[Dgodin]

Originally Posted by Stuholden

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

The current suspension of payroll tax collection is temporary, and worse, will have to be paid back next year. A trick played on working people who will enjoy more pay this year at the expense of a pay cut next year.
Privatization of Social security has been on the agenda for years. Expect another attempt at it.

[markhollis]

In Congress both Democrats and Republicans are against cutting Payroll Tax. It funds SS, Medicare and Medicaid, which something like 60% of nursing home residents depend upon. Employers, like our President, benefit from not having to match.

If the payroll tax were to be cut for the rest of the year, many Americans would be unable to or strained to repay.

If the payroll tax were to be cut for the rest of the year and forgiven and payroll tax was eliminated in 2021, SSI (disability payments) would stop in 2021, and SS payments would stop in 2023 (possibly 2024) and Medicare and Medicaid would be defunded.

I think it is obvious that both parties realize they will have problems with re-election if they are perceived as being the villains who stole money other Americans are entitled to. They would also be 'stealing' from themselves as they are employees. The only beneficiary of payroll tax elimination is employers.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Pamelah

You are degrading “low income people” who WORKED to put food on the table, but didn’t make enough to invest or perhaps save much in a bank. Social Security took part of their paycheck to give back later and now “later” may disappear. Such selfish responses to this question!

I was not trying to degrade anyone. I was just explaining how the math works for Social Security. You may not like it, but the SS system doesn't give people's money back. It redistributes money from high income earners and gives it to low income earners. Under the current system, a typical minimum wage worker, who retires on Social Security, will receive an income that is way higher than they could ever have financed with their SS contributions. So, allowing people to opt out of the system is not possible because the high income earners would opt out and there would be no money to redistribute to the low income earners. That is just a fact.

[Donvan]

He only wants to suspend tax till end of year. There is no separate fund thanks to Johnson . It’s all in general fund . All money is all ready in one pool . Rest is just paper.

[mainelovr]

Originally Posted by xcaligirl

You're not the only one. I have a problem with so many people (mainly illegal) getting SOCIAL SECURITY that they never paid into......

Though not all noncitizens in this country are working within legal channels -- i.e., paying federal and/or state tax -- quite a few are. In 2010, according to data highlighted by AARP, undocumented immigrants' wage income netted Social Security approximately $12 billion in payroll taxes. Yet, the program's rules are crystal clear: noncitizens aren't able to receive Social Security benefits. Thus, numerous undocumented immigrants are likely paying into a Social Security program that'll never supply them with a red cent in benefits.
The Biggest Social Security Lies You've Believed | The Motley Fool

[Carlsondm]

You are not the only one concerned.
Since we are personally invested in the system, it is unnerving to have the funding manipulated without our input.
Assumptions and promises don’t mean much.

[PJackpot]

I would say you are pretty much the only one. Trump wants to fund SS through other means. It does not mean the end of SS. And the payroll tax is not going to be done away with, he is initiating a deferral program, and the deferral program is for employers. Employees are still on the hook.

What does Trump'''s payroll tax deferral mean for you? | Fox Business

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I do not see privatization happening but something must be done to make it sustainable.

It was set up to pay out at age 65 when the majority of people did not live that long.

Now that we are living well past that time enough is not coming in to maintain full payment for more than say 10 years.

Congress and President must either raise retirement age, allow people who want to do so to opt out probably sacrificing what they put in, raise the amounts paid into the system either by rate or income after which no more payments into the system or allow those who wish to to invest part of their money in some sort of mutual fund assuming some degree of risk.

Instead both parties would rather kick the can down the road. At some point action will have to be taken and the longer they take to do so the more difficult the fix will be.

You are right. The retirement age has already been raised. It was 65 for years. It is now 66. In two or three years it will be 67 for full Social Security. I waited until 66. However something like 75% of people retire as soon as they are able to, at 62, despite the greatly reduced benefits. I haven’t heard talk of THAT being changed, but perhaps I just didn’t notice.

I think that deferring the Social Security Payroll Tax is being presented as money in our pockets, but it is really a ploy to prepare us for canceling it for good. Precious few of us here would like the results. Could you get by on a 25% cut to your benefits? How about 100%? What would you give up? Dining out? Golf? Would you have to move to a mobile home somewhere? Would you have to move in with your kids, or live in a cardboard box somewhere?

What really needs to be done is to RAISE what the employer and the employees pay in Social Security taxes by 0.2% a year for ten years. That’s really all it would take to “save Social Security.”

[Rosebud1949]

Where the various policies that have been made in recent years do NOT affect those living here, they just go un-noticed.... and they will accept and vote for them.... when it hits them, then it will be too late. Saying I told you so, to them, will NOT help the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Stuholden

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

[mjpuleo]

i say leave the Soc. Sec. system as is

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by mjpuleo

i say leave the Soc. Sec. system as is

And when they run out of money to pay the benefits they are paying now than what do you suggest?

We may not be around to see it but our kids will be in trouble and screwed out of the contributions they have made.

[Spsmith444]

Originally Posted by Stuholden

For years our government has been unable to address the future shortfall in Social Security funding.
Now the payroll tax is being suspended and President Trump has said if re-elected he will kill this tax; without alternative funding the Social Security Trust Fund will exhaust in 3-4 years.
Am I the only one concerned about the future of my social security checks?

Nope. I retired last year (12/31/2019) at 65. Have not applied for benefits yet. Going up $16/mo as I wait. Should get 3k/mo if I start near future. No way will any political party dare touch SS.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Choro&Swing

You are right. The retirement age has already been raised. It was 65 for years. It is now 66. In two or three years it will be 67 for full Social Security. I waited until 66. However something like 75% of people retire as soon as they are able to, at 62, despite the greatly reduced benefits. I haven’t heard talk of THAT being changed, but perhaps I just didn’t notice.

I think that deferring the Social Security Payroll Tax is being presented as money in our pockets, but it is really a ploy to prepare us for canceling it for good. Precious few of us here would like the results. Could you get by on a 25% cut to your benefits? How about 100%? What would you give up? Dining out? Golf? Would you have to move to a mobile home somewhere? Would you have to move in with your kids, or live in a cardboard box somewhere?

What really needs to be done is to RAISE what the employer and the employees pay in Social Security taxes by 0.2% a year for ten years. That’s really all it would take to “save Social Security.”

The problem with your suggestion is that as the average life span increases will have more and more people collecting and less paying in.

67 at this point is not enough, should be about 70.

I do not see the govt ending SS. People in this country often act like sheep but end SS and would think anyone who voted to do so would quickly need a new job.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

What pi$$es me off to no end is that they call SS an entitlement. Entitlements are hand outs to people who did nothing to earn them, but somehow feel entitled to them anyways. Those of us who worked our a$$es off for many long years and had SS taken out of our checks every year are not entitled to the benefits, we are OWED the benefits. If the $$ was never taken out of our paychecks, and instead we were able to keep it and save it, we would not need SS. Stop calling it an entitlement and shore up the dam system so the people that are owed the $$ don't have to worry about a funding shortfall.

Great post. I believe that. We need more in TV Land to be like you.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Great post. I believe that. We need more in TV Land to be like you.

BUT, if the the word "entitlement" is not used, even though it is simply another lie, who can we blame ????