. Any money earned above that is not taxed. That limit will supposedly provide the maximum Social Security payment at retirement age.

They have proposed reinstating the tax starting at $400,000 with an untaxed gap in the middle. The richest workers, like NBA players and the CEO making a million dollars, would pay more into Social Security. However, I’m not sure why the gap exists and if it is necessary.

Some Democrats have also proposed changing the inflation adjustment calculation method. Theoretically, seniors have a lower inflation rate than workers since they don’t incur the costs of going to work and raising children. That may backfire, though, since it would include radically higher medical and assisted living costs.

There would be few if any, changes for seniors.

Your choice

Tax the rich or tax the poorest retirees, which most likely includes you.

References

  • More details on the two proposals
  • People not paying Social Security tax on all income

Other Articles in the Same Category

Politics
Social Security
Retirement
Taxes
Key Issue
Recommended from ReadMedium