General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChristie to propose overhaul of Social Security benefits
So I assume he's announcing a run for President soon? Going to need a bigger clown car.
MANCHESTER, N.H. Framing himself as a politician who's unafraid to share "hard truths" with the American people, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is proposing an income cap on Social Security benefits as part of major restructuring plan announced ahead of a likely presidential bid.
The Republican is set to deliver a speech Tuesday in New Hampshire outlining his ideas on reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid so-called entitlement programs.
As part of the plan, he'll propose phasing out Social Security payments for those making more than $80,000 in other income and eliminating them for those making $200,000 or more a year.
"I'm suggesting that Americans pay into this system throughout the course of their life knowing that it will be there if they need it to support them. So that seniors will not grow old in back-breaking poverty. But if you are fortunate enough not to need it, you will have paid into a system that will continue to help Americans who need it most," he says, according to an excerpt released by his political action committee, Leadership Matters for America. "That is what we have always done for each other through private charity and good government."
Christie will also propose raising the retirement ages for Social Security and Medicare eligibility and eliminating the payroll tax for seniors who stay in the workforce past age 62.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/christie-to-propose-overhaul-of-social-security-benefits/ar-AAaZtte
The article doesn't mention what age he'd raise eligibility to. Many in construction type jobs can't work into their sixties.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)katmondoo
(6,454 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Maybe give back what they put in in some way and then stop, but a Warren Buffett doesnt need SS.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Social Security is the only universally "socialist" program we have. Every citizen pays into the social system; every citizen receives a benefit, regardless of who or what they are. Once you start making exceptions and rules, it becomes a welfare benefitopen to becoming a slippery slope with an ever-changing set of standards and rules.
I honestly don't care if Warren Buffett gets a Social Security check. I just want the program to be universal. As we would wish our health care system to be. Means testing is a conservative, Republican idea.
Nope: let's keep Social Security the gold standard of our society. The one thing that makes every American equal to every other: rich, poor, or in between. It's more than a check; it's an idea about society and its values.
FSogol
(45,435 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)The first X of income isnt taxed. The EITC cuts off after you reach a certain threshold. You're only allowed to take a certain amount of loss off your taxes. Some deductions you lose after a certain income level. Those are all means testing. And it wouldnt turn it into a welfare program; you're still paying into it. Welfare is getting money back that you didnt pay into.
You mention making changes to the rules & exceptions, but everyone here would change the income contribution limit as well as a few other things.
Social Security was always supposed to be a safety net; a "supplement" to your retirement. I dont see how it hurts the program to stop giving out a supplement to rich people that dont need it. Then there is more money for the less fortunate.
I bet none of the other GOP candidates are going to agree with Christie.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Take my parents, for instance. My father is 98 (will turn 99 this year). Although he worked until he was 74, he still is getting far more than he ever could have paid into it on his modest salary. He actually is one of the very lucky ones, because he came into the system before the law changed and so gets more money than those who came after (or something like that). He has been collecting SS for 25 years, and today (together with my mother, who was a stay-at-home mom), receives as much as he ever earned in salary.
Many people, especially as they are living longer, will get much more than they ever paid into the system:
If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.
Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.
Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
Finally, a MEANS TEST is a test of eligibility for a program, not regulations for how much people pay into a program. I am opposed to excluding anyone from this program. I am highly in favor, however, of raising the income cap for contributions. As you know, what you pay into SS pays for current retirees benefits--it is not a private account for your own use. Those who have more should pay more into the system, just as we (supposedly) require for the graduated income tax, which pools our tax money for all other government operations and programs. We all benefit (or suffer) in equal measure from those: our roads, our national security, etc. People aren't excluded because they can afford their own personal body guard.
7962
(11,841 posts)Let the rich guy get back what he put in, but then cut it. I just think after that point, the system is better off keeping the money.
But I respect your opinion on it and I understand what you're saying.
And do away with the cap!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)are being specific.
Hillary is not.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,711 posts)If not why are you defending them?
cali
(114,904 posts)as I clearly did, is defending them?
try again. that was just such a fab fail.
Oh, and nothing, obviously, in my post indicated that I plan to vote repuke.
what a pile of....
I used to have "teh stupid it burns" as a tagline. I should put it back.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,711 posts)Are you not?
And because I call you out you're calling me stupid?
Thou doth protest too much.
7962
(11,841 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,711 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Unless you're one who thinks any criticism of a Dem candidate means you support the GOP.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,711 posts)Stay on topic. This was about Chris Christie.
If one wants to bash Hillary Clinton then they should start their own thread instead of trying to hijack another.
7962
(11,841 posts)Its not really a bad thing; sometimes I learn more from the tangents.