130

Social Security 'gamble' could see Americans cut off from spouse's payments (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 1 year ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Gordon said there's also a ton of uncertainty surrounding the Social Security program itself. Because of this, there will likely be reduced benefits in the future to keep the program solvent.

Couples who wait until the higher earning spouses max their benefits at age 70 face additional issues.

I can't help but note that Newsweek didn't even attempt to discuss the prospect of increasing payments to Social Security from upper income earners or requiring Congress to payback the "loans" they took from it to pay for military expenditures.

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] silverbax@lemmy.world 85 points 1 year ago

This bullshit about cutting Social Security benefits to 'keep it solvent' needs to be stopped. The Republicans have been trying to do this since Reagan, and in the 80s they were telling Gen X that Social Security would 'run out of money' by the time they were 30. That age is decades in the past, and they are still peddling that lie.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 46 points 1 year ago

It’s only possible when the mega rich aren’t paying their fair share, or aren’t paying at all relative to everyone else.

This year the maximum income taxable for SS is 160k. This effectively means the top 10% aren’t paying into the system. End their special treatment and the system will be easily funded.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago

The income cap is theft from all the rest of us.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Precisely. Remove the cap and the problem goes away.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I don't know about 'lie,' but it's certainly a misrepresentation. For decades, there were so few retirees that SS taxes were billions more than SS payments, and all of that surplus bought Treasury bonds. i.e.: loans to run the rest of the government. Payments now are running around $100B/year more than taxes ($10B if you include interest on those bonds), which is around 8% of tax revenues. At that rate, the last of the bonds gets sold in 2034, and something will need to get done about the 8% imbalance.

The misleading part is letting people infer that "running out of money" means no money to pay beneficiaries, like SS is some kind of bank account. Fixing the deficit isn't that hard, though. Cut benefits by 8%. Raise SS tax rate to 8.25%. Raise the income cap to $300k. None of those would be especially popular, and there's no reason to do any of them now, because there's still nearly $3T of Treasuries sitting in the SSA account. In the meantime, fearmongering about the issue is a great way to turn out the 65+ crowd and near-retirees, and a great way to demoralize the under-40 crowd.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need to raise SS rates at all, just lift the cap. Simple. 168k is the max for 2024 and that seems absolutely silly nowadays.

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It's hilarious that something that was designed to be the everyman's social security net operates on a regressive tax.

[-] kale@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

What about dropping the tax rate by a meaningful amount and raising the income cap to $1M?

I realize that most CEOs get modest salaries and almost all of their income from capital gains, but a move like this could bring in more revenue and be popular by reducing the tax burden on middle class and working class Americans.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If we're dreaming, it'd be great to do away with OASDI as a separate, non-progressive, capped income tax and just roll it into the regular Federal rate. Bump the 10% bracket to 12%, the 22% to 26% and 37% to 45%. Hell, add a couple points to the CG rate.

But they sold OASDI to Americans like some kind of insurance policy - it's right in the name - and they've been trying to turn that fiction into a personal savings account for decades. Social safety nets just don't fit the mythos of strong, independent American who don't need no gubmint.

[-] guyrocket@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I agree. Raise taxes to cover any shortfall. And start with the 1% 's taxes.

[-] BURN@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

I’m loving the fact that a large chunk of my paycheck is paying for a system that will without a doubt be disbanded well before I ever reach retirement age. I’ll never see a dime of the 10s of thousands I’ve already paid in, let alone anything I pay in over the next 30 years

[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

While I obviously understand the concern, this has been said since the current Social Security recipients were children.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

People have been saying this for a long time now, though. It's not nearly as dire as it's presented.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Have you tried being born into money?

[-] norbert@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

And trying to fund your own retirement with whatever you have left.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Yeah, pull that ladder up behind you

[-] autotldr 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

With inflation standing at 3.2 percent, many retirees are feeling guilty if they dip into their Social Security benefits early.

But Sylvia Gordon, JD, the money expert behind the TikTok account @TheMedicareFamily, is telling Americans to ditch the conventional wisdom and draw their benefits early.

"Almost every financial planner will advise to wait to max out benefits at your full retirement age," Gordon told Newsweek.

Gordon told a specific story on a recent TikTok video about a woman whose husband was waiting until age 70 to get his maximum benefits—she said it isn't a good gamble due to life expectancies.

The financial ramifications of delaying your spousal benefits can make a considerable impact on your quality of life during retirement, but the government has reason to suggest you wait.

"If you're in great health and want to maximize the amount you receive wait until 70," Mark Chen, the founder and CEO of Billsmart, told Newsweek.

The original article contains 709 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023

130 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers

2743 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News