He says he will put an income cap on Social Security benefits. He will phase it out for those making more than $80,000 and it will be eliminated for those making $200,000 or more. He also wants to raise the age of retirement.

What do you think? Will it fly?

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I would lower the range from $80K to 70K to begin the phasing out and eliminate completely at 150K. Fat cats making that kind of retirement do not need Social Security supplements.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I would lower the range from $80K to 70K to begin the phasing out and eliminate completely at 150K. Fat cats making that kind of retirement do not need Social Security supplements.

Obviously, you are not one of "fats cats". So, should they just forfeit the contributions made to Social Security over the course of their lifetime?

I think Christie knows a thing or two about Fat Cats...

Changes in the law come from Congress. It doesn't matter what he wants, if a bill isn't passed by Congress then nothing will change. This is strictly a position statement that he believes SS needs to be reformed and it does. There are numerous suggestions on how to deal with the bad trajectory that SS is on. I would not count on any changes to SS benefits anytime soon. A removal of the maximum annual tax is a possibility. However, I expect nothing will be done until there SS becomes a crisis. Congress loves a good crisis - good drama.

Originally Posted by Guest

He says he will put an income cap on Social Security benefits. He will phase it out for those making more than $80,000 and it will be eliminated for those making $200,000 or more. He also wants to raise the age of retirement.

What do you think? Will it fly?

Originally Posted by Guest

Changes in the law come from Congress. It doesn't matter what he wants, if a bill isn't passed by Congress then nothing will change. This is strictly a position statement that he believes SS needs to be reformed and it does. There are numerous suggestions on how to deal with the bad trajectory that SS is on. I would not count on any changes to SS benefits anytime soon. A removal of the maximum annual tax is a possibility. However, I expect nothing will be done until there SS becomes a crisis. Congress loves a good crisis - good drama.

Mode of operation if congress were responsible for firefighting:

they would wait until they could see the flames in the hallway.

Reaction behavior requires very little thinking. And that is why they do/don't do ANYTHING.

Originally Posted by Guest

Mode of operation if congress were responsible for firefighting:

they would wait until they could see the flames in the hallway.

Reaction behavior requires very little thinking. And that is why they do/don't do ANYTHING.

An unfortunate, but essentially accurate, portrayal of how our democratic process usually works. I will give them credit for finally dealing with the "Doc fix' aspect of Medicare.

Also, we need to get the entitlements / Social Security system under better fiscal control. I'm willing to take my fair share of cuts, along with everyone else. Overall, we all benefit from a financially sound system and conversely, we all lose if it goes bust actuarially.

Originally Posted by Guest

An unfortunate, but essentially accurate, portrayal of how our democratic process usually works. I will give them credit for finally dealing with the "Doc fix' aspect of Medicare.

Also, we need to get the entitlements / Social Security system under better fiscal control. I'm willing to take my fair share of cuts, along with everyone else. Overall, we all benefit from a financially sound system and conversely, we all lose if it goes bust actuarially.

When both Dems and Reps are in agreement on the "Doc fix" you can be 99.9% sure they passed cost to next generation. As far as social security most people want to believe trust fund is solid until 2035 when in fact there is no trust fund just governent promise to tax next generation. SS paying out more than it takes in now with line going straight up now. My hat is off to Christie for having courage to even suggest system is already bankrupt.

My first response to this is that social security is, has or will be in trouble because the "fat cats"in Congress can't keep their bloody hands off our money.
Secondly the social security fix is a political ploy crisis that make presidential candidates look serious but they have no idea what they are talking about.

For instance Christy's monetary cuts offs what do they mean? Just because a person is making $80,000 that doesn't mean their flush. what are their necessary living costs, health care costs. Does that person have a disability issue playing heavily on the family budget.

One poster said I would pay my fair share but he/she did when his/her pay check included a deduction for social security takes.

This social security issue is a classic example of class warfare that politicians love to play. S/he is making too much and doesn't need more. I beg your pardon you told me life was a not a rose garden and I took you seriously and I invested heavily, saved , worked and built myself a secure future and in all that time you never once said well we know you are going to be successful so will stop deducting your social security..........

Look its one thing to complain about someone double dipping but a person who paid into social security isn't that guy, and utilizing an arbitrary amount as a cut off can hurt a lot of people who have legitimate expenses that cut deep into their life savings.

So on this issue I am on the side of the people and I hold pols in disdain for for covering up their mismanagement of this program.

Personal Best Regards:

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.

Originally Posted by Guest

When both Dems and Reps are in agreement on the "Doc fix" you can be 99.9% sure they passed cost to next generation. As far as social security most people want to believe trust fund is solid until 2035 when in fact there is no trust fund just governent promise to tax next generation. SS paying out more than it takes in now with line going straight up now. My hat is off to Christie for having courage to even suggest system is already bankrupt.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.

Yes, excellent point. A common misconception is that there's a big wad of money sitting safely in a "bank" or trust fund waiting to be tapped. It's all basically a big IOU and depends on current intake to ideally be at least a bit more than the payout.

I agree with previous poster ... mismanagement by at least a generation of politicians from both parties. They do what they all do ... kick the can down the road and hope that, if/when something hits the fan, they will be safely out of office. This is one topic where R's and D's can be genuinely bipartisan.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.

You explain that as anyone trying to convince someone bigfoot exist. Regardless of how much lipstick you apply to that pig there is no "trust fund" backed by assets. You can raise taxes or borrow (steal) from next generation. The "they" you refer to are the polititians we voted in because they promised us something for nothing. We have some bitter medicine to take and should start taking it now. I'm thinking the next generation will wake up someday and we'll be screwed, and deserve to be.

Unfortunately, you appear to have failed to grasp the significance of what I wrote. Please reread and try to understand what I was saying. I clearly was not putting lipstick on anything. I was trying to explain what the "trust fund" actually is. I never said it was backed by assets. You appear to only want to vent some anger. So I will repeat. The "trust fund" is a commitment to do nothing more than go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay benefits. So there is no further confusion on your part, this is not a good thing. I will not make the mistake again of trying to explain things is a calm, coherent manner only to be ridiculed by someone like you.

Originally Posted by Guest

You explain that as anyone trying to convince someone bigfoot exist. Regardless of how much lipstick you apply to that pig there is no "trust fund" backed by assets. You can raise taxes or borrow (steal) from next generation. The "they" you refer to are the polititians we voted in because they promised us something for nothing. We have some bitter medicine to take and should start taking it now. I'm thinking the next generation will wake up someday and we'll be screwed, and deserve to be.

Unfortunately, the Government can only "invest" the excess SS taxes in special Treasury Bills, which are nothing more than a commitment to acquire more debt on the global markets when SS needs to "cash them it" to pay benefits. It is a bizarre situation.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes, excellent point. A common misconception is that there's a big wad of money sitting safely in a "bank" or trust fund waiting to be tapped. It's all basically a big IOU and depends on current intake to ideally be at least a bit more than the payout.

I agree with previous poster ... mismanagement by at least a generation of politicians from both parties. They do what they all do ... kick the can down the road and hope that, if/when something hits the fan, they will be safely out of office. This is one topic where R's and D's can be genuinely bipartisan.

I must admit that I have come to ignore some of the technical aspects of government speak because there has been so many layers of creative accounting by pols that one could get caught up in Abbott's/Costello's "Who Is On First?" and its obviously intentional on their part and I am not going to continue to play their game.

Few if any presidential candidates have the political power or will to effectively alter social security. Social security was a good thing that pols greed destroyed. I say so because some folks just will never save they can't or won't and at least this safety net reduce some actual entitlements (ie things they never paid for, unlike SS deductions. For those of us who did save or do, SS has been the third leg of our retirement program.

I agree with adjustments in retirement age and monthly deductions because people live longer and because income brackets etc have changed over the years.

So again we have the pols diverting the problem as being social security when the problem is with thir management and perhaps the focus ought to be on their mismanagement. I write my representatives often and flatly tell them to keep their hands off our money

Personal Best Regards: