Christie to propose overhaul of Social Security benefits

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

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]

1. 69 for SS and 67 for Medicare

[katmondoo]

2. That will go over with a bang!!!

[7962]

3. I've always thought means testing was a good idea.

Maybe give back what they put in in some way and then stop, but a Warren Buffett doesnt need SS.

[frazzled]

5. I disagree wholeheartedly

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 benefit—open 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]

6. Complete agree with your thoughts. Everyone pays in, everyone should get it. n/t

[7962]

12. But in a way, every program is means tested to an extent.

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]

16. Most people do get far more money back than they paid into it

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:

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

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]

17. And thats what I'm talking about; the "extra" money.

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]

18. I agree. someone making 200k does not need SS. n/t

[cali]

4. Horrible. But at least the Republican candidats and prospective candidates

are being specific.

Hillary is not.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. So you plan to vote Republican I take it

If not why are you defending them?

[cali]

9. bwahahaha. lame to the point of ludicrous, Mama. Calling the proposals "horrible"

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]

10. You are implying Christie's better than Hillary.

Are you not?

And because I call you out you're calling me stupid?

Thou doth protest too much.

[7962]

13. No, she's not. Merely pointing out Hilary's lack of a plan.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. Read again please

[7962]

15. I did. No mention of voting republican. Says Hillary's not been specific. Simple.

Unless you're one who thinks any criticism of a Dem candidate means you support the GOP.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Just a suggestion

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]

20. 80% of the threads here go off on 6 different directions by the time they die out!

Its not really a bad thing; sometimes I learn more from the tangents.

[bigdarryl]

7. Don't believe this lying sack of shit he mad the same promise in NJ with the pension system

[Orsino]

11. Another one tryong to fail upward. n/t

[spanone]

21. good luck with that crispy....even reTHUGS will shit on you for that.