If you have read any of my recent posts, you know I am not a fan of the current administration, nor of the use of DOGE to slash federal spending. While like the vast majority of Americans, I am all for finding waste, abuse and fraud in our economy, whether in our public or private sector spending, I don't understand why some Americans seem giddy when they read stories about tens of thousands of federal workers losing their jobs regardless of work performance, or even regardless of union or contract protections.
It seems like just another example of this administration's plan to divide America by labeling certain segments of our population as enemies, or less than human, or certainly not American enough (which really means don't demonstrate fealty to Trump), and then to be blatantly cruel to them, with the support of those lucky enough (for now) to not be a part of one those demonized groups.
Which brings us to my topic, social insecurity.
Our Social Security System came about after the Great Depression, as part of the New Deal policies of the FDR Administration. For those who conveniently forget, before the establishment of this system, the elderly in our country were dependent on their families to take care of them once they no longer could work. This was also true to for those born with limited mental and/or physical capabilities.
It is difficult to know exactly how many Americans died during the years from late 1929 until the early 1940's when the war effort revitalized our economy, but the totals I encountered were in the millions.
While we can debate whether creating a system which established a forced saving program so that people would have a guaranteed source of income when no longer able to work was a wise choice, it is certainly true that millions of men and women who survived the Great Depression, and who contributed to the defeat of Hitler and the Axis Powers, benefited from this program, as well as those born in the aftermath of WW2 who helped provide the labor which created our infrastructure which was built in the 1950's and 1960's.
Monthly Social Security checks enable millions of people in their mid 60's and older to have options. For many who did not save as much as desirable, those SS checks raise them above the poverty line, and allow them to avoid making choices between buying food or medicine.
That's why when I hear millionaires call Social Security a ponzi scheme, as Elon Musk recently did, or hear the current Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, say that only fraudsters would complain if their SS check wasn't received, it becomes all too clear that Trump and his ilk will say or do anything to convince low information Americans that it is time to take a sledgehammer to Social Security.
Whether by making up statistics about millions of dead Americans or undocumented aliens receiving benefits, or pretending that half of seniors who admit to living paycheck to paycheck are somehow at fault for their dependence on this security net, the super rich will justify their attacks on the Social Security system just to line their own pockets as they "balance" the budget to maintain their tax breaks.
Back in 2011, I posted four times under the topic of Solutions. My intent at the time was to address the problems of the day in forthcoming posts. While I didn't specifically follow that line of thought, I have presented ideas to address the issues which face us over the years.
Here are links to those four posts if interested.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-1.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-beginning.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-1_15.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-testament-thinking.html
--
Clearly, we need to address the impending funding crisis that faces our entitlement programs. It is estimated that both Social Security and Medicare will need to reduce benefits within the next ten years if there are no changes to its collection and/or distribution systems. This is due primarily because we are living longer than we did upon the inception of these safety net programs, and have had a reduced birth rate since the boomers were born between 1946 and 1964.
Towards full transparency, I reached my full retirement age (FRA) a few months ago when I turned 66 and 8 months old. For those of you who are unaware, the last time the rules for receiving SS benefits was changed was during Reagan's presidency. At that time, it had become obvious that some tweaking needed to be done to ensure solvency, as it is today.
Among other changes, FRA was adjusted so that those people born in 1957 needed to wait until they reached 66 and 6 months old, those born in 1958, like myself had to wait until 66 and 8 months, those born in 1959 reached their FRA at 66 and 10 months old, and anyone born in 1960 or beyond had their FRA changed to 67.
This doesn't mean that you have to wait until those FRA mileposts, you can still start drawing social security benefits at age 62, but it does mean that your benefits will be that much less, a full 5 years worth less if your FRA is 67. For most Americans, that difference, drawing benefits at 62 rather than 67, is as much as $1000 per month.
Of course, many Americans can't retire at 62 since our antiquated health system ties health insurance to your employer, so many people wait until 65 to begin drawing social security benefits to align with their qualifying for Medicare. But again, if their FRA is 67, they are receiving less than their full benefit than if they had waited until they reached their FRA.
Again, full disclosure, my public sector service job provided me with a pension, as well as health benefits even after I retired, as a bridge to Medicare, so I was able to retire at age 63 1/2 with health benefits and a pension, both which contributed to me having the option of "early" retirement, an option, sadly, that the vast majority of working class Americans do not have.
When I tell people that I am fortunate to have a pension primarily because I worked as a public sector employee which had collective bargaining agreements provided by unions, that basically I am lucky that I sacrificed short term pay while dealing with, at times, a convoluted system related to promotions, I always emphasize that despite those shortcomings, I am extremely grateful that I spent over 30 years as a public sector employee which provided me with much better options for retirement, and health coverage before Medicare.
I especially make this point to those who bash unions when they regurgitate the talking points of the rich who prefer sheep as employees who are afraid to demand livable wages, decent health benefits, sick and vacation time, and protections from unlawful termination.
You know, all the things that Musk and Trump are doing, illegally, to the federal work force, just as they have in their private sector businesses.
So, all that being said, and in association with my 2011 Solutions posts, here are details of my plan to fix social security.
First, social security was envisioned by FDR to "give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."
My plan, first and foremost, emphasizes the "average citizen" reference in FDR's vision.
Put bluntly, we need to stop payments to Americans who earn over six million dollars a year.
But they paid into it, Joe, so they deserve it, don't they? No, as their duty as an American, someone who loves their country, who considers America the greatest country on the planet, it is a small sacrifice to make to provide for their fellow Americans who were not as lucky to be born rich, or did not have a superior business acumen. After all, since the max social security benefit is a little over $5000, a month, I am sure that those earning over 6 million dollars a year can live without $60,000 from the government, which represents 1% of their income, don't you?
Since Musk and his DOGE team have indicated that they want our IRS and Social Security records to find waste, fraud and abuse, and since they are the smartest tech people on the planet, I am sure they can find those who would fall into that category and stop their checks under the guise that such a plan addresses waste, waste being giving money to people who don't need it.
On the front end, I would immediately raise the level where collecting social security taxes ceases. Just to review, there are people, like almost everyone who is reading this, and everyone they know who have the social security tax (FICA) deducted from every pay check, all year long, while there are those who have it deducted only a few times, in January, and then not again until the following January.
For 2025 that number is about $176,000. So if you earn $176,000 a paycheck, times 26 pay periods a year, your total salary is a bit over $4.5 million a year. So people in that pay category pay their FICA tax once per year, let that sink in.
I would immediately raise that limit so they pay their FICA tax at least for three months, which would equate to a limit of $176,000 times 6, or about $1 million.
Then I would raise that limit by $500,000 each year for 5 years which would result in the FICA tax stopping at the $4 million a year salary. After that, keep raising that limit by $100,000 a year for at least another ten years.
Those moves, by themselves, would most likely not fix the problem. There needs to be some more means testing so that those who receive social security payments truly need that money so in addition to eliminating payments to people making over $6 million a year, I would only provide a percentage of payments to those making over $3 million a year, so half, or up to $30,000 a year, again sticking with the 1% of total income baseline I referred to above.
This 1% rule could be applied right down the line. So that even people who earn $1 million a year in income, could collect up to $10,000 a year in social security, no more. That's about where the point of demarcation begins for the top 1% of wage earners in America.
Most people don't know that when social security first became taxable in 1984, there was a ceiling set for SS payments before taxes kicked in, $25,000 for a single filer, $32,000 for a couple. Unfortunately, that number has not been changed in forty years so we need to adjust it higher, immediately, then add a cost of living increase for every year going forward.
I would change it to at least $50,000 for a single filer, $70,000 for a couple to reflect the median income for seniors today. By the way, doing that would enable Trump to check off a campaign promise to reduce taxes on seniors, without applying the rule to all income groups which is just another give away to the rich.
Again, full transparency, my wife's social security benefits are taxed because we are fortunate enough to still earn a comfortable living through my pension, part time work, and an inheritance. While I may find her SS payments are taxed a bit less with the increase I've proposed, it would benefit millions of seniors who currently earn above that $25,000 for single filers, $32,000 for couples range.
Is that enough? Perhaps not, but I am far more in favor of a plan which removes people from the social security rolls who could live with 99% of their current income, which collects more FICA taxes from those who can afford it, and which provides a much fuller benefit for those seniors whose income is below the median average, than just raising the FRA for people born since 1990.
We are already seeing that many people of my generation who are in their 60's are retiring, and drawing social security, before they reach their FRA, which means they are sacrificing bigger payments for money now, and which is partially why so many boomers are still working as they find that their social security payments aren't stretching as far as they thought. It is not hard to imagine that it won't get any easier for them when they cant' work.
This lesson should remind us that increasing the FRA for all people, regardless of their work history, as was done in 1984, penalizes those Americans who work in blue collar jobs which entails more wear and tear on their bodies.
Along that line, while I am not sure how it would be accomplished, perhaps the FRA for those born after 1990 (or whatever year is chosen) could be increased based on the actual description of the work they performed. Or maybe, since there may be some classifications which are nebulous as to how much physical work they demanded, the FRA could be tied to income.
For instance, if you average an income that pays out a social security benefit in the top 30% of people in the system, your FRA is another year later. And if in the top 20%, a second year, and in the top 10% a third year. I am sure that the numbers people among us could develop something similar to this that would save back end money yet still provide benefits to those who can't wait that extra year or two to collect their full amount, just from a physical fitness standpoint.
Juxtaposed next to the current attack on the social security system by the Trump Administration through reducing the number of people who help seniors navigate the system, changing the rules for contacting the system, then closing the offices where people are now supposed to go, my proposal emphasizes means testing to alter how social security taxes are collected and how benefits are paid.
Means testing, not mean policies.
Here is a link to a post I wrote in 2017 along these lines during the debate about the changes to the tax system which produced the current tax rules that disproportionately benefited the rich, and which now have to be extended. We didn't learn our lesson then, lower taxes on the rich did not produce a balanced budget, no where near it, yet here we are again, debating which segment of our population that needs it most, should lose benefits so that the rich maintain their tax breaks. It would be comical, if not so sad; just another indication of the decline of America.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/11/means-testing-not-mean-policies.html