Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeb Bush: Social Security Means-Testing 'Ought to Be Considered'
CNS News ^ | June 1, 2015 | Susan Jones

Posted on 06/01/2015 2:49:39 PM PDT by BradtotheBone

(CNSNews.com) - Jeb Bush says he would considering pushing back the Social Security retirement age by as many as five years and scaling back benefits for Americans who paid into the system but who also have accumulated wealth.

"We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from (age) 65 to 68 or 70. And that by itself will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40," Bush, a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination, told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Bush also wants to phase out benefits for higher earners, who have paid into the system for their entire working lives.

"What about means testing?" Bob Schieffer asked Bush.

"I think it ought to be considered, for sure," Bush replied.

As conceived by the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Social Security was intended to be a retirement insurance program for all working Americans regardless of income, funded by mandatory payroll taxes.

Means-testing would turn Social Security into a wealth transfer program, diverting payroll contributions from those who earn more to those who earn less.

And if Jeb Bush has his way on immigration, some of those lower-income workers would be people who came to the United States illegally.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 118k; 2016election; bobschieffer; election2016; florida; jeb4mexico; jebbush; meanstesting; ponzischeme; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: Teotwawki

My thoughts as well. We better spend our savings before they take it away. This is krap what he is proposing.


41 posted on 06/01/2015 3:22:03 PM PDT by small business owner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
Yes it should be Means Tested.

We should Test the Ways and Means Committee and the will fail, and take away any flippin power or input they have into SSI and that goes for any Congress Critter.

They may have oversight IMHO but not control of one thin dime.Spin it off to a Non-Governmental Almost Non-Profit with men of Wisdom like John Vogel to run it. Dang I wish we had a 1/2 dozen of him and they would live another 50 years. The SSI contributions should not go to Congress ever again No commingling and or borrowing from it after throwing the surplus into to General Fund.

42 posted on 06/01/2015 3:24:59 PM PDT by taildragger (It's Cruz & Walker. Anything else is a Yugo with Racing Stripes....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

43 posted on 06/01/2015 3:25:27 PM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

So its just another redistributive tax then, eh?

Go way Jeb-bag.


44 posted on 06/01/2015 3:26:26 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

D.

O.

A.


45 posted on 06/01/2015 3:27:07 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

FYJB


46 posted on 06/01/2015 3:27:52 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More (Border Fence Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teotwawki

When we both hit retirement, I will have a nest egg and he will have put nothing away, so I won’t get social security but the government will pay him.

**************
That’s right, we’ll get screwed just like those who had hoped to supplement their income with their savings in a passbook account or CD’s earning enough to stave off the effects of inflation. How did that work out for them?

And how will the government determine what your wealth is? By forcing you to report on everything you own of course. Citizens get the shaft; only the bureaucrats prosper.


47 posted on 06/01/2015 3:32:45 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
If they're going to do this,
I want ALL my money back, with interest,
and penalties for breach of contract
48 posted on 06/01/2015 3:32:54 PM PDT by HangnJudge (Cthulhu for President, why vote for a lesser Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

+10

A great post!


49 posted on 06/01/2015 3:34:19 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Means testing is, as you say, probably inevitable given the class envy politics of the day. It will, however, not provide a meaningful contribution to preventing the insolvency of Social Security simply because so few people have really saved very much for retirement. The median amount saved for retirement by Americans aged 55 to 74 is less than $125,000. If those folks follow the 4% Rule, they will supplement their Social Security payments by a princely $5,000 per year. It’s difficult to imagine Congress approving a reduction in benefits for people who have less than $40,000 in additional income, which would require $1,000,000 in retirement assets. I would be astonished if more than 2% to 3% of Americans have saved that much for retirement. So . . . yes, it will be means tested and, no, it will not help the situation very much.


50 posted on 06/01/2015 3:36:33 PM PDT by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

I agree with a “means testing.” However, that would come after paying recipients the principal and interest on the money that they had contributed over their working career.
I have always been on the maximum contribution and, my employers have kicked in the same amount. The number I’m talking about is huge. So, just give me the principal and interest on that amount and I’ll be happy to not receive a dime more from the SS System. I’m 75 and will not burden the system for more than 25 more years

OK, OK, I know that this is a ridiculous suggestion. But, so is the idea of means testing.


51 posted on 06/01/2015 3:39:11 PM PDT by BatGuano (You don't think I'd go into combat with loose change in my pocket, do ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

I suggest they push the retirement age to 100. Let’s cut the crap already. They have no intention of paying me back the hundreds of thousands they have stolen from me the last thirty years.

Like all pyramid schemes, they all end badly for the newest suckers!


52 posted on 06/01/2015 3:42:44 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
Jeb’s wife has him by the balls and won't let go. Be a man Jeb, kick her in the stomach and free yourself!!
It's OK Jeb, you'll be OK.

Florida voter for Jeb as Governor but not for President!

53 posted on 06/01/2015 3:42:51 PM PDT by BatGuano (You don't think I'd go into combat with loose change in my pocket, do ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

From each according to his means, to each according to his need.


54 posted on 06/01/2015 3:42:59 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

F this guy. The reason why they want to means test is they want to further benefit those who never did a thing to plan for their own retirement.

Those of us who didn’t buy new cars, buy expensive homes and didn’t squander every nickle they made once again get the shi+ end of the stick.

BTW: Go away Bush. There is no reason for you to be entertaining a run for the Presidency.


55 posted on 06/01/2015 3:45:22 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Dead man talking

A brave leader would not be talking about sustaining an unsustainable system for people under 40, but opening the doors for them to fund and own their own retirement free from politician panderers


56 posted on 06/01/2015 3:47:38 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Typical liberal idea. Steal My money just because I’m successful. Means test my a$$ jerk.


57 posted on 06/01/2015 3:48:25 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Republican elites are as useless as bacteria in a flea's butt!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Shut up you miserable Bush III!

I paid into this damned scheme by force since I was 14 years old. My contributions since 1949 amounted to almost $200,000. Forget my employers’ portion, but I know full well that had I invested those funds in the poorest mutual fund I would have over $6,000,000 today!

To hell with Jeb. We need a right-wing Conservative that will beat this damned central socialist government into the shape of a flapjack.

I hate Democrats, but I despise Republicrats!


58 posted on 06/01/2015 3:48:28 PM PDT by HomerBohn (When did it change from "We the people" to "screw the people" ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Just got this in an email...

Dick Kantenberger
Gifted Education Writer

Examiner.com History Lesson on Your Social Security card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this.
It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card has the “NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION” message.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month —
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
away’ — you may be interested in the following:

—————— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— ——

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

—————— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

—————— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

—————— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -———— -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

—————— — —————— -———— -—— —————— -———— -——

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve.
But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?


59 posted on 06/01/2015 3:49:32 PM PDT by IM2MAD (IM2MAD=Individual Motivated 2 Make A Difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teotwawki

That’s exactly how I see it. Means-testing SS effectively becomes a huge retroactive tax on those with success, but also those who’ve sacrificed over the years. As it is currently, this is an additional 13% tax slapped on individuals whom the government deems to have “enough” income. Will there actually be a break-even point where those collecting SS can make more annual income than those who do not?


60 posted on 06/01/2015 3:50:09 PM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson