Surprise: New GOP plan to slash social security
Full Name:
good at drinking water
Forums:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SJohnson_20161208.pdf
Surprise: Trump lied, the GOP plans to kill Medicare and slash Social Security.
Starting with people age....54 and younger, the way I read it....although I could be misinterpreting what "newly eligible in 2023 means, it might mean everybody under 60. (if you are eligible at age 62, then it is everybody under 55..if eligibility is age 67, it is everybody under 60.
Those who paid in more (and thus were already receiving a lower rate of return, by design),will be the ones with slashed benefits.
Table B2 shows the proposed slashed benefits
As I read it, it proposes the following benefit cuts:
Current Benefit cut by the year:
Income 2030 2050
$50,000 17% 28%
$80,000 20% 33%
$110,000 25% 43%
The plan apparently also includes lowering the cap on SS taxes, so the wealthy would pay less.
Plan: tax cut for wealthy, benefit cut for retirees.
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
OK, I was wrong, I had the
OK, I was wrong, I had the wrong table
1) It cuts benefits for everybody under 65.
2) It slashes benefits by more than I thought:
For a 50-year old:
Current Benefit by age:
Income 65 75 85
$50,000 11% 20% 22%
$80,000 20% 22% 24%
$110,000 25% 42% 55%
For a 30-year old, the cuts are much deeper:
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
I've got a great deal of
I've got a great deal of money that says this never happens. Especially concerning MediCare.
And if you don't believe that SS needs reforming you are part of the problem.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
I make $15,000. I am the
I make $15,000. I am the problem. Thanks for the free ride, suckers.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Skitime
There will be a huge fight
There will be a huge fight over this... I would almost rather just get back all the money I have put into this trust in one lump sum today than deal with diminished returns later in life. This strikes me as theft.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
I can't believe the
I can't believe the Republicans are pushing means testing.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
Doesn't matter who their
Doesn't matter who their candidate is or what year it is -- this was always the plan, and has been for decades. Cut taxes on the rich and corporations and dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and the rest of the New Deal and the Great Society, along with funding for education and protections for workers and the environment. Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Government is for the wealthy and the winners. If you're poor, too fucking bad, it's your own fault. If you or your kids get sick or starve and can't afford health care or food, too bad, you should've worked harder.
It sounds horrible, right? Why would anyone but billionaires ever vote for this?
Oh right, that's why.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> Doesn't matter who their
>> Doesn't matter who their candidate is or what year it is -- this was always the plan, and has been for decades.
Um, W's plan to privatize social social security was completely different than this.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
http://nymag.com/daily
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/are-republicans-crazy-enough-to-go-after-social-security.html
"...it’s difficult to understand why Johnson would introduce a bill that stands so little chance of enactment at the cost of enormous pain. Obviously, the mere introduction of a bill in committee does not mean that Republicans will push to bring it to a vote next year. But why bring it up at all? Three possibilities spring to mind, in no particular order of probability:
1. Johnson likes the idea, and wants to start a discussion, with no expectation it will result in a law during the next two years.
2. Republicans actually plan to jam this through, perhaps in a rapid big-bang fiscal bill at the start of Trump’s term.
3. It’s part of a devious plan to introduce a deliberately radical, unpopular version of the idea, with the expectation that it will generate attention but not many Republican endorsements, allowing Trump to publicly attack it, burnishing his populist credibility.
I lean toward explanation No. 1. But who knows? None of these three explanations really makes much sense."