The Conversations
As Bob exited his car, he spotted Mark doing the same, a few aisles to his left. He quickly locked his car, then called out Mark's name.
The two friends greeted each other warmly. It had been a bit longer than usual since their last meeting, as both business and family matters had garnered their time and attention. As they walked, they talked, updating each other with family news, a process that continued as they waited a few minutes for a table to clear, then were seated. By the time their order was taken, they were past the pleasantries, and into the topic for today.
After the three young men returned from their Olympic trip to Montreal, they used the pop-up trailer they had purchased for the adventure as a summer party spot. Most of those nice weather parties occurred in Bob's parents' back yard, the little trailer at full occupancy. With electricity run from the house, they listened to music, smoked pot, drank beer, and laughed like there was no tomorrow.
As time passed, and Bob and Mark's friendship cemented, they used the trailer to visit Williamsburg, Virginia, with a side visit to Kings Dominion Amusement Park. It was during this trip that they honed their multi-tasking skills, conquering the challenge of driving while eating, drinking and smoking. And talking.
At the time, Bob and Mark didn't question whether their discussions were unique for teenagers. Of course, marijuana was often attributed by young people as a way to open their minds, to free their thoughts to go beyond regular associations. To imagine how our entire universe could be just a molecule under the fingernail of a sentient being beyond our understanding, just as an entire universe could exist in a molecule under the fingernail of each of us.
What they didn't know then, but had learned over the years, is that marijuana, like any drug, while perhaps allowing them to feel less constrained, only made more prevalent what was already within. Reflective and thoughtful people became more so, as did those exuberant and outgoing. Emotional people more easily expressed their emotions, horny people (also known as teenagers in most of the world) became more affectionate, compassionate people showed more empathy.
And assholes, well, we all experienced how they behaved.
"Did you ever imagine that someday we would be talking about how to fix Social Security, and not just because it is an issue but because we were on the verge of drawing it?" began Bob.
At one point, the young men had begun a ritual of meeting at the 7-11 where Mark was working on the weekends from midnight to 8 AM. The lack of business allowed them to talk for hours with little interruption. And, while the occasional local police would sporadically pop in for doughnuts and coffee, it wasn't enough to keep them from using artificial means to accentuate their discussions.
"Well, it might be fair to remember that it was in the early 80's that the last major reform to Social Security was enacted, so it would make sense now, 40 years later, that another change is necessary," countered Mark.
"Well, to be honest, I did a bit of research on the Greenspan Commission and its recommendations which resulted in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. It was as a result of those reforms that you and I need to wait until we are close to 67 years old to receive the full benefit of our contributions. There were also alterations to how the yearly adjustment would be calculated, and when social security benefits would be taxable. Amazingly, it was a bipartisan vote, in both directions, meaning that in the Senate, there were 32 GOP Senators for, 8 against, 26 Senate democrats for, 6 against and 28 no votes, 14 from each party. Can you imagine such a vote today? In the House, 163 Dems for, 54 against, 51 no votes, 80 GOP for, 48 against, 38 no votes."
"What was really interesting is that their was a statement in the law that basically said that this reform package demonstrated for all time our Nation's ironclad commitment to the Social Security system. Ironclad is their word, not mine."
"Impressive info, Mark", remarked Bob. "I can't top that except to say that it seems clear that neither party 'won' what was, I would suspect, serious and tense negotiations, yet our senior citizens, our generation of baby boomers, were the benefactors. Not too mention our parents who are dependent of their SS checks to have options related to where they live, how they eat, and whether they can maintain a respectable standard of living."
For the next 15 minutes, the friends focused on their meal while organizing their thoughts for the coming discussion.
"So, now here we are 40 years later, facing another prediction of reduced benefits within 15 years," started Bob. "There seems some obvious alterations that could be enacted. One that seems to be advocated is the idea of raising the full benefit retirement age again. I have heard it should be pushed to age 70. But I have also read that this adjustment could really impact blue collar workers. There is data out there now that suggests that people with hard, physical jobs are less able to make it to the adjusted ages that exist now. Many people are forced to retire from those jobs before reaching their full benefit age, which means they get lower monthly checks, perhaps good for the overall system, but not good for them if they live into their mid 80's and beyond. It is also why many seniors are still working part time, to make those few extra bucks in addition to their SS checks."
"Like you," responded Mark with a smile.
"Well, actually, I am in a much better position than most, in that I am enhancing my pension check with my part time work. I should be able to reach my full benefit age in 2 years without drawing social security because I earned a pension, something that has withered on the vine these last 40 years, will probably not exist by the time our kids retire."
"I would favor an extended retirement age target that uses reward to encourage people to wait longer, not penalties for not waiting. The carrot without the stick, so to speak. Also, assuming our labor shortage will not be going away anytime soon, encourage the private sector to provide health benefits for part time workers. Since Medicare is also at future financial risk, wouldn't it make sense to allow people to stay on their employers health coverage as long as they work?"
"Encourage them how?" asked Mark.
"Perhaps some form of tax break that shares the cost. And, of course, access to health insurance programs that aren't tied to the size of the company, so all businesses could gain the best rates. If we could even the playing field so that all people, regardless of the size of the company which employs them could receive good coverage, more people might sacrifice slightly higher pay to work for small businesses, knowing that, at least their health plans are the same. Our current system punishes workers in small businesses, let alone small business owners, through its unequal access to health coverage."
"Or perhaps a universal health care system," replied both men almost simultaneously.
This was a topic they had discussed many times before. And would again, perhaps sooner rather than later.
"What do you think about raising the income level for which social security taxes are levied and collected?" asked Bob.
"Well, that would certainly effect me more than you," replied Mark. "This year the income level is set to $160,000. Anything earned over that amount is not taxed for social security, which also means that you only earn credit for that income which effects your future payment. But to answer your question, yes, I would begin expanding that amount, perhaps in some type of sliding scale. Frankly, I would begin raising that number in increments of $50K for at least the next 10 years. But, to save on the back end, I would only count the first ten, maybe $20K towards the benefit. After all, people earning that much will have less need for the safety net that social security is meant to supply."
"That brings up a good point," started Bob. "How many millionaires, even billionaires who most likely have earned the max distribution, choose to forego the benefit?"
"Can someone do that?" asked Mark.
"Yes, it is actually a simple form. And, it is not irrevocable, so if someone's situation changes, benefits can be claimed," answered Bob. "Doesn't it seem odd that most people don't know that the super rich can claim their benefits, and that they can decline them as well? Do you think some might call it an act of patriotism to not draw social security when you really don't need it, or an act of foolishness? What is interesting is that most of the social security earned by the wealthy is taxable, so their net amount is much less than what someone earning the max amount would get if that was the only income for that person."
"Again, perhaps we need to add a carrot to this process. Not taking the benefits is the stick, not taking the benefits and using, say half of the amount that one would have received as a tax credit, would provide the carrot."
"What about immigrants, legal and otherwise?"
"The same rule that applies to anyone who works in the United States, applies to immigrants. If they are paid by an employer who follows the law, social security taxes are collected, and if the individual works his or her 40 quarters as required, they earn benefits. What is ironic is that too many allegedly patriotic employers hire illegals to avoid paying taxes, local, state and federal, including social security. This law breaking not only robs the United States of tax revenue in the short run, it harms the social security system in the long run by not providing needed income to thwart future shortfalls. What is funny about immigration is that allowing more people to work, legally, towards future citizenship, provides some much needed assistance to fill the gap in our current labor shortage, and collects more tax revenue for now, as well as for social security later."
"Speaking of the self employed," began Mark, "do you think there is room to change that process, change the fact that someone in business for themselves must pay the 6.2% twice, once as an employee and once as an employer?"
"What did you have in mind?" asked Bob.
"Well, clearly, we don't want to penalize someone for running their own business by reducing their benefit due to a reduced tax structure. But, if social security is strictly based on income, then perhaps we can give those people a discounted rate, without altering their eventual benefit. This might also encourage more people to attempt to start a small business, especially in conjunction with giving them access to the same health insurance as the big companies. The 6.2 % rate has not changed since 1990, while the 1.45% rate for Medicare has remained the same since 1986. What may surprise you is that the social security tax rate doubled from 1962 to 1990, from 3.125 to the current 6.2%, in those 28 years but hasn't change a lick in the last 32 years. Not that I necessarily believe that higher taxes is the only answer to shortfalls, but perhaps it is time to increase the tax, at least on a means testing basis. I certainly don't have all the numbers but we know the OMB can apply any plan to future revenues. I would hope we could increase the SS tax for everyone, plus an additional percentage for those with a taxable income over $250K per year, while also reducing the combination paid by the self employed to, perhaps 5 and 5% as opposed to the current 12.4%. That adjustment plus the slow increase of eligible income that is taxed as we mentioned before should certainly make the system more solvent, while, again, also encouraging the creation of small businesses."
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html
"But Mark, you know there is little tolerance for raising taxes," responded Bob. "There is a growing force of pundits and politicians who continue to label Social Security and Medicare as entitlement programs that are ruining America by making it a socialist country. Perhaps Reagan and the Congress of 1983 thought that reform was a ironclad commitment to Social Security, and I certainly believe that the vast majority of Americans believe in the system, but there are some people of influence who are able to associate policies and ideas that help the average worker with concepts that have negative implications, such as those who bandy about the notion that these programs make us a socialist country."
"That is the importance of leaders who are fully transparent, who give us the good, the bad and the ugly of their policies, so that we can determine when and where to compromise. Unfortunately, we seem to only want to hear the good, while pretending that the bad and ugly need never to exist. As if any law or policy, when enacted, has not included some winners and some losers. No policy helps everyone, but the best policies help the most while harming the least."
"That is what bothers me about everyday working folks buying into the propaganda that student debt belief is bad. Propaganda that is paid for by people who are neither students, nor working class, not struggling pay check to pay check. Why is denying assistance to our children good for America? But, then again, it shouldn't surprise us when these are the same people who push the idea that Social Security is bad for America, even though statistics show that upwards of 50% of seniors depend on this system for at least half of their income."
"Well," concluded Mark, "let's hope that both sides of the aisle can negotiate this issue towards the idea of helping to solve the problem as opposed to which party can claim victory just as they did in 1983."
The check having been settled, the friends began their walk to their cars. Those innumerable nights when they had talked for hours at the 7-11, had played pool in Mark's parents basement while engaging in similar discussions seemed both long ago and just like yesterday. It was a pleasant feeling that both men appreciated, that connection to the past with today and its ever changing yet also similar debates and conversations.
No comments:
Post a Comment