What if they changed Social Security to where you received it every 33-34 days instead of 30

I figure this would save about $60-70 billion each year. In the context of entitlement reform would you support this? I think this is preferable to raising the retirement age.

Now some of you will say Social Security is fine, and the Bush tax cuts caused the problem, I agree mostly although there might be problems with Social Security in 15-20 years even without those tax cuts. They are talking about entitlement reform that's why I have proposed this idea.

Problem solved! :thumbsup:

That is nuts...

source of income, it would be a great hardship. Better to raise the cap.

or if there are no adjustments. Social Security was meant to be a supplement not a sole means for retirement. The alternatives might be a greater hardship.

Considering that pensions are going the way of dinosaurs. And Social Security is suppose to supplement the retirement savings of those that lost out in the market? Or be a supplement for those that couldn't afford to save?

Also, spouse pension is less than retiree pension when the retiree dies in most or all cases.

and it's better than someone have to wait until 70 which is what some are talking about.

and possibly the next two.

Social Security was supposed to be an independent, pay as you go insurance program. It's been chipped away by a series of administrations until it is as it is now, with workers paying 40% more than they need to in order to get the checks to the elderly and Congress grabbing all that money to use to mask the disaster tax cuts to their fatcat contributors have caused.

That's right, the only crisis in Social Security is the crisis Congress is facing in not being able to ROB as much of it from us!!!

If you want to reform Social Security, get it OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND and make it an independent, pay as you go insurance plan like it was supposed to be!

Your idea is shortsighted, ignorant of the real problem, and cruel to a population that can no longer fight back.

It's shameful.

A gentleman named Al Gore kept using it during the 2000 Presidential election. Lots of people made fun of him. He wanted to take Social Security out of the General Fund.
He won the election, too.

Well said.

The original statute required any surpluses to go into general fund.

There is nothing wrong with SS. People paid into it. It generated a surplus and while that surplus lasted allowed income taxes to be lower than they otherwise would be.

However that has run the course and the reverse will be true. Income taxes will need to go up in order for SS taxes to be lower than they otherwise would be.

There is nothing broken, there is nothing wrong with the system. It is working as planned. Congress will now need to raise income taxes to pay SS back for the decades of surpluses.

The rich are trying to do a bait and switch. They benefited (via lower income taxes) the years of surplus and now they want it paid back by payroll taxes. The middle class gets hit coming and going. It is simple. Raise income taxes to pay SS back. It really is THAT SIMPLE.

However it is sad to see people even on DU buying into the meme that SS is broken.

to get the robbed Social Security back, I have to remind you it was Lyndon Johnson who first wanted to use surplus Social Security payments and passed the legislation to do it. He wanted to defray the cost of the Vietnam War.

The smart guys in the Reagan Administration realized the benefit of such legislation and raised Social Security taxes six times between 1983 and 1988 in order to boost the surplus and cover up the disastrous results of their tax overhaul. They did it on the backs of every working person in the country.

You got to hand it to the rich though.

The simplest (and fairest) method possible to resolve the "crisis" is to leave SS alone and follow the original "game plan". Raise income taxes to pay back SS as needed and keep raising them until SS trust fund is fully repaid with interest. Then and ONLY THEN if there will is a shortfall (which will be decades from now) we can consider "reforming SS".

However the rich got us fooled rather than adopt that ultra easy, simple, and fair method they have us fighting over the best way to screw over SS recipients (means testing, reducing benefits, raising retirement age, raising cap, etc).

I didn't always think this way but Hanah Bell helped me see the light.

SS IS WORKING AS PLANNED. There is no crisis. Raise income taxes to repay SS over the next 3 decades.

Per Paul Krugman (Nobel prize winning economist)
There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The CBO report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come

Still instead of doing that even on DU the debate is on how to cut benefits, raise cap, raise retirement age, start means testing, etc.

Unless Americans wake up the rich has already won.

Repealing Bush taxes cuts on those making over $500,000 a year and earmarking those funds to repay SS would keep it solvent not for a year, or a decade but FOREVER.

For an elderly person whose primary income is their SS benefits? Nope, I can't support that.

Anyway, there is not a major problem with Social security at this stage, and there are known solutions like lifting the cap. Why should people who depend on it for their living be the ones who suffer?

This idea would reflect this reality without making people wait until on they are 70.

There is nothing wrong with SS. Nothing.

A surplus was generated in the 80s-2000s for THIS EXACT reason.

That surplus resulted in lower income taxes for rich. The rich can now pay (not via raising the cap in SS) that surplus back.

Paul Krugman -
There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The CBO report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require (only) additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of GDP. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

So based on that what makes the most sense:
a) cutting benefits?
b) raising cap without raising benefits = turning SS into welfare?
c) modestly raising income taxes on rich and SS will remain solvent not for years or decades but FOREVER?

I would go with C but it seems you like a best. The rich thank you.*

*If you make more than $500K a year you are a heartless bastard. If you make less then you are simply being a fool doing the rich's hard work for them.

I have a question, why is it that your solution is to take away money from those who really need it and not from those who have more than plenty???

RAISE INCOME TAXES to pay SS back.

That was the plan all along.

In 1970s-200s SS generated a surplus allowing INCOME taxes to be lower.
In 2010+ SS will have a deficit thus INCOME TAXES should be raised to pay back DECADES of surpluses.

The rich benefited from SS surplus for decades and now want to pull a bait and switch at last second and people on DU are falling for it.

RAISE INCOME TAXES TO PAY SS BACK AND IT WILL BE SOLVENT FOR DECADES.

Once/if SS trust fully is fully paid back (VIA INCOME TAXES) with interest if there is still a shortfall (there won't because Boomers will have died off by then) THEN AND ONLY THEN should SS be "reformed" = raise cap, lower benefits, means testing etc.

Stop buying into the meme that SS is bankrupt.

SS is about as bankrupt as someone out of money in checking account but holding a check for $5 TRILLION dollars. Would you say that person in bankrupt? Or would you tell him to cash the $5 trillion check?

Sometimes the simplest solution IS the best. Raise the cap!

The surplus resulted in lower income taxes. That benefit is coming due.

Raise income taxes to pay back SS the money "borrowed" by general fund.

No reason to:
* cut benefits
* raise cap
* raise retirement age
* means test benefits

All that is a scam to get Republicans to have us fighting over the method they want.

It really is that simple. RAISE INCOME taxes to payback the money borrowed from SS.

Don't trust me?

Trust Paul Krugman (nobel prize winner):
There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The CBO report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of GDP That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

Don't touch SS. Raise INCOME taxes to pay it back. The SS surplus resulted in lower incomes taxes (primarily to rich) for 3 decades. Those notes are coming due soon. Raise income taxes to pay SS back.

tied to the CORE Index; which doesn't include food or energy, they fall farther and farther behind.

Jesus -- WTH would anyone want to play the same sort of magic eightball economics that got us into this problem in the first place?

and no we got a suggestion to do it to SS retirees.

and would stand the very real chance of being arrested.

And now we have our government being advised to do just that? WTF?

It's so simple.

each year you are also paying people less. Adjusting the intervals of people being paid reflects the reality that people are living longer.

If you understand what you are proposing, why resort to the odd payment periods? It just complicates things and bills certainly won't arrive according to that schedule. Just do what you are proposing in the most straightforward way possible, an across-the-board 10% cut for everyone.

Why not just raise the limit on income for paying into the system. People at the top are not in jeopardy of going to be hungry if they have to pay a bit more.

The big question for you is why do you think there are problems with SS that need to be addressed in that way.

And are those reasons based in fact rather than because "they" claim entitlement reform is necessary.

Depending on the number of days in the month and when the third Wednesday of each month is, my SS can come in 28 days, or, as will happen in March, it will be 35 days.

has been that the corporate media has never worked to truly expose the funding scam that has been going on for decades that benefited the wealthy and was perpetrated by politicians of both Parties.

The social security surplus was used as the cash cow to run government, to fund government tax cuts for wealthy elitists who pay nothing into it because they have only investment income instead of earned income, and to wage their endless wars for the military industrial complex. Secondly they've allowed certain groups in municipal and state government and railways to exclude themselves from paying into the plan yet they can still gain access later with minimal quarters of payments.

Social Security (and it is not an entitlement) would have been fine had Congress simply walled off the SS Trust from being used for anything other than reducing national debt.

:eyes:

Why not just rescind the Bush tax cuts and raise other taxes to make up for the previous short falls.

i'm disabled, and my mortgage gets paid every month when my check arrives(by direct deposit).

administrative cost around 2%, & you're saying a change in the mailing date for checks would save 10% of cost?

I don't think so.

Ignoring the obvious fact that you are screwing people out of THEIR own money makes this a grade A government style idea. Outstanding.

Your idea sucks. Really, really really sucks.

That way people who depend on getting their money at a certain time to pay their rent and other bills can rack up a bunch of late charges too....

:hi:

It is a HORRIBLE idea.

What if you were only fed 30 out of every 33 or 34 days?

It'd save Social Security AND help to pay down the debt.