Thread: Social Security

Good on you, SK. Stay healthy.

Here's an article on SS and both candidates positions:

AUG 8, 2016
Social Security: Where Clinton And Trump Stand

Social Security is one of the most vital issues for older Americans. And, as things now stand, unless the Social Security system is changed, benefits will be cut by 21% in 2034, due to solvency issues. The only way to shore up Social Security is by raising taxes, cutting benefits (which could include raising the retirement age) or both.

Below is a head-to-head rundown on where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stand — as best as anyone can tell. Incidentally, Trump’s website makes little mention of Social Security; most of his policy positions come from what he has said in debates or speeches. Clinton’s site has more details about her proposals and she has fleshed them out elsewhere. Both recently gave a pretty good summation of their views to AARP.

Forbes Welcome

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Military started paying into SS long before I joined cuz.

You probably told me that before but I couldn't remember.

I have no idea what my monthly amount would be at 62 or otherwise. I guess I should start checking into that.

I don't think I've received a 5 year statement...maybe that's just for vets.

Originally Posted by SKkin

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Military started paying into SS long before I joined cuz.

You probably told me that before but I couldn't remember.

I have no idea what my monthly amount would be at 62 or otherwise. I guess I should start checking into that.

I don't think I've received a 5 year statement...maybe that's just for vets.

Yeah I would think so since you're about 5-6 years away. I'd imagine SS should supplement your 401k quite nicely. Plus I'm guessin' you and your old lady are about the same age so both of you will get your own SS at about the same time. Don't know what your Mom and Pops did but my Aunts and Uncles on me Dad's side seem to have been inclined to delay until 65.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Plus I'm guessin' you and your old lady are about the same age

No she's four years younger...

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Don't know what your Mom and Pops did

I'll have to ask them cuz I don't remember what they did either. At their age I'm not sure all these splits between ages 62 and 66/70(or whatever) affected them.

^ Since she's 4 years younger and if she is intent on retiring at 62 she will want to draw on your work history is how I understand all this. Delay drawing her own as long as possible. But if you're still working and haven't filed then I'm not sure she can.

^ I guess I'll have to take time out from digging into the political mire and start researching this. Just in case the Flemming v. Nestor clause isn't invoked by the time I'm 62.

Below in the link is a video interview the Boomers over 50 getting notification that their Social Security monthly payment will be reduced by X amount because of their outstanding student loan debt, most of which is over 25 years old.

Now it's a "dilemma."

Keep you head in the sand and you may get bad news when you're going to need money when you're old.

Social Security Checks Are Being Reduced for Unpaid Student Debt - WSJ

^ Can't read but a little of that article.

The disturbing trend of people losing Social Security benefits to student debt

To recoup student-loan debt, the government is leaving people who rely on Social Security with benefits that fall below federal poverty guidelines, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.

The number of older Americans defaulting on education loans has steadily increased in recent decades, as many have returned to college or co-signed loans for family members. Unpaid debt has resulted in the government garnishing the benefits of 114,000 people age 50 and older in the past year, more than half of whom were receiving Social Security disability rather than retirement income, the GAO report said.

Garnishment exacerbates an already precarious financial situation for the 67,300 older borrowers who receive benefits below the poverty guideline, which is set at about $990 a month for a single adult. Even though no more than 15 percent of a recipient’s monthly Social Security payments can be taken in debt collection, that threshold has never been adjusted to reflect the increased cost of living.

“We can’t be garnishing people’s Social Security in a way that puts them into poverty,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. “We need to make sure that we have adjusted the ability of the government to recover those loan amounts in a way that is not spiraling people into poverty.”

In April 2015, McCaskill and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked the GAO for information about the money that seniors are left with after their payments are cut, the average duration of garnishment, the effect of student debt on retirement savings and the number of recipients who die without paying off their loans, among other things.

Researchers found that at the time of their initial Social Security garnishment, nearly half of borrowers age 50 and older had held their student loans for 20 years or more. A majority of these borrowers owed less than $10,000 when their benefits were first cut and many were hit with the maximum reduction, the GAO said. Seventy percent of the money collected through this form of garnishment from borrowers of all ages was applied to fees and interest, not the principle amount owed. Treasury charges a $15 monthly processing fee for wage and benefit garnishment.

And although Social Security cuts for many older Americans ended within a year, those with balances exceeding $20,000 endured the reduction for five years or more, according to the report. About 13 percent of borrowers older than 50 died with outstanding student loans.

Some people have been granted financial hardship exemptions, while others have successfully applied for permanent disability discharge of their loans through the Education Department. But researchers at the GAO are critical of the agency’s byzantine application process that puts borrowers at risk of falling back into garnishment. If people do not submit annual documentation to verify their income, their loans can be reinstated and the cuts can resume.

The Obama administration has been identifying severely disabled borrowers and guiding them through the steps to discharge their loans. With the help of the Social Security Administration, education officials found 179,000 permanently disabled people in default on their loans earlier this year. Advocacy groups, however, worry that people are still falling through the cracks.

“Our government is shoving tens of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities into poverty through garnishment every year — and charging them $15 every month for the privilege — just so that the Department of Education can collect a little bit more interest and keep boosting the government’s student loan profits,” Warren said. “This is predatory and counterproductive.”

At the end of last year, Warren co-sponsored legislation that would exempt Social Security benefits from being garnished by the government. Although the bill stalled in committee, she is urging Congress to revisit the legislation in light of the GAO’s findings.

Researchers at the GAO are calling on lawmakers to adjust the 15 percent limit to reflect cost-of-living changes, and for the Education Department to clarify requirements for disability discharge. McCaskill said she plans to introduce legislation that would bar Social Security from being garnished if it places people below the poverty line.

“Even Scrooge would hesitate to say it’s a good idea for the government to be putting Social Security recipients into poverty trying to recover payments on student loans,” she said.

Seizing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security benefits has long been a controversial way to collect on taxpayer-funded college loans. The government uses the same tactics to recoup child support and unpaid taxes. It is usually a last resort, but one that can really harm seniors relying on disability or retirement benefits.

There has been a 10-fold increase in the amount of student debt held by people age 65 and older, from $2 billion in 2005 to $22 billion a decade later. Even though people younger than 50 hold the largest amount of debt, a greater share of older borrowers were in default on their student loan and became subject to garnishment last year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fd7c9162fa17


That is just cold. I wouldn't be surprised if the federal government starts letting private debt collectors recoup through Social Security.

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Can't read but a little of that article.

I noted the video in the link. There is a short and very informative video at the link.

We cannot read the article b/c I assume one has to pay or register for a fee.

http://www.wkyc.com/ext/news/nation-...eo0IcEMOkI6Ia0

"The oldest Baby Boomers are now in retirement age, while the youngest are in their 50s. Considering that many Baby Boomers don't have substantial retirement savings, Social Security is set to remain a critically important source of income for millions of that generation as they retire over the next couple of decades.

Here's a closer look at three important facts that play a big role in how well Social Security will work for you and how much income you'll get. Whether you're ready to retire soon or still a decade or more away, these three facts about Social Security will affect you.

Full retirement age is set to change soon

Once you turn 62, you become eligible for Social Security retirement, but at a reduction to your full benefit (Take note CP), which you become eligible for at "full retirement age." For anyone born in 1943-1954, the full retirement age is 66. But for anyone born in 1955 or later, you should know that full retirement age is set to increase.

Starting in 2020, anyone born in 1955 will reach full retirement age at 66 years, two months. For those born in 1956, they'll have to wait another two months, to 66 years, four months. This two-month increase will continue until people born in 1960 or later reach the new full retirement age of 67 in 2027.

Why does this matter for baby boomers? Because it will affect how much of their benefit they'll receive, based on how early you retire. For instance, someone born in 1954 would have turned 62 in 2016, thus eligible for Social Security at a reduced level. Since their full retirement age is 66, they would receive 75% of their full benefit if they retired at age 62.

But someone born in 1958, for instance, would have a full retirement age of 66 years, eight months. But if that person retired at 62, they would only get 71.7% of their full benefit. It may not sound like much difference, but if you live to age 80, that's about $7,100 less on a $1,000-per-month benefit, not even including cost-of-living adjustments.

In other words, it's very important to know what your full retirement age is, no matter what age you plan to retire. A few months' difference could make thousands of dollars in difference in how much money you get.

This affects your spouse, too

Whether your spouse plans to retire on their own work record or on yours, the rules still apply when it comes to full retirement age and what their benefit will be. In other words, if your spouse is younger than you, it may be necessary for them to continue to work – or at least delay filing for Social Security if they don't work – in order to make sure the monthly benefit will be sufficient to cover your expenses.

This is particularly important to consider if your spouse will file on your work record, and is likely to outlive you. Here's what the Social Security Administration says about the survivor's benefit and how it could be lower if you retire before full retirement age.

If your spouse started receiving retirement benefits before their full retirement age, we cannot pay you the full retirement age benefit amount from their record. The maximum survivors benefit is limited to what they would receive if they were still alive.

In other words, before you decide to take Social Security early, you may want to consider how it would impact your surviving spouse's income if they are likely to outlive you and would receive the survivor's benefit.
If you're likely to live very long or die very early, it may affect when you should take Social Security

Social Security is structured to provide a lot of flexibility, since you can take benefits as early as age 62 or as late as age 70, depending on what works for your situation. And while the monthly benefit is significantly lower if you file early and much higher if you delay, the total dollars paid to someone who lives the average lifespan wouldn't be that much different.

But if you're an outlier with a significant chance of either living much longer than average or dying younger, that could affect what makes the most sense for you. Here's a table that breaks down where you would maximize your total benefit, based on filing age and age of death:

This table is based on a full retirement age of 66 and a full retirement age benefit of $1,000 per month. And as you can see, if you aren't likely to live beyond your mid-70s, it's almost certainly in your best interest to file at age 62 (with the caveat that you should consider how that would affect your surviving spouse). On the other end of the spectrum, if you're fortunate enough that you'll probably live well into your 80s or beyond, delaying Social Security will almost certainly mean more total income, not to mention a bigger check later in life when your ability to earn a wage is far more limited".

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

http://www.wkyc.com/ext/news/nation-...eo0IcEMOkI6Ia0

"The oldest Baby Boomers are now in retirement age, while the youngest are in their 50s. Considering that many Baby Boomers don't have substantial retirement savings, Social Security is set to remain a critically important source of income for millions of that generation as they retire over the next couple of decades.

Here's a closer look at three important facts that play a big role in how well Social Security will work for you and how much income you'll get. Whether you're ready to retire soon or still a decade or more away, these three facts about Social Security will affect you.

Full retirement age is set to change soon

Once you turn 62, you become eligible for Social Security retirement, but at a reduction to your full benefit (Take note CP), which you become eligible for at "full retirement age." For anyone born in 1943-1954, the full retirement age is 66. But for anyone born in 1955 or later, you should know that full retirement age is set to increase.

Starting in 2020, anyone born in 1955 will reach full retirement age at 66 years, two months. For those born in 1956, they'll have to wait another two months, to 66 years, four months. This two-month increase will continue until people born in 1960 or later reach the new full retirement age of 67 in 2027.

Why does this matter for baby boomers? Because it will affect how much of their benefit they'll receive, based on how early you retire. For instance, someone born in 1954 would have turned 62 in 2016, thus eligible for Social Security at a reduced level. Since their full retirement age is 66, they would receive 75% of their full benefit if they retired at age 62.

But someone born in 1958, for instance, would have a full retirement age of 66 years, eight months. But if that person retired at 62, they would only get 71.7% of their full benefit. It may not sound like much difference, but if you live to age 80, that's about $7,100 less on a $1,000-per-month benefit, not even including cost-of-living adjustments.

In other words, it's very important to know what your full retirement age is, no matter what age you plan to retire. A few months' difference could make thousands of dollars in difference in how much money you get.

Thanks for the informative post and the FYI directed at me, SK.

I was born in 1970.

I'm vested. I presume I can get early at 62 (if I'm still alive) and full benefits at 67 years and X amount of months.

It's 20 years time, so we don't know what will happen. They may push it further up for age eligibility, or perhaps not.

Hopefully (and that's a hope) the political 'leaders' will keep it solvent b/c it'll be low on funds a couple/few years before I hit that age.

SS payments increased this year by $4 (.0029%) after remaining the same in 2015 and 2016.

Originally Posted by Sumbitch

SS payments increased this year by $4 (.0029%) after remaining the same in 2015 and 2016.

One of the reason the US govt lies about the true inflation rate is to keep SS c.o.l.a payments as low as possible.

.1%+ of percentage point adds up when you look at the number of people receiving SS.

Yes, some low cola payments over the last couple of years.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

If you're likely to live very long or die very early, it may affect when you should take Social Security

Yeah, it would be easier to plan if we knew when we were going to die, or shall we say on a more positive note, 'how long we're going to live.'

^ Some day you too will have as many century threads as your mentor Barbaro ...

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ Some day you too will have as many century threads as your mentor Barbaro ...

Indeed, and that day will come soon.

This thread (thank you) is a 500 post thread!


There are no limits!!!!

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

"The oldest Baby Boomers are now in retirement age, while the youngest are in their 50s. Considering that many Baby Boomers don't have substantial retirement savings, Social Security is set to remain a critically important source of income for millions of that generation as they retire over the next couple of decades.

It will be even worse for 12 year olds like milkman, barbaro and blackfart.

A real issue as the Repubs and some on committees want to raise the age of receiving full benefits. Trump pledge in his campaign to not mess with Social Security.

Thankfully, Trump is a Repub in name only, IMO.

I assume he'll keep his word:

SS could have been dealt with and still can be, but as usual the pilfer from the fund and kick the can down the road.



Social Security: Would Trump veto a Republican retirement-age hike?
Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool Published Jan. 28, 2017

One proposal suggests boosting the retirement age further, but will the president make good on campaign promises to leave Social Security alone?

President Donald Trump took a pragmatic approach toward Social Security during his campaign, assuring voters that he would save Social Security without making any cuts. Yet even before Trump has taken office, Republicans on Capitol Hill have challenged that campaign promise. In particular, one congressional representative's proposal would raise the full retirement age for younger Americans from 67 to 69, leading to indirect benefit cuts that would dramatically reduce what those workers would receive from Social Security in retirement.

With his own party going against his stated position on Social Security, incoming President Trump will face a big question: Would he veto Republican legislation cutting Social Security if it got to his desk?

The Social Security Reform Act of 2016

Last month, congressional representative Sam Johnson, R-Texas, introduced what he called the Social Security Reform Act of 2016. Johnson holds an influential position in Congress, serving as chair of the Social Security subcommittee for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. The provisions of the proposal include changes to benefit calculations, adjustments to the way cost-of-living increases are determined, and some means-testing benefit reductions for higher-income families.

One key aspect of the proposal would be to raise the full retirement age to 69. To achieve this, the proposal would extend and accelerate the currently ongoing increase in the full retirement age from 66 to 67. Under current law, the full retirement age is 66 and two months for those who turn 62 in 2017, and it will rise by two months per year for those turning 62 in 2018 and later until reaching 67 in 2022. Johnson's proposal would further boost the retirement age by three months per year starting in 2023, with the eventual result being that those who turn 62 in 2030 or later would have a full retirement age of 69.

Why a higher full retirement age is a stealth Social Security cut

Unfortunately, what many people don't realize is that the impact of a higher full retirement age is a sizable yet hidden reduction to Social Security benefits. The reason has to do with the way that benefits are calculated.

Under the proposal, Americans would still be allowed to take early Social Security benefits starting at age 62. However, because the full retirement age would be higher, those who file for benefits early would see their benefits reduced by a greater percentage than current retirees. For instance, those who turned 62 last year have a full retirement age of 66, so their benefit reduction for taking benefits at age 62 was 25%. Meanwhile, those who turn 62 in 2022 have a full retirement age of 67. The reduction in their benefits if they claim at 62 will be 30%, rather than 25%. Based on the typical retirement monthly benefit, such a reduction could easily cut recipients' monthly checks by $50 to $100.

If the full retirement age is raised to 69, then claiming Social Security early will have an even bigger impact. Based on the current formula, if your full retirement age were 69 and you took benefits at age 62, then your benefits would be reduced by 40%. That additional cut of 10 to 15 percentage points would make a huge difference.

Those who wait past their full retirement age would also get a smaller benefit boost than they would otherwise. The proposal extends delayed-retirement benefits through age 72, but one would have to miss out on two to three full years of benefits in order to reach the same maximum amount they could achieve under current law.

Is a Trump veto coming?

Predictably, lawmakers who opposed the president are already calling for him to oppose Johnson's bill. Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., demanded in the opening days of the new congressional session that Trump threaten to veto any cuts to Social Security and other programs that the Republican Congress passes.

That said, one source of frustration among many congressional Republicans was the president's unwillingness to consider cuts to popular programs. As members of Congress try to determine what their relationship with the White House will look like, there's still plenty of uncertainty about how much Trump's campaign stances may change when he assumes the presidency.

President Donald Trump can expect to face political pressure from all sides once he takes office, and Social Security will be a key issue. Whether he will veto Social Security reform or back down from his campaign promises will make a huge difference in how Americans of all political parties view the incoming president's administration.

Social Security: Would Trump veto a Republican retirement-age hike?

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., demanded in the opening days of the new congressional session that Trump threaten to veto any cuts to Social Security and other programs that the Republican Congress passes.

Sanders needs to realize Trump won't even know this unless Sanders tweets it.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., demanded in the opening days of the new congressional session that Trump threaten to veto any cuts to Social Security and other programs that the Republican Congress passes.

Sanders needs to realize Trump won't even know this unless Sanders tweets it.

I know your joking, but Trump is the tweeter and the tweeter reader.

Trump repeatedly said during the campaign that he would not allow any cuts in SS.

I assume he'll stand by it. Hope he will.

In the future, the Repubs will somehow get their way.

27.9K
SHARES
ShareTweetPlus
screen-shot-2017-02-07-at-6-07-03-pm

This "history lesson" is circulating about how Democrats have over time used social security to fund big government and it's not pretty.

This is something the Democrats don't want Americans to see. Well, Americans who work anyways...



History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the The United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

Two old Social Security cards with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:


1.) That participation in the Program would be "Completely voluntary",

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $3,000 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will


See How Democrats Have Stolen From Working Americans, "History Lesson On Your Social Security" Going Viral ? US Herald

27.9K
SHARES
ShareTweetPlus
screen-shot-2017-02-07-at-6-07-03-pm

This "history lesson" is circulating about how Democrats have over time used social security to fund big government and it's not pretty.

This is something the Democrats don't want Americans to see. Well, Americans who work anyways...



History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the The United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

Two old Social Security cards with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:


1.) That participation in the Program would be "Completely voluntary",

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $3,000 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will


See How Democrats Have Stolen From Working Americans, "History Lesson On Your Social Security" Going Viral ? US Herald

Oh Jeezus. So now you are posting up bogus forwarded email. This is complete trash. You fall for anything you read without bothering to check to see if there is even a kernel of truth to it. Clearly the reason you are brainwashed...

Both of your phony articles debunked..

FDR?s ?Voluntary? Social Security

Social Security Changes - Snopes.com

www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

I'm pasting the bottom portion of this article from Forbes because it has the mechanics of this alleged plan.

I don't where how far it's gone, where it is, or even if it still exist. This article is just shy of 8 weeks old.

In committee? Waiting to be in one? Dead?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but if this did (hypothetically) pass the Congress and Senate, President Trump can either:

Sign it,

or

Veto.

Correct?

DEC 14, 2016
How GOP Social Security Cuts Will Hurt You

John Wasik , CONTRIBUTOR

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), proposed the "Social Security Reform Act of 2016" last week. He's the chairman of the Social Security subcommittee of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which originates most tax legislation.

Johnson stated in a press release that the bill "will permanently save Social Security, ensuring this vital program continues to work for today’s workers and beneficiaries and future generations."

"Instead of honoring the promises made to our seniors," stated Rep. Richard Neal, a ranking Democrat on Ways and Means, "the Republican plan would amount to a massive cut in Social Security benefits for working Americans through cuts to the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), raising the retirement age to 69 and cuts to the benefit-computation formula. Ultimately, this translates to a 30% or more cut in benefits for middle class retirees."

Here's how the GOP cuts would work, according to the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank:

-- Workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

-- The first year for receiving full benefits would climb to 67.

-- Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom.

-- People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%.

-- But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half.

-- The plan would also cut entirely cost of living adjustments (COLA) for retirees earning above $85,000.

That last item on killing the COLA would hurt the most. Keep in mind that Social Security is the only government retirement benefit that adjusts payments based on inflation. If the cost of living goes up, you can keep up with rising prices -- somewhat.

There is no COLA for 401(k) or IRA withdrawals. And private, inflation-adjusted annuities are the exception, not the rule.

Moreover, there's a better way of funding Social Security, which will begin to trim payments in 2034 if nothing is done. Simply raise the earnings cap subject to Social Security taxes, which is set artificially low at $118,000.

That means if you make that amount of money -- or less -- you're paying the same Social Security tax as millionaires and billionaires. If you make more, you can afford to pay more.

As it stands now, the GOP Social Security slashing is going to get a running start in next year's Congress. The mainstream GOP has long supported such a move, in addition to moving along a plan to privatize and raise the eligibility age for Medicare (to 67).

Even though President-Elect Trump has vowed to protect both programs, all of his nominees who would oversee these social insurance benefits want to break them apart, as do party leaders such as Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House.

Will Trump rein in his own party? It doesn't seem likely.

Forbes Welcome

OK,

This proposed bill is in the Ways and Means Committee at the moment.

"The Social Security Reform Act of 2016" - H.R. 6489

The link below has a table of contents with links and dates and terms.

As we've noted, T campaigned on not cutting or messing with SS. These Repubs are doing this on their own.

I expect to hear news reports on this when it comes out off committee.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/6489/text