The coming Social Security fight could be 1983 all over again

[joestein]

It sure CAN be tweaked. I'm wagering (no upper limit - what's your net worth?) that there will be no tweaking at all between now and Jan. 1, 2029. You can pick the escrow company. As long as we agree to the terms of "income cap being raised from $176,000 to anything significantly higher than the annual inflationary rate" we have a deal. (The $176K number moves every year. But it doesn't move by much.)

I'm not just willing, but EAGER to put my entire estate into illiquidity until Jan. 2, 2029 if anyone cares to take this wager. May as well get something out of this horrible timeline.

It moves by an average or 4 - 5% per year. Just look at the actual numbers. It has almost doubled in 20 years.

 

[easyrider]

Lawmakers golden parachute retirement program is a fallacy. They have the same retirement program as any federal employee.

The "golden parachute" being law makers are allowed to collect donations and have they access to " insider information" that creates wealth. I can't explain this any better without tripping the Tug rules but you get the jist of it.

Bill

 

[HitchHiker71]

The "golden parachute" being law makers are allowed to collect donations and have they access to " insider information" that creates wealth. I can't explain this any better without tripping the Tug rules but you get the jist of it.

Bill

Basically legalized insider trading to put it bluntly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brett]

The "golden parachute" being law makers are allowed to collect donations and have they access to " insider information" that creates wealth. I can't explain this any better without tripping the Tug rules but you get the jist of it.

Bill

Basically legalized insider trading to put it bluntly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those corrupt and unethical lawmakers with their side hustles will get their comeuppance ... (soon)

.

 

[am1]

There is no double dipping. There is no abuse of the system regarding spousal benefits. If anything, because the name of the program is Social Security, the stay at home mom should get more, imo.

Bill

Anyone receiving their social security amount because their spouses income is higher without that lowering the working spouses amount is double dipping. I am all for non working spouses getting social security but that should be at the direct expense of the working spouse. Especially now when non working or lower earning spouses are not just stay at home moms.

The pie is only so big.

 

[easyrider]

Anyone receiving their social security amount because their spouses income is higher without that lowering the working spouses amount is double dipping. I am all for non working spouses getting social security but that should be at the direct expense of the working spouse. Especially now when non working or lower earning spouses are not just stay at home moms.

The pie is only so big.

Social Security is a "safety net for older Americans". While it has expanded to include benefits for individuals with disabilities and survivors, its role in supporting the financial security of older Americans is its main function.

How are spousal benefits at the direct expense of the working spouse ? They aren't. It's at the expense of everyone that pays into Social Security.

Why stop at non-working spouses ? By your logic the non-working disabled shouldn't collect anything either. These groups are exactly who need a safety net. It would be better to just means test and cap Social Security, imo. Many people don't really need it.

Bill

 

[am1]

Social Security is a "safety net for older Americans". While it has expanded to include benefits for individuals with disabilities and survivors, its role in supporting the financial security of older Americans is its main function.

How are spousal benefits at the direct expense of the working spouse ? They aren't. It's at the expense of everyone that pays into Social Security.

Why stop at non-working spouses ? By your logic the non-working disabled shouldn't collect anything either. These groups are exactly who need a safety net. It would be better to just means test and cap Social Security, imo. Many people don't really need it.

Bill

No. no no you are out to lunch. If a non working spouse gets social security quotes then their working spouse loses half the benefits they paid into while married. Very simple. Money does not come out of thin air.

Disabled benefits should be calculated differently.

 

[easyrider]

If a non working spouse gets social security quotes then their working spouse loses half the benefits they paid into while married.

No. The working spouse get their entire benefit depending on when it's taken. The spousal benefit is only in play after the working spouse begins collecting benefits. The spousal benefit is up to half of the collected benefit and doesn't affect the collected benefit.

Bill

 

[am1]

No. The working spouse get their entire benefit depending on when it's taken. The spousal benefit is only in play after the working spouse begins collecting benefits. The spousal benefit is up to half of the collected benefit and doesn't affect the collected benefit.

Bill

The exact definition of double dipping. You are explaining how it works I am saying how it. Should be changed.

 

[DancingWaters]

All who are older will remember the statement of how many wives will be collecting Johnny Carson’s social security. There are a lot of Johnny Carson’s out there where many ex wives are collecting social security from the same ex husband.

 

[Tia]

No. The working spouse get their entire benefit depending on when it's taken. The spousal benefit is only in play after the working spouse begins collecting benefits. The spousal benefit is up to half of the collected benefit and doesn't affect the collected benefit.

Bill

Yep my sister in law is collecting 1/2 of the max possible off her husband, having not worked except a few years decades ago. Much more then mine and I worked. I did take 16 years off to stay at home with children so have 0's for those years. I also had 8 years of 0's when I worked at the Veterans Administration.

 

[easyrider]

The exact definition of double dipping. You are explaining how it works I am saying how it. Should be changed.

How is this double dipping ? It's paid out through the tax payers and only calculated off the spouse's benefit .

Bill


dou·ble-dip
/ˌdəb(ə)lˈdip/
verb
informal•North American
gerund or present participle: double-dipping

1. 1.
   obtain an income from two different sources, typically in an illicit way.

 

[easyrider]

Yep my sister in law is collecting 1/2 of the max possible off her husband, having not worked except a few years decades ago. Much more then mine and I worked. I did take 16 years off to stay at home with children so have 0's for those years. I also had 8 years of 0's when I worked at the Veterans Administration.

We did the calculations before my wife turned 62 and decided to collect her benefit at 62. When I collect, her benefit will increase to half of mine but will be subject to the 30% deduction because she started hers at 62. The survivor benefit would be my full benefit.

Generally speaking, there is a high gender payout gap in SS regarding women. Many women end up in poverty because of this. It's one reason why SS should have the same payout for all and be means tested, imo. It's a safety net, not really a retirement program, imo.

Bill

 

[rapmarks]

All who are older will remember the statement of how many wives will be collecting Johnny Carson’s social security. There are a lot of Johnny Carson’s out there where many ex wives are collecting social security from the same ex husband.

I wonder if any of Liz Taylor’s former husbands are still collecting?

 

[am1]

How is this double dipping ? It's paid out through the tax payers and only calculated off the spouse's benefit .

Bill


dou·ble-dip
/ˌdəb(ə)lˈdip/
verb
informal•North American
gerund or present participle: double-dipping

1. 1.
   obtain an income from two different sources, typically in an illicit way.

Yes should be calculated off of the spouses benefit and that amount deducted from the working spouses benefit. The money has to come from somewhere and if one chooses not to work (pay into the system) then the tax payers as a whole should not be paying for their retirement.

 

[Brett]

Yes should be calculated off of the spouses benefit and that amount deducted from the working spouses benefit. The money has to come from somewhere and if one chooses not to work (pay into the system) then the tax payers as a whole should not be paying for their retirement.

.. SS "ex-spouses" !

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/yes-can-cash-multiple-exes-social-security-benefits

 

[easyrider]

Yes should be calculated off of the spouses benefit and that amount deducted from the working spouses benefit. The money has to come from somewhere and if one chooses not to work (pay into the system) then the tax payers as a whole should not be paying for their retirement.

.. SS "ex-spouses" !

View attachment 114183

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/yes-can-cash-multiple-exes-social-security-benefits

Wow. I did not know this. @am1 It apears you were right about the ability to double dip.

Bill

 

[ScoopKona]

Those corrupt and unethical lawmakers with their side hustles will get their comeuppance ... (soon)

.

View attachment 114154

Is there a place where I can bet a lot of money that this doesn't pass? Can I make a side bet that it doesn't even get to the floor? And I'd like to know the odds.

This is another "0% chance of this happening" pipe dream. Much like the pipe dreams that the OASDI trust fund will be fixed in less than three years.

 

[ScoopKona]

People are coming around to the idea that OASDI depletion is coming. And they're drawing just as soon as they can -- to get ahead of the looming benefit cuts:

90% of Americans plan to skip the No. 1 piece of Social Security advice, study finds

Financial pros recommend waiting as long as possible to claim your Social Security benefits. Most Americans say they're ignoring that advice.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[easyrider]

People are coming around to the idea that OASDI depletion is coming. And they're drawing just as soon as they can -- to get ahead of the looming benefit cuts:

90% of Americans plan to skip the No. 1 piece of Social Security advice, study finds

Financial pros recommend waiting as long as possible to claim your Social Security benefits. Most Americans say they're ignoring that advice.

www.cbsnews.com

Because the Treasury can increase the money supply for issues that are "too big to fail" my bet is Social Security continues on but remains a political talking point. Those lying wind bags will always need something to spout off about for votes.

Bill

 

[Brett]

People are coming around to the idea that OASDI depletion is coming. And they're drawing just as soon as they can -- to get ahead of the looming benefit cuts:

90% of Americans plan to skip the No. 1 piece of Social Security advice, study finds

Financial pros recommend waiting as long as possible to claim your Social Security benefits. Most Americans say they're ignoring that advice.

www.cbsnews.com

'We better get it while we can'​

 

[HitchHiker71]

Because the Treasury can increase the money supply for issues that are "too big to fail" my bet is Social Security continues on but remains a political talking point. Those lying wind bags will always need something to spout off about for votes.

Bill

The Treasury has control over fiscal policy not monetary policy. The Fed has control over monetary policy. The treasury can issue debt via bonds to fund deficit spending, but has no control over the money supply itself since that is monetary policy.

Agreed on the lying windbags assessment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

The Treasury has control over fiscal policy not monetary policy. The Fed has control over monetary policy. The treasury can issue debt via bonds to fund deficit spending, but has no control over the money supply itself since that is monetary policy.

Agreed on the lying windbags assessment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

U.S. law, 31 U.S. Code § 5112 give the Treasury and President a loophole to mint a platinum coin for whatever denomination they want. The Treasury can circumvent the Federal Reserve by minting platinum coins, which gives the Treasury the ability to deposit a Treasury check into the Federal Banking system, all by Presidential executive order. This would increase the money supply. This has been possible since 1997.

Bill

 

[Brett]

U.S. law, 31 U.S. Code § 5112 give the Treasury and President a loophole to mint a platinum coin for whatever denomination they want. The Treasury can circumvent the Federal Reserve by minting platinum coins, which gives the Treasury the ability to deposit a Treasury check into the Federal Banking system, all by Presidential executive order. This would increase the money supply. This has been possible since 1997.

Bill

I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Maybe the government will issue crypto coins to all citizens

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin

 

[easyrider]

I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Maybe the government will issue crypto coins to all citizens

.
View attachment 117457

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin

It's an innovative and controversial idea and with the Treasury Bond Auction not doing so well , minting Platinum Coins would keep the the money supply where it needs to be. The other benefit is this could debase the currency and lower taxes. There are too many obstacles to issue crypto to the citizens, imo. It would disrupt the entire consumer credit system is probably the biggest problem.

Bill

The Other Side of the (Platinum) Coin

With negotiations still underway, some unconventional ideas are being suggested in case a U.S. spending deal can't be made. Today, we'll look at one such suggestion: minting a high-dollar platinum coin.

www.richmondfed.org