Monday November 11, 2013, 6:41 pm
Most important point from the article
Dean Baker, an economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, describing how benefits have been parred back since Congress' last major revision of the law in 1983. “They come to a reduction of about 25 percent from what they were back in 1983.
Monday November 11, 2013, 8:18 pm
There are similar concerns in Australia too. The numbers of baby boomers approaching retirement will place some strain on the social security budget, regardless of the health of baby boomers' superannuation savings... how to securely fund social security in the future is, or should be, a concern for all governments around the world.
Monday November 11, 2013, 8:24 pm
Born in 1947 we are among the first to retire, and are finding retirement not easy. Personally thinking of getting part time job to supplement, but feel guilty because there are so many family people out there also looking, and they have no safety net like Social Security to fall back on.
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 1:07 am
I agree with Ben that this will be a concern for many governments around the world in the very near future. I do wonder, though, whether (much) heavier corporate taxes (and regulations to ensure they are paid, unlike Amazon in the UK for example) would help more than "closing tax loopholes" for the wealthy
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 1:32 am
I tnever ceases to amaze me that governments always seek to cut the benefits to the poor and unfortunate whenever they gain power siting economic difficulties and the need to save billions of pounds or dollars yet can come up with billions to fight foreign wars which have nothing to do with them.They are also able to find even more money to donate to foreign governments who actually don't appreciate it.Whatever happened to the maxim that charity begins at home.In the UK we have the biggest onslaught on the Social Security budget ever and yet the government are seeking to spend a massive 50 billion pounds on a new rail line.No shortage of money here.
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 1:42 am
Only 1 problem with that solution, for the "loop hole" to be closed you need a lot of votes and you just don't have it. Anyway, you fundamentally changing what was originally agreed upon.
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 9:08 am
Within the article it said:
They pointed to a handful of tax breaks—used by wealthier people—that can be adjusted over time not to just stop benefit cuts, which is what Republicans and Obama seek, but to expand Social Security so that no one falls below the federal poverty line—as is now the case.
So read that line again.....both Parties.
Also in the article it states that the majority of those who would be living in poverty will be women.
No duh. A rigged society against us from the get go. Lower wage jobs, many times having to take time out of the job market to care for children or Elders along the way.
Now there is a push by the far right to even cut off help to the young women in many different directions to place them in further poverty or difficulties from the get go. A major push back is needing to be done by the masses.
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 10:57 am
I would like to add that we have tons of unemployed in this country. Social Security was set up so that the younger workers taxes paid for the elders Social Security benefits. When baby boomers were going into the workforce, there were tons of jobs. We all worked and all paid into the system. Now that corporations have sent most of our jobs overseas, we don't have the young paying into the Social Security fund that pays the old. This is not a political ploy to get rid of Social Security because it cannot pay for itself. It is a deceitful way to not have to pay back all the money that has been taken from the fund to pay for other things, and for the rich to not have to pay fair taxes, which are at the lowest rate EVER, and for the corporations who now own and run our government (last time I looked, that was called "facism" not "democracy") to not have to bring our jobs back to the country that allows for them to get so freaking rich. Wall Street gambling has its' headquarters in America. And that is where most of them are making all their billions. Because our economy is made by how they gamble. We have some very good politicians (mostly in the Democratic Party or Independents) who are fighting for real change to Social Security that will benefit elderly and disabled. We need to get behind them, and then push for more like them to run on a party ticket that WILL get elected.
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 1:13 pm
as a boomer myself I suggest you all look into the human storage units in every town and city, full of zombies, waiting to die, praying for euthanasia. they are falsely named 'care' homes. they are more terrifying than any haunted mansion. don't keep us alive after we stop living. let us go
Tuesday November 12, 2013, 5:23 pm
Noted. Thanks, Cal. They absolutely should do away with the cap on Social Security payroll taxes. It was awhile back that I read that the Social Security Trust Fund was solvent for at least 2 more decades. The problem at that time was that The Fed had borrowed Billion$ from this Trust Fund to pay for the 2 wars.....and had not paid back their I.O.U. I did not find mention of that in the article, so I wondered if this money ever got paid back.