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.
Who in the world relies solely on Social Security for their retirement income?! Do people not plan for their eventual retirement?
(As I remember, the last time I looked at the US Debt Clock the debt was around 27 trillion.)
31 trillion national debt
170+ trillion unfunded liabilities
And nobody will ever notice that it is taken back in taxes and inflation.
No worries. I get 4500 a month military retirement check. House paid off. Thrift savings, Roth IRA and Mutuals and individual stocks. I should be ok unless the country bankrupts: then we’re all screwed anyway.
“There should never have been a federal method that passed constitutional muster to take from one citizen and pay another for any reason unless they were actually working and performing a service for the government.”
Exactly! ‘We The People’ have been being PLAYED by Mother Government since 1912 when Income Taxes were passed into law.
It’s been every wo/man for herself since then. And females couldn’t even VOTE until 1920. The Suffragette Hike in 1912 started the ball rolling, and you can’t tell me that had nothing to do with husbands bringing home less of a paycheck when every PENNY was accounted for in the Family Budget back then!
Yeah that was a reagan brilliant decision.
When the Dollar ceases being the World Reserve Currency, look out. It’s coming.
————
And the new China, Russia, India, Iran, ME, SA, and Brics alliance will make it happen…..3/4 of the world’s population says so.
I live in a senior complex and many women here live on SS only. Nice neighborhood, nice women. During their lives, they were paid half as much as men for doing the same work. One of my friends here is actually a millionaire and just likes her apartment and friends here, rents out about ten homes she owns in nearby Coeur d’Alene. Very lovely, expensive city.
Extra money would mean a lot to several of my friends.
“..I personally don’t know any who just depend on SS.
...”
I retired from a manufacturing company in 1992 and the pension check I received then, I receive now - no COL adjustments on private pensions. That with SS makes a decent retirement. I do have a 401k account and the minimum distributions help. No complaints.
Yeah wait until they start taxing your IRA’s and stock investments at 50% just wait it’s coming!!
They hate you too, especially the democrats/socialists/communists and RINOS.
“It is hard to believe that the same person wrote both those sentences.”
By comparing excerpts you totally lose the context of the statements.
Shame.
According to my leftist friends( well not really) it’s just numbers, you can merely delete them and start all over. Done deal!
I used to think that way but now it’s who cares? They threw billions and billions on the worthless war in Afghanistan and now Ukraine. Billions over the years to the millions of illegals and their anchor babies we educate, feed and pay their medical. Billions that should go back to this countries legal taxpayers which includes social security recipients and raising the pay of our military men and women (yes that includes my son). America first.
Just give them more money. After all how were they supposed to know they’d eventually have to retire?
Then they could have taken that $750 Billion and earmarked it all for another round of Stimulus Checks, say $3000 a person, that would have gone a long way to buying votes.
That’s right. It’s damned scary for us.
Very scary.
Read later.
“”””During their lives, they were paid half as much as men for doing the same work. “””””
They must be very old because that was outlawed almost 60 years ago, June 1963.
If it were legal no one would hire a man, they would just save 50% on labor costs.
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.