Tweet
This recent AP/GfK poll on Social Security has gotten some attention, and I thought how it was worded needed to be addressed. The first question was fine. It ask if people would rather raise more taxes or cut benefits to improve the Social Security trust fund. A majority, 53 percent, said they prefer to raise taxes compared to just 36 percent who said cut benefits.
The second question though was just terrible. It asked if people would prefer to “raising the age at which people can get Social Security but keeping monthly benefits the same for everyone, or keeping the age at which people can get Social Security the same as it is now, but reducing monthly benefits for future generations.” The question has almost no value because raising the retirement age for the most part is basically the thing as cutting monthly benefits.
The way Social Security works is that the official retirement age is not some binary cut off age like Medicare. There is a range of ages you can choose to start taking Social Security. You can start taking Social Security as early at age 62, years before the official (full benefits) retirement age, but as a result you get a lower monthly payment. The earlier you start taking it, the smaller the payments. Raising the official retirement age for full benefits will likely not change the fact that people can take Social Security as early as 62, since that was not changed with the last Social Security age increase. You can also take Social Security later than the official retirement age and receive a higher monthly payment.
The point is that a regular person who planned to start taking Social Security at some set age, say 64 or 65, would be impacted pretty much the same by either change. If benefits were directly cut they would receive smaller monthly payments. Similarly if instead the “retirement age” were raised they would get smaller monthly payments because there were taking Social Security earlier relative to the “full benefits” eligibility age. Either way ends up as a benefit cut.
46 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Well, that depends on how long the person lives. If I live beyond about 82, I will have benefited by waiting to 65, because the earnings line is steeper starting at 65 than at 62.
The crossover point is about 82, so it’s a crap shoot. Someone who dies before 65 but started at 62 will have those 3 tears that the 65 started doesn’t.
Pick your gamble. I won’t live to 82, start early I’ll live to 90, start later, as late as possible.
Better questions would be do you favor raising taxes on the rich more to pay for SS or would you prefer we cut SS benefits and or raise the retirement age.
Or Do you prefer we cut military spending to pay for SS or would you prefer we cut SS benefits and or raise the retirement age.
If we let the Right Wing Pollsters pick the questions none of our ideas will get mentioned or get phrased in a way to get a fair answer.
Just once Jon I would like to see a poll question that an FDLer would write.
1. Take off the cap.
2. Lower the age to 58 to collect full rate
3. Double the pay out if not triple it
4. Add one dollar pay out to SS on every pay check
Just doing the above would put more money in the Retired pocket and maybe get more to retire and open up jobs for the young. I’m sure that corp. Amerika would figure out a way to still F*&^ over the young and old.
I’m collecting SS now and started when I was 62 only because 99 weeks of UI ran out and we all now finding a blue collar job at 62 just doesn’t happen. I’m one of the lucky ones even when mittens win he’ll try and sell SS off to ws, they will intern charge 25% fee to send out the checks. If 0 wins then they just change CIP numbers again and we on SS could see a 15% pay count. This will crush those in their 70s. Remember it takes a 2/3 vote to make any changes in SS so that means there will be a lot of demodogs screwing over the citizens of this nation.
I agree with what you’re say about framing this.
Thanks
Why do you assume this is a right wing pollster?
Obama want’s to cut SS as part of his “Grand Bargain.”
My personal feeling….
Ive always been told I was born with a “contract” with the government. OK fine, I can let the part go where I never actually agreed to any of it for the common good.
I do feel however, like any contract, if the terms are substantionally changed then the contract is voided.
If they raise the age then I want my money.
LOL…. we used to discuss this in the early 90′s. We knew one way or another the Boomers would screw us over so long after they have been dead and buried they’d still be sticking it to us. But hey. They got theirs.
Yep I got mine and that why I’m fighting for yours. You’ve drink the cool-aid of divide and conquer how wonderful for you.
I was able to get social security at age 60 for widow’s benefits. I took about a 25% cut but the payment was still fairly good. So, I guess that means that I will start to lose money at the age of 84. Thank God I had this option. I would be living under a bridge somewhere since jobs for older female web developers dropped off of the planet in 2008.
The most unfair thing about social security is that your benefits are cut if you earn over $14,000 a year. But if you have passive income you lose nothing. In other words, if you are a rich person with investments you keep the full payment.
That’s why the pay the actuary’s the big bucks.
Isn’t this already law?
You are confused. I am a boomer and I haven’t done anything to screw you over. We have all been fucked by the oligarchy. There is NO reason for you not to get your full SS payments. This bullshit about the deficit is just that. Social Security is fully funded through 2037 and if the cap is raised just a bit it will be fully funded beyond that point. And don’t buy into the notion that the money was spent for other things. Remember, this is a fiat based economy. The money is there.
So that’s what that MMT bullshit leads boomers to believe! Argument made and undermined in eight sentences. Thanks for explaining everything, comrade.
what does MMT mean?
Obama is a right winger he does not represent the Left or me.
Your Welcome:)
Yes Social Security retirement “age” is currently being raised but some are still pushing to raise to farther. The point though is that even when the age is increased you can still get SS starting at 62
My best friend’s father was a retired Social Security worker. He said all should take it starting at 62. My numbers may be off a bit but a WAG I did a while back had the age where the lines crossed was about 78 or 79
many factors come into play when determining what is the best option, including average returns on investments around your retirement.
He was talking strictly from the perspective of collecting SS. The longer you wait 62, the less over all you collect was his point.
Modern Monetary Theory. Its delusions are well represented at the lake.
SS money was spent for other things. MMTists lead you to believe fiat money grows on trees so to hide it’s theft.
I knew the part about earnings from work being “capped” by a phased-in reduction in monthly benefits, but this is disgusting:
We need to take action on that. Smells like a denial of equal protection to me. I’m sure the wealthy would defend this grotesque mistreatment by claiming that they aren’t “working” for that money, so they can still be treated as completely “retired” even though they receive gazillions in investment profits (dividends, interest, etc). Even if it’s not sufficiently discriminatory to amount to a constitutional claim, we should work this into our other projects seeking to increase Social Security benefits.
False. Lots of it was “invested” in U.S. Treasury bonds. The trust fund is fully funded by bonds. The trust fund is in surplus right now. The surplus will last for another 25 years, at a minimum. It would last much, much longer if the cap on FICA taxes was removed (i.e., even the ultra-high paid would pay full 6.2% tax on their wages, even if they were paid two mil a year).
But the “money” raised by FICA taxes was not all “spent,” some was paid out in benefits, lots was invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. The U.S. govt still owes payment (redemption) on all of those bonds. It’s a real claim by the trust fund on the federal govt. It’s a huge chunk of the “federal debt.”
There’s one possibility that has never really been actively discussed. Why not take the $ 100,000 cap off? After a wage-earner makes something like $ 107,000 in a calendar year, the SS deduction is stopped.
Please tell me why, if this fund is allegedly insolvent?
For most of the 99%, nothing will change. Most make less than $100K annually, so their impact is non-existent.
In my case, because I work multiple contracts in a year, I end up over-paying. You know what happens to the over-payment?
They give it back to me when I file my income taxes. Seriously. It’s the stupidest thing on the planet and a darned sight easier to fix than messing with people’s retirement ages.
It’s not insolvent. See mine @22. And the suggestion to remove the cap on wages subject to the FICA taxes is an excellent idea. That suggestion has been made often in Congress. We will be returning to that, maybe as soon as the lame duck session.
Doublethink.
Paid out and “invested” (or “invested”; which is it, comrade?) but not spent?
Capitalism is fraud.
Agree, Fractal – the idea that it’s insolvent is bogus – probably should have put the word in quotes, but with the number of times this is repeated, insolvency is the concept most associated with SS (along with ‘keep your hands off my….’).
The problem with the idea of removing that cap, though, is the same problem as every other reasonable solution in recent memory has come down to: it adversely affects the 1%; it’s a tax – no new taxes (despite the fact that this one already exists).
>>
the $s in the social security trust fund have been systematically pilfered by politicians to pay for government services so that politicians in both parties could get away with reducing taxes paid by corps and the richest Americans to the lowest levels in nearly 100 years – example .. in the 1950s and 1960s (under a repub president and under a dem president) the richest wage earners in the US paid 95 percent of their income to the federal govt in taxes –
& its not just semantics .. the monies have been replaced with treasury bonds (US Govt IOUs) but, paying those bonds back would require raising taxes on the rich, borrowing money or reducing benefits and changing the age of eligibility & you know which choice the defenders of the wealthy (the repubs) and the liars to the 99 percent (the dems) will make when the time comes .. you will be thrown under the bus, again
don’t get caught in the 2partyNonsense where both sides of that fake dichotomy try to distract SocSec payers and recipients by blaming the other side – -both the Dems and the Repubs stole that money so they could give tax breaks to the people who own them..the rich and greedy and unpatriotic assholes who killed the economy and the middle class
instead of blaming each other we would do better by simply demanding that ALL INCOME be subject to FICO including capital gains & instituting a tax on electronic financial tyransactions – these steps would solve the problem for 100 years and it would also (because it matters) reestablish in the popular consciousness of our brethren countrymen that we all are responsible for taking care of the sick, the poor, the elderly amongst us, as Humans and americans…
& I like what J6pk says too, lower that age of eligibility, increase the payout & I would add, lower the retirement age, work share, legally mandated vacation time & public health care – only in america is our ‘Freedom’ adroitly exemplified by the freedom in our country for an 75 year old man to ‘decide’ that he needs to work as a greeter at wALmARt to get medicine and food.
Let’s assume you make a few bucks and put it in the bank on Fridays. It’s yours, you’ll get it back someday.
Because of investors like you, the bank now has capitol they can issue loans to others to build stuff. Did they “steal” your money. No.
As far as “Paid out and “invested” (or “invested”; which is it, comrade?)”.
Both. More than $1 was collected, therefore they can “pay out” benefits to those who get SS, and “invest” in T Bills.
Social Security is actually closer to socialism than capitalism. The payout is based on need to the extent that benefits are supposed to increase each year to match the increased cost of living, but the payout is also based on average lifetime earnings, so it does preserve capitalist inequality to the extent that wages are higher for certain “favored” occupations (e.g., “whiter,” more highly “educated”). And, for better or worse, Social Security benefits are not “means tested” to any material extent, so the monthly benefit is the same measly amount regardless of whether recipients are rich or poor in their retirement years.
Medicare (aside from Rx drugs), however, was not means-tested at all until relatively recently, IIRC. Premiums for Medicare Parts A & B were the same for every patient (Part A is free if you are disabled or receiving Social Security); health care access is the same for every patient; reimbursement rates for health services are regulated by the central govt; everybody’s doctor gets the same reimbursement for the same service for every patient, regardless of whether the patient is rich or poor.
I believe Medicare Part D (Rx drugs) has introduced major complications which make the benefits vary significantly depending on the wealth of the patient. Also, in recent years I think premiums are now adjusted to a certain extent based on personal income. YMMV.
thanks. It’s simple, isn’t it?
I’ve heard the “lift the cap” argument, but there’s another part to it that never gets discussed.
The benefits formula. Lifting the cap will bring in more taxes. But benefits are paid on average of 35 years of TAXED income. Currently the taxed part is limited to $110,100. If it was raised, say to $500,000, the current formula would just pay the fat cats huge amounts in their retirement and nothing would be fixed.
The liberal shtick defends SS insurance as the best crapitalist compromise possible. Even as the whole crapitalist boat is being scuppered, they still yap away, “This is the best crapitalist solution possible.”
Basta, buzzards!
Crapitalism will never provide welfare and welfare comes first.
If one rejects partisanship and understands that Obama is the current mask of the Corporatists/Banksters/Right Wing agenda, it becomes clear. Unfortunately, there are those who still refuse to recognize this in spite of all the evidence provided by O’s policies.
“Steal”? Your straw-man might fool the simpletons, Don Quixote, but you’re not addressing me.
And yet your argument leads one to the opposite conclusion.
Doublethinking’s not good for your health, comrade.
>>
its true – that I was speaking about a govt program in this capitalist country ..
until the day bloggers get off their blue jean stretchers and rEvolve we still (I believe) have to take care of that parkinsons patient who can’t move- the fact that it is my obligation to help empty that american’s colostomy bag does not mean I don’t agree with kropotkin who said, ‘all is for all’ – it means i’m not a dogmatist and that I understand my obligation to lend a hand
here’s a parable, a man was attacked by thieves and lay bleeding on the roadside – rand paul and paul ryan walked by and agreed that the injured man should suck it up and take care of himself and then went to church, an american democrat saw the scene from 1000 paces and averted his eyes and ran in the other direction, Karl Marx walked by and said to himself, “that capitalist deserved it” and in the end, one of the injured man’s fellow humans, who himself had injuries and was jobless, helped his fellow human because he was in need.
Heh. If we go back to the begining, one or more of the injured man’s fellow humans, attacked him and left him bleeding on the roadside.
So much for fellow humans.
SS was established and designed to take a small amount from everyone during their working lives and pay out a basic living wage (around or above poverty line) to everyone in retirement.
Your ideas would bankrupt the system in no time.
1. Take off the cap.
The rich will pay in A LOT MORE! (you probably think that’s a good thing)
2. Lower the age to 58 to collect full rate.
Money would start going out FAST.
3. Double the pay out if not triple it.
Here’s the big problem. Benefits are based on what you paid in, the rich will now have not paid in on a maximum income of $110,100 per year, but on $1M or more. Their SS checks would be massive and no new money would be retained.
4. Add one dollar pay out to SS on every pay check
I don’t really know what this one means.
Karl Marx lives!
>>
hear ya – another might analyze : some humans are amoral but some are not
point being, we make our choices daily, to justify the actions of theiving elected officials, to wallow in acedemic abstraction ..or to act
>>
HA – and, forever due to the fact that capitalism continues to demonstrate its inadequacies and inherent unfairness!
1. Yes
2. It never runs out.
3. The more of your own money you have the less you get. If you have a million in the bank you get none.
4. If you add one dollar from employer and employee to SS this adds up fast.
5. Take the time to learn the rules of SS before you write and where the money is. It’s used as number only against the budget it can not be used for anything other than pay out to those that collect SS
Ludwig can you back anything with fact, because most of your writing is talking points of those that want to finish off Main Street
Thank You:)
Comrade, I use the same facts as the SS defenders. Greedspan and Raygun turned on the SS “trust fund” and invested it in the same crapitaltastic fiasco which has ended in this Greater Depression. Sure, the bonds ought to be redeemable. But their “investment” was actually an asset stripping, a bilking.
They SS defenders are struggling so mightily against the raiders propaganda that they will attack anything that moves on those paths. So they would prohibit addressing the fraudsters’ con in order to secure their obligations – because most people are too simple to understand the truth.
Capitalism is fraud.
I should hopes so……A co-worker from my private industry job is retiring in a few months. She has worked for this company for 42 years and will be receiving a $900.00 a month pension.
I’d like to add more later. We kind of agree on 5., but not sure we’re on the same page – probably not.
Anyway…
See you around.