This is a 'feel-good' piece of legislation with strong bipartisan support. Biden will sign it. It's been in the works for a while and I don't think the timing is tied to the election.
As for how I feel about it, it's mixed. It would have been helpful to have Social Security income in addition to a government pension when my mom needed assisted living. But, on the other hand, while we think of Social Security as a sort of savings account, in actuality it is a tax and taxes are not designed to treat everyone the same. Some taxes help society as a whole, not individuals. There is a lot about Social Security that isn't 'fair' and I hope we can do comprehensive reform before it's too late.
One of the most fair things that should happen is for politicians to put back all funds that were taken from the Social Security fund for other uses, with interest. That money should never have been able to be used other than for its initial intent.
Other solutions could be having no income cap for deductions, eliminate collecting as early as 62 unless there are health or other pressing financial reasons. Even though the monthly payments are reduced for retiring early, they are paid for a longer period of time with no additional monies coming in. As for government workers and those not paying into the fund, make it mandatory and eliminate government pensions. Let all employees pay in to Social Security.
Good ideas. I haven't thought it through, but I do believe adjusting it for today's life expectancy deserves consideration. It was not intended to paid out for 20-30 years.
Edited to say was not totally correct in what I thought I knew about life expectancy. I checked my facts here and should have done before posting based on hearsay.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
This post was edited by Jane S at December 24, 2024 7:50 PM MST
It is actually getting adjusted as the age to collect the maximum amount now is 67. When I retired, it was still 65. In truth, Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income when someone retired. It was supposed to supplement what people saved on their own. I'm not positive, but I think the government pension was instituted because typically, government workers were paid lower wages than private industry. Their pay has since been increased, but the pension perk remained. I think if someone does not contribute to Social Security because they have a government pension, and they then go to work in private business where they are required to contribute, the amount of their Social Security payment should be calculated on the money earned when they paid into the Social Security system.
This post was edited by Spunky at December 24, 2024 7:02 PM MST
I had totally bought into the myth that life expectancy was lower, so therefore people didn't collect it for very long. I just went to verify this (yes, that's what I do) and was reminded that average life expectancy is not the same as chances of living to a given age if you survive childhood. So, the gradual incremental changes to the age you can collect makes more sense.
I do not think it feel good legislation at all. I think it is and will be unpopular with people (married couples) currently drawing SS. This is why they are passing it after the election by a lame duck Congress and POTUS.
If one spouse worked in gov for a pension and the other a regular job with SS withholding. The SS withholding worker gets their SS benefit and the pension only worker is treated as if they never worked at all, this allows them to draw the spousal benefit which is normally 50% of the SS working spouse's benefit.
People will get this deduction in their SS benefit and assume Trump cut their SS check.
I am not sure how it effects a single person with both gov work and SS work background.
(This does not effect me or anyone who I know personally) But I do see this as being used in the future political campaign. Both sides blaming the other.
Sorry, I'm not following. I'm not disputing what you're saying, I have just not heard of anyone's benefits being lowered and can't find anything to explain it.
The bill passed with strong support on both sides of the aisle, so I'm not sure how it will be used against either side.
If this passes, the spouse who worked and gets a oension will not be eligible for the spousal SS benefit. This will decrease the total family SS income. ie. Wife worked as a teacher (gets pension paid nothing into SS) Husband worked in garage ( gets SS, paid into SS his entire career) Husband draws $2,000 monthly SS, Wife is treated as a stay at home spouse who paid nothing into SS, Wife recieves $1,000 monthly SS benefit and still gets her pension) Under this law the $1,000 monthly spousal benefit is removed) The family SS benefit becomes $2,000 instead of $3,000. Losing $1,000 a month.
Yes, I know it has passed both Houses now. They passed hoping the electorate will forget by the next election ( and most will or will not even know) The ones that remember will be the ones who got the cut and will blame the other party (whichever that maybe) And some will blame Trump because it will go into effect under Trump, so they will think Trump cut their check.
The only way that does not happen is if they passed a clause not to affect those currently drawing benefits, but I have not seen that anywhere.
It will be an argument in the future, with each side blaming the other.
This post was edited by my2cents at December 26, 2024 4:56 AM MST
The bill is exactly the opposite of what you said. The bill eliminates the provisions of the GPO and WEP that were enacted in the 80's to stop what was then thought of as 'double dipping' : getting two government pensions. This act increases benefits to government workers who also worked in the private sector and paid into SS.
This is expected to cause the SS funds to be depleted six months earlier than if it didn't pass. That was the main objection, but it still had strong bipartisan support in both houses.
Yes, it is the same reason that not taxing SS will also speed up insolvency. We need to look at long-term reform, in addition to ways to make recipients better off today.
Income tax on SS actually does go to the SS trust fund. Eliminating this tax will increase the predicted insolvency date by about two years. You can check it out.
People with low incomes usually pay little or no tax on SS, so eliminating this tax is really just another tax cut for the better off and the wealthy at the expense of the future of the program, which is why I'm not in favor unless there is a reform plan in place.
No, I help a couple with one spouse is on SS. And the other spouse works. If working spouse makes a much as $30,000, the SS spouse begins to be taxed on SS.
So you may consider that as better off and worthy of taxing....I don't.
Wel, then, we should adjust the tax rates to help lower incomes, without giving another tax break to the wealthy. The amount of SS that gets taxed is based on total income, so it's not 100% of the benefits that get taxed, anyway.
And back to my point, the tax on social security DOES go into the SS fund. Let's not reduce taxes on it until we reform the program.
At least three taxes are withheld from an employee's wages: income tax, Social Security, and Medicare. Federal income tax withholdings are separate from Social Security and Medicare withholdings.
I said income tax does not go into the SS fund. But Jane S corrected me. Income tax paid on SS benefits by retirees does in fact go back to the SS fund.
If someone works a job that doesn't contribute to SS, why should they be entitled to collect anything? That would put the in the same category the illegal aliens you claim are not paying taxes or SS.
Jane S 