I voted for raising contributions and reducing benefits. I am not willing to suport means testing because a) it rewards bad behavior and may encourage the same and b) I don’t trust the government to come up with a reasonable idea of what “rich” is, based on the fact that my mom has to pay taxes on her social security.
I have previously supported eliminating the cap on taxed income, but as I think about it, this is really just means testing by another name, because it only works if you do not raise the maximum benefit (or at least don’t raise it proportionally to the increased contributions).
Means testing is evil. On the economic/incentive (rational) level, it encourages not saving. On the personal (egocentric) level, I and my employers have paid about 15% of my salary into social security, and I expect some benefit of what I’ve already contributed.
Here’s my rough idea, which would need some de-roughing: no more social security for everyone. Current contributors receive their accumulated benefits for what they’ve already paid for. No more 15% contributions, and everyone’s stuck where they’re at currently for future entitlements. Maybe a short term, 50 year tax to fund outstanding entitlements. No new entitlements for anyone. This gives everyone an opportunity to invest that 15% (less the tax to fund current obligations) in their own futures. Poor people? They’re already not taking home that 15%, so their net will be the same. Cradle-to-gravers? Okay, below a certain income threshold, there’s a government mandate to invest that 15%.
This is for social security retirement, by the way. Even as a Libertarian, I can be convinced that disability is a different matter. Maybe government’s not the best way, but that’s not under discussion in this forum.
I’ve spent my entire life in the shadow of the baby-boomers, and I’ve always assumed that I will see little or no SS payments. I’m now slighty more optomistic, and though I believe I may collect some small amount from SS, I’m still planning as if I won’t see a dime.
For all that, I’m still for removing the cap on taxed earnings, including capital gain in the earnings that are taxed, and adding in means testing.
While all of those probably mean that I will increase my tax burden and decrease future payments, I’m ok with that. I would much rather give away 12.4% of my earning, to know that my grandparents and my parents will have at least a mimimal level of money, to let them survive their old age.
One other thing I would do, (and the same thing for welfare) is remove one of the disincentives to work. If you chose to start collection before full retirement, for every 2 dollars you earn, over $14,160, you lose $1 in SS. Make it lose $1 for every $10. Let’s encourage people to earn some more money. Who would want to work at a lower earning job, to make $16,000, knowing that they would lose 1/2 of the last almost $2k. We should be encouraging people who are willing to keep working, to make extra money. It improves their lives and increases the income and probably sales taxes that are collected.
The problem with means testing is it punishes people for saving for retirement. We need to be encouraging people to save for retirement, not punishing them for it. I would much rather see the income cap being removed than a means test. Raising the age for receiving benefits is probably necessary as well, but should probably only be for those that are younger.
By removing the cap, would you folks also increase the payout at retirement? Remember, there’s a cap on contributions, but also a cap on payout. You get paid according to what you put in.
I expect that at some point in the future, I’ll be earning beyond the limit. I have no problem removing the cap, if my future payout is still based on that contribution.
Heck, for that matter, I wish they’d remove the 401(k) cap for us younger, non-catchup folks.
Yeah, this. I didn’t vote in the poll because what I really want to see is a name change from “Social Security” to “Tax on young people to support indigent old people.” (OP asked for likelihood – Probability this will occur = 0.)
Mind you, I’m more than willing to pay such a tax. I don’t want old people starving in the streets. Let’s just call it what it is, though.
Raise the age, but not by a lot, and only for younger dudes, under 35. After all, we have a longer working life and so will they, even more so. Let us say to 70 for full bene for those under 35, that’s just a extra 3 years or so.
Then, remove the cap on contributions. Small increase in maximum payouts. I am shooting for a 10-1 increase for in vs out here.
Also, put SS Disability before retirement age into General Fund expenses, not taking it out of Soc Sec.
Yeah, to make it “fair” we’d have to have a special social security phase out tax in order to meet our commitments. But that’s not really much different than having to raise social security taxes in order to meet our commitments and start means testing and still not have enough money.
Kill it off now, meet our commitments, fund it via decreasing taxes, and never speak of this monster (the old-age pension part, that is) again.
One thing I would like to see done is to drop the capital gains tax to 0% on the first $50,000 of capital gains (per year) for people over 50, who pay for medical bills, or paying for education. Index that $50k to inflation and let those who actually saved pay for their own retirement tax-free.
True, but the relationship isn’t linear. Somebody who’s been putting in 6.2% of $100K will get more Social Security benefits than someone who’s been putting in 6.2% of $50K, but s/he won’t get twice as much.
Since that relationship would undoubtedly continue to apply if they lifted the cap on contributions, lifting the cap would help bring the SS Trust Fund closer to long-term balance.
My bright idea is to swap out funding mechanisms: instead of funding Social Security with a regressive payroll tax, fund it instead with a regressive carbon tax (or more or less equivalently, through the auction of credits for a cap-and-trade system).
The funding would be regressive either way, but at least under my plan, the funding mechanism would be a disincentive to emit CO2.
I have a similar plan. Everyone 50 and older can opt to receive 80% of today’s current benefit as long as it is above absolute poverty.
Everyone between 50 and 30 can opt to receive 60% of todays benefit as long as it is above starvation-levely (but all of those people’s payments would remain the same).
Those below 30 will have highly reduced payments but will only receive the minimum to keep them from starving, because as an anti-absolute-poverty program it is more efficient and apt than the patchwork of welfare programs we have.
Those who partially “opt out” of the current system between 30 and retirement will receive part of what they put into the system back, no strings attached. This will only be a fraction (less than 50% but much more than 10%) of what they put in, but it gives an escape valve for people who think SS won’t even be around when they retire.
The only problem is that in the short term it will require a tax increase both to pay for those who are getting their money back and to make sure that inflation does not occur for that very same reason. Then taxes can be lowered again once the payouts have occured since SS will be much more secure than it was before.
I don’t think you can remove the cap without increasing, to at least some extent, the payout. If I make $350,000 a year, you’d be raising how much I pay in each year, to about $42,000. You want me to do that for the next 17 years (I’m 50 now), for $2400 per month when I retire? How about you if you triple what I pay in, you double what I get out?
The difference is that when a private insurance company buys a bond, they are acquiring an asset. When the US government sells a bond, they are incurring a debt.
The US government takes taxes away from me, and gives it to the SSA. The SSA then gives the money to the Treasury, who spends the money, and makes a promise to take more taxes away from me in the future to pay for the bond, plus interest.
The reason “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme” bothers people is that it is entirely true and accurate. The way Social Security is structured would be highly illegal if it were done by anybody except the government. The difference for government is that they can force people to pay their taxes, while private companies cannot force anyone to buy their products.
It’s like a deal I have offered to those who would like to pretend that SS is something other than what it is. If you send me $1000 today, I will send you $1500 next year, providing you send me $2000 next year too.
Who do you think is holding an asset in that plan? That’s how Social Security is funded.
I’d means test, but I think you need to throw the “savers” a bone and reward them for saving (or having a pension, or whatever). Which would be tax breaks on retirement income. Something similar or different to what JohnT is suggesting.