Posted on 08/07/2022 4:53:44 PM PDT by george76
Inflation has been taking its toll on retirees, especially those who rely solely on Social Security. But have no fear, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and seven Democratic cosponsors recently introduced S. 4365, the Social Security Expansion Act, a bill to enhance Social Security benefits and ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security program.
If this bill passes, retirees 62 and over would start to receive an additional $200 a month in benefits beginning in January 2023. Most retirees rely heavily on Social Security benefits, and for some it’s their only source of income.
Currently, Americans will stop receiving their full Social Security benefits in about 13 years if Congress doesn’t act to address the pending shortfall, according to an annual report released in June by the Social Security and Medicare trustees. In other words, monthly benefits will dramatically decrease to all by 2034. At that time, the fund’s reserves will be depleted, and payroll taxes will only cover 77% of benefits owed. About 56 million people received these benefits in 2021.
With this new legislation all may not be lost, as the new bill aims to ease seniors’ financial strain by boosting each recipient’s monthly check. The average monthly Social Security check is about $1,658, meaning a $200 increase would represent a 12% boost. This year’s Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) of 5.9 percent is based on inflation figures from 2021. But since then, inflation has pushed well above nine percent, meaning Social Security recipients today are actually losing money.
“Many, many seniors rely on Social Security for the majority, if not all, of their income,” said Martha Shedden, president of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts. “$200 a month can make a significant difference for many people.”
How will Congress ensure that Social Security will be able to increase benefits and stay solvent for years to come? If you guessed increasing payroll taxes to cover the costs, then you guessed right. According to the bill’s sponsors, the proposed changes will be made possible by raising taxes on people who earn more money per year.
Today Social Security taxes are set at 6.2 percent for employees and employers. This figure is for each, not for both combined. Self-employed workers pay a higher tax rate of 12.4 percent. As the maximum taxable salary is $147,000, the maximum tax payable is therefore $9,114 each for employee and employer, with the self-employed paying up to $18,228 per year.
The bill proposes to increase the maximum taxable salary for Social Security, adding funding by applying the Social Security payroll tax to all income below $250,000. Currently, earnings above $147,000 aren’t subject to the Social Security tax. An additional proposal would be to base the annual COLA on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) instead of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
Not all in Congress are on the same page with the proposed Social Security Expansion Act. Republican senators were eager to state their opposition to the bill, with Mitt Romney (R-Utah) proudly proclaiming, “This bill has no chance whatsoever of receiving a single Republican vote in either House.”
Instead, the Republicans are proposing the so-called TRUST Act (S. 1295), a bill that establishes congressional rescue committees to develop recommendations and legislation to improve critical social-contract programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested a Senate vote pitting the Social Security Expansion Act against the TRUST Act.
The Expansion Act bill is new and has several hurdles to cross in Congress, but observers expect some kind of change to Social Security to ensure it serves the needs of recipients well into the future. No one knows what Congress will end up with other than it will likely cost Americans more.
We all know that taxation is theft, and the promise of all welfare programs such as Social Security will never be the utopia as expounded by our inept politicians. In a free society the individual should be responsible for his journey in life, knowing full well the consequences of his actions. That responsibility includes planning for retirement. Ultimately, Social Security should be sunset and retirement decisions left to the individual.
An awakening for all Americans who continue to carry the burden of our government’s largesse would be to abolish payroll withholding taxes and allow employees to keep their hard-earned wages. This would force government to end nanny-state socialism and wasteful spending, and bring about a long-needed budgetary revolution.
Simple. Raising taxes on people making more than $400K/year will solve the problem.
How do I know this? President Biden said so.
With all the socialist and communist loving people supporting the DNC, just put them on Collective’s and let them support themselves. This is what communism is about; social democracy not so much.
” Ultimately, Social Security should be sunset and retirement decisions left to the individual. “
Unfortunately, sunsetting the SS program would mean witholding taxes from younger workers to pay for older retirees, then giving those same workers nothing. That’s why it’s the ultimate Ponzi scheme. Paying off your obligations to todays retirees necessitates obligating yourself to pay the next generation as well, with funds from the generation after them...
If this bill passes, retirees 62 and over would start to receive an additional $200 a month in benefits beginning in January 2023
—
The usual way this works is of the $200 increase, $192.50 (or more) will go to increased Medicare costs, leaving an $7.50 actual increase per month (at most).
They will give you let’s say a gross amount of $2500 and you take only Medicare Part A. Later you realize that your private insurance will no longer cover because you are on Medicare, you opt back into Medicare Parts B, C and D, you will get huge penalties, leaving you less than half of your gross.
Terrific! Just looking out for our FReepers! :)
“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors...and miss!” ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Hahahahaha thank you for a good laugh this morning.
I can use every laugh I can muster.
Yes, if you read all the fear porn posted by anti-vaxxers on this forum, a new arrival from Mars would conclude 260 million vaxxed Americans will soon be dead.
Everyone is in a different situation. In my own case, I signed up at age 62 for SS because I had retired at age 57 due to health issues and needed income. When I called SS on phone to sign up, the lady asks me if I have children under age 18. Why would she be asking me about children I wondered. So I sheepishly answered actually yes I married late and have 2 kids ages 9 & 11. She then said SS will pay additional benefits for both kids until they reach 18! That was huge! I received $1500/month additional benefits for the kids. I had never heard of this in any of the pre-retirement seminars. I was glad to sign up at age 62 instead of 65.
That’s great! My phone call is on the 23rd. Anxious to see if I can draw off of my loser Ex. He had some very high earning years in there before he fell off the cliff of oxy addiction. :(
Yes, ask the rep on phone about it. I know my wife’s aunt received additional benefits from her Ex even though he was married to another woman.
It’s not gonna happen. Democrats propose bills to help various groups but IN THE END THE ONLY GROUPS DEMOCRATS HELL ARE WHITE LIBERAL ‘ELITES’ AND THE BLACK DEMOCRAT UNDERCLASS...
“But have no fear, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and seven Democratic cosponsors recently introduced S. 4365, the Social Security Expansion Act, ...”
This is what you left out! with this part you can clearly see the sarcasm of the statement.
“That was NINE paragraphs earlier.”
My error. But my point still applies.
>> “so-called”
SS is paid out of the general fund so no, that is an idle threat.
Wages need to go up.
F-- no.
If Republicans try to pull that stunt they will be a minority party FOREVER and ever. Lower full retirement back to 65.
The term “so-called” is modifying TRUST act. It is not questioning that there is a social contract, but whether the TRUST Act accomplishes the goal. Just as when we say “Affordable Care Act”, we don’t deny that there is such a thing as health care, but do deny that the Affordable Care Act makes health care affordable.
You may interpret the writing differently, but my reading of the plain text is completely defensible, not worthy of being labeled “SHAME”, and buttresses the fact that it is not well-written because two intelligent conservatives can read the same piece and have different takes on what the author is saying.
I know it’s all a racket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.