Mark - I am really appreciating the clarity and depth of what you are reporting here. Will definitely share it. I hope you are tracking what will come in the next month - the letters from Congress to HHS/CMS either pro or con regarding Medicare Advantage, prior to setting payment rates. In the past the "pro" letter, which is initiated by AHIP, has been signed by a large majority, including many democrats. The "con" letter will most likely be drafted again by Jayapal and Warren.
Hi, Dale - this survey's findings are no different than any other I've seen over the past 15 years, so it's clear that there is a big gap here between what the public wants and what Congress is willing to do. It's a failure of democracy, but just one of many. If the Democrats get trifecta control in Washington again, would they pass legislation that increases taxes and bumps benefits a bit? I'd like to think so, but it didn't happen the last time they had control during Biden's first two years in office. They have a bill - Rep. John Larson's Social Security 2100 - that has a huge number of House co-sponsors, but my understanding is that Nancy Pelosi refused to put it on the House floor at that time out of fear that voting for a tax hike would endanger her members for reelection - and that it would never pass the Senate anyway (no doubt true so long as the filibuster continues). Hence the prevailing view in D.C. that only a bipartisan bill can pass...and that must include benefit cuts. I'm hesitant to make forecasts about anything these days, but my best guess is that nothing at all will happen until we get very close to the solvency cliff. At that point, Congress will pass emergency legislation injecting general revenue into Social Security to avert the huge benefit cuts. So, that would mean borrowing to keep Social Security solvent. It's not the best solution, but would it be better than cutting benefits? Probably.
Finallly able to read the fine print: The one percent increase in the tax rate favored by some, if enacted very soon could be an adequate fix for now. but it would need to be followed by another one percent increase in the fairly near future, or by the gradual increases of about one tenth of one percent per year increases i advocate in my other comment. I will do the math and let you know the details. if anyone reads this, try to sit down and ask yourself why you would risk Social Security to save roughly a dollar per week per year? the 1% increase would work..about ten dollars per week all at once and then once again later when your income about ten dollars per week higher than it is today. This is a bit clumsier and more expensive than the one tenth percent per year increases..but we are running out of time for that solution to work.
the financial answer is going to be always the same...SS needs a 2% increase in the tax rate to pay for the longer life xpectany you will have compared to your grandparents. The problem is entirely political, and that depends on what the people can understand and what they can make the Congress understand.
did the math: the second one percent increase would be needed in 2038 (sooner would be better). another increase of one tenth of one percent might be needed in 2085. or we could skip the whole charade and raise the tax one and three quarters percent today. or we could go back to my plan and raise it one tenth of one percent per year starting by next year.
i am fine with the one percent solution today and another one percent in 2038, and very glad the people are willing to raise their own tax rather than take a benefit cut. But worried about asking people what they prefer when they really don't understand the consequences of each "solution."
raising the retirement age is simply murder. so is decreasing the assumed rate of inflation. tax the rich will assure the rich destroy SS. the only solution that preserves SS as meaningful insurance against poverty in old age is a 2% (each) tax increase started soon enough to avoid Trust Fund running out of money in eight years. sooner is better, cheaper, and more fair.
Thank you for posting this. While it is encouraging to note that most people prefer a payroll tax increase to a cut in benefits, it is discouraging to see that by payroll tax increase they appear to mean "tax the rich." This is dangerous. Roosevelt knew that "tax the rich" would assure that the rich destroyed Social Security. Why risk that to save the extra one dollar per week per year increase that it would take to make Social Security solvent forever?
After this year the rate of increase would need to be faster to avoid the disruptions caused by the Trust Fund running out of money. But even the ultimate increase needed of two percent would not be a noticeable burden on anyone: amouting to a twenty dollar per week increase on an income of one thousand dollars per week..money that you will get back about three times over due to the effective interest that SS generates automatically by pay as you go financing.
Mark - I am really appreciating the clarity and depth of what you are reporting here. Will definitely share it. I hope you are tracking what will come in the next month - the letters from Congress to HHS/CMS either pro or con regarding Medicare Advantage, prior to setting payment rates. In the past the "pro" letter, which is initiated by AHIP, has been signed by a large majority, including many democrats. The "con" letter will most likely be drafted again by Jayapal and Warren.
Peter G.
Hi, Dale - this survey's findings are no different than any other I've seen over the past 15 years, so it's clear that there is a big gap here between what the public wants and what Congress is willing to do. It's a failure of democracy, but just one of many. If the Democrats get trifecta control in Washington again, would they pass legislation that increases taxes and bumps benefits a bit? I'd like to think so, but it didn't happen the last time they had control during Biden's first two years in office. They have a bill - Rep. John Larson's Social Security 2100 - that has a huge number of House co-sponsors, but my understanding is that Nancy Pelosi refused to put it on the House floor at that time out of fear that voting for a tax hike would endanger her members for reelection - and that it would never pass the Senate anyway (no doubt true so long as the filibuster continues). Hence the prevailing view in D.C. that only a bipartisan bill can pass...and that must include benefit cuts. I'm hesitant to make forecasts about anything these days, but my best guess is that nothing at all will happen until we get very close to the solvency cliff. At that point, Congress will pass emergency legislation injecting general revenue into Social Security to avert the huge benefit cuts. So, that would mean borrowing to keep Social Security solvent. It's not the best solution, but would it be better than cutting benefits? Probably.
Finallly able to read the fine print: The one percent increase in the tax rate favored by some, if enacted very soon could be an adequate fix for now. but it would need to be followed by another one percent increase in the fairly near future, or by the gradual increases of about one tenth of one percent per year increases i advocate in my other comment. I will do the math and let you know the details. if anyone reads this, try to sit down and ask yourself why you would risk Social Security to save roughly a dollar per week per year? the 1% increase would work..about ten dollars per week all at once and then once again later when your income about ten dollars per week higher than it is today. This is a bit clumsier and more expensive than the one tenth percent per year increases..but we are running out of time for that solution to work.
the financial answer is going to be always the same...SS needs a 2% increase in the tax rate to pay for the longer life xpectany you will have compared to your grandparents. The problem is entirely political, and that depends on what the people can understand and what they can make the Congress understand.
did the math: the second one percent increase would be needed in 2038 (sooner would be better). another increase of one tenth of one percent might be needed in 2085. or we could skip the whole charade and raise the tax one and three quarters percent today. or we could go back to my plan and raise it one tenth of one percent per year starting by next year.
i am fine with the one percent solution today and another one percent in 2038, and very glad the people are willing to raise their own tax rather than take a benefit cut. But worried about asking people what they prefer when they really don't understand the consequences of each "solution."
raising the retirement age is simply murder. so is decreasing the assumed rate of inflation. tax the rich will assure the rich destroy SS. the only solution that preserves SS as meaningful insurance against poverty in old age is a 2% (each) tax increase started soon enough to avoid Trust Fund running out of money in eight years. sooner is better, cheaper, and more fair.
Thank you for posting this. While it is encouraging to note that most people prefer a payroll tax increase to a cut in benefits, it is discouraging to see that by payroll tax increase they appear to mean "tax the rich." This is dangerous. Roosevelt knew that "tax the rich" would assure that the rich destroyed Social Security. Why risk that to save the extra one dollar per week per year increase that it would take to make Social Security solvent forever?
After this year the rate of increase would need to be faster to avoid the disruptions caused by the Trust Fund running out of money. But even the ultimate increase needed of two percent would not be a noticeable burden on anyone: amouting to a twenty dollar per week increase on an income of one thousand dollars per week..money that you will get back about three times over due to the effective interest that SS generates automatically by pay as you go financing.
And the security: priceless.