I guess you knew and blew a good thing, baby ! Social Security Benefits Will Be Cut IN 2017

D Kline

PROUD BLACK AMERICAN !
Registered
http://www.investors.com/social-security-retirement-age-rising-hitting-early-retirees/

NO MATTER WHO WINS the White House in 2016, there’s no getting around it: Social Security benefits will be cut starting in 2017. A 1983 pact between President Reagan and the Democrat-led Congress to stave off an imminent Social Security financing crisis included a hike in the official retirement age from 65 to 67 somewhere in the far-off future.

But that pact is pushing the limits of age-related reforms , even as a new funding crisis builds for the retirement program.


The retirement age rose to 66 in two-month increments between 2000 and 2005. Between 2017 and 2022, the retirement age will rise to 67.


In practical terms, workers claiming benefits at age 62 in 2022 and beyond will face a 30% reduction in the annual benefit that they receive throughout their lives. When the retirement age was 65, those claiming benefits at 62 suffered a 20% cut.


The cuts are intended to be an actuarially fair trade-off allowing people to get a benefit that’s smaller but runs for more years.


While it may be fair, that doesn’t mean it won’t hurt. If that 30% cut were in place today, it would shrink the available benefit for a $30,000-earner turning 62 down to the poverty level, a bit less than $12,000 a year. That’s hardly enough to ensure income security for members of the working class who live long enough to deplete their savings.


In Trust Fund We Bust


Yet despite the coming rise in the retirement age, Social Security’s cash deficit is set to explode to $361 billion in 2025 from $74 billion in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The CBO’s estimates point to the $2.8 trillion trust fund being depleted late in 2029, after which program revenues will cover only about 75% of scheduled benefits.


Something has to be done to put the program on a firmer footing, and potential Republican candidates have begun stepping forward with their ideas. Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have both put themselves squarely behind a further increase in the retirement age. Christie specifically advocated a hike to age 69, closing a bit more than one-third of the financing shortfall.


But a hike to age 69 would mean that early retirees would have a whopping 39% benefit cut for life. To avoid that scenario, Christie proposed raising the earliest eligibility age for claiming benefits to 64, in tandem with the retirement-age increase.


Delay Retirement


There’s some logic in that approach, says the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs, deputy Social Security commissioner under President Bush.


Instead of further eroding the benefit that seniors will rely on late in life, workers would face the penalty in their early 60s. Ideally, they would keep working longer so that they’d be able to spread their savings over fewer years of retirement.


“Delaying retirement is a really, really effective way of increasing retirement income,” Biggs said.


His message to Republicans is not to focus on solvency alone but also on “how do you make the system more effective?”


Looking for ways to encourage later retirement may be more important than ever, now that ObamaCare’s subsidies, which grow much more generous as income falls, are pushing in the opposite direction.


Christie also proposes raising the Medicare eligibility age — currently 65 — by one month a year, to 67 by 2040, saying, “It encourages seniors to remain in the workforce.”


Christie emphasized in a New Hampshire speech that he would gradually phase out Social Security benefits for seniors with income above $80,000, with no benefits going to those earning more than $200,000.


“Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard-working Americans to receive what, for most of them, is a modest monthly Social Security check?” Christie asked.


Still, his means-testing proposal wouldn’t save much money be cause it won’t affect many people.


The political left attacked Christie’s overall proposal as “a disaster for the poor,” with Paul Krugman noting that lower earners’ life expectancy has grown much more slowly than higher earners’.


Undoubtedly, a rise in the earliest retirement age would most affect those who have difficulty extending their careers and little savings to fall back on.


Social Security Administration data show that about 30% of beneficiaries in their early 60s rely on the program for at least 80% of total income.


There are two ways of insulating lower earners from benefit cuts. President Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., previously proposed to bolster Social Security’s minimum benefit in ways that might provide a net increase to help keep the lowest earners out of poverty.


A second possibly complementary option would be to ask workers to set aside a fraction of additional income in a personal account that could eventually be tapped to offset benefit cuts early in retirement.


If this extra saving were mandatory, it might be criticized as a tax hike. Yet if it were done on a voluntary basis, letting workers opt out of a new savings initiative, there would be much less of a sure thing that financially stretched workers would participate in.
 
I did an analysis on this myth that we are living longer bullshit to support jacking up our retirement age. Back in the day, the death rate from people <18 has dramatically decreased.

I wish it was 50 or less so I can retire and leave the country.

After studying Social Security, I have a couple of radical ideas, the whole system needs to be reformed for the 21st century, it does not need more money.
 


The article that the OP used to start this thread is 100% 1000% garbage, complete fact-free drivel, unadulterated toxic waste, ineffective propaganda Lies— designed for two audiences.
The first audience are low information dumb fucks who don't read any non-fiction longer than 200 words and get their news?? from the FOX FAKE channel .
The second audience are the barely affluent, the rich, & the über-wealthy centimillionaires & billionaires who read investors.com who actually believe that they have achieved some type of 'Godly' status and are the fictional "special people" capitalists in novelist Ayn Rand's books; which celebrate the "virtue of selfishness".
Investors.com which is the website for the newspaper Investors Business Daily has an ownership & editorial ideology which has always been to-the-right of Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler.

There is NO crisis with Social Security.
The W2 wage cutoff, above which Social Security taxes are no longer collected is $118,500.
This means that a Senior nurse working at a New York City or Los Angeles hospital pays the same Social Security taxes as Bill O'Reilly or Lebron James who both earn millions of dollars a year

Now the über-wealthy pay NO Social Security taxes
Why?? ...........because they earn NO wages.
Confused??????
Uber-wealthy earn their money by buying & selling assets; stocks, bonds, real-estate, commodities. Things like sports teams, office buildings, part of or entire companies.

They earn NO WAGES so they pay NO social security taxes. This is where the real money is!!
Most clueless American sheeple are just stupid when it comes to understanding money & economics.
Uber-wealthy people refer to the 99% American sheeple derisively as "rabble" or "Joe-Six-Pack"

Still confused???? Look at RMoney's tax return below that he released when he ran for President of the U.S.
Look at line 7
He earned NO wages.......but he made over $21,000,000 dollars.......and paid NO social security taxes

RMoney paid 14% taxes on his $21,000,000 earned by sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal pushing buttons, talking on a phone, shuffling capital assets.
Meanwhile the top cardiovascular surgeons in New York City making about $4,000,000 are paying a tax rate of 44%

romney_taxes_page_one.jpg


This is the same fucking RMoney when he was running for President said that he wanted to CUT Social Security benefits and raise the eligibility age to collect benefits.

There is NO crisis with Social Security. There are a myriad of easily implemented ways to fund Social Security for the next 100 years.
Sixty-five percent of seniors age 65 and older get more than half of their income from the program.
Nearly a third (32%) rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

If you want to understand how many trillions of dollars are being hoarded by the 0.01% that in some instances is not paying ANY taxes AT ALL
Read THIS REPORT

The RMoneys of the world don't give a shit about the "Peons"
They say FUCK YOU shine my shoes shit-face



tb-chumps.jpg


b.gif




feudalism.jpg



 
Back
Top