Yes. Both Obama and Clinton disappointed greatly on the Social Security issue in the 2008 debates.
Obama did propose a FICA increase on incomes over $250,000 as PART of an unspecified total solution. Which since that particular “Donut Hole” fix only would have back filled about 1/3rd of the actuarial gap opened the door for the kind of fix envisioned in the LMS ‘Bi-Partisan’ Plan. For those that think this is just a wild stretch the L in LMS (Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick) was Jeff Liebman, one of the first three hires on the Obama economic team in 2007 who near as I could see in real time had no other expertise other than in retirement security/Social Securiy ‘crisis’ policy., And this kind of increase on upper income taxpayers was expicitly part of the LMS Personal Accounts ‘Reform’ Plan.
Still at least Obama was putting forward SOMETHING, Just something potentially horrible. Clinton’s response was to brightly suggest “Let’s form a bipartisan commission!”
Which left me with “Ugh”. Either I got some version of LMS or another iteration of 1994’s Peterson inspired Kerrey-Danforth Commission.
During the Obot-PUMA wars the partisans of each tried to make the case that one or the other was the read defender of Social Security when instead they had both bought into Third Way/Fix the Debt style ‘Crisis’. So yes we need to put Hillary’s feet to the fire on this.
Don’t know much about this (didn’t know it was that complicated) but according to this piece at Ritholtz today a roll out of taxing everyone with FICA looks like it could be just around the corner. ???
If all that roll out would accomplish would be to keep force feeding the trust fund (I’m thinking foie gras) I don’t know what’s the point. Need maybe five years payout to automatically cover shortfall in tax take, temporarily. Seems like eliminating the cap might overfill forever. But, there must be some reason they are at it.
My funny angle is that given the trust fund bonds would be cashed with income tax which would reverse the cap — bottom 50% pay nothing; top 10% hit hard — politically it will never happen 🙂 …
… unless we sufficiently organize labor of course — the answer to everything.
Of course if we sufficiently organize labor we will need more revenue in the long run. Right now, I only get $33,000 credit computing my SS for my $25,000 year in 1968 even though per capita income has doubled. Wage growth in the segment that is is used for computation stalled — most growth way back then. If wage growth in that segment relights more will be paid out eventually.
I hope that question comes along the lines of “With 58 cosponsors in the house and 42 recent votes in the senate, expansion of Social Security benefits is now a mainstream Democratic policy initiative. Do you support this mainstream Democratic party position?” heheh.
Expansion of benefits is good stimulus and smart politics. Expanding benefits will help accelerate late boomers exit from the workforce expanding badly needed job opportunities for the rapidly growing number of under/unemployed college grads. It will shore up the incomes of many who haven’t managed to save much in 401Ks and don’t have access to defined benefit pensions. Since the majority of recipients will probably spend the increase it should be provided a much needed boost in demand.
Win win win! If madame secretary and her corporate sponsors can’t get on board it ought to make life unpleasant for them in early primary states.
In other employment news, Computerworld reports that the Immigration and Naturalization service hit the FY2016 cap on H-1B visas in the first week of April. I guess that’s the consequence of an unemployment rate under 1%…. No, wait…
thanks for trying. you can see how well they understand it.
let me try again:
Social Security can be fixed forever by raising the tax below the cap one tenth of one percent per year (eighty cents per week) up to about a 2% total increase after twenty years.
raising the cap does NOT close the actuarial gap. but it does give the Peterson gang talking points. and if it were to actually pass it would make all the lies Peterson has been telling “come true.”
of course more jobs and higher wages would solve the problem “better.” but that is not going to happen soon, we have no way to make it happen, and Social Security was INTENDED as insurance for hard times. these are hard times.
so raise your payroll tax… it’s reall y an insured saving contribution: you will get the money back with interest… eighty cents per week per year, or play mindless political games.
Productivity would pay for SS, if the war mongers were not taking the cream.
Raise regressive tax receipts cash; oil price declines mean the Saudis and emirs need US weapon free, cash provided by US taxpayers and loans from the untaxed 1% for the royals’ permanent war with the Shiites.
If the US were not wasting 6% of GDP for permanent global insecurity and war profiteering SS would be fine until climate change make things too hot.
National treasure Heather “Digby” Parton reviews the state of play regarding increasing SS benefits on Salon: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/the_incredible_social_security_turnaround_how_democrats_learned_to_stop_loving_benefit_cuts/?utm_content=bufferecbef&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Will Madame Secretary stand against these winds of change? Somebody should ask her. Soon.
Yes. Both Obama and Clinton disappointed greatly on the Social Security issue in the 2008 debates.
Obama did propose a FICA increase on incomes over $250,000 as PART of an unspecified total solution. Which since that particular “Donut Hole” fix only would have back filled about 1/3rd of the actuarial gap opened the door for the kind of fix envisioned in the LMS ‘Bi-Partisan’ Plan. For those that think this is just a wild stretch the L in LMS (Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick) was Jeff Liebman, one of the first three hires on the Obama economic team in 2007 who near as I could see in real time had no other expertise other than in retirement security/Social Securiy ‘crisis’ policy., And this kind of increase on upper income taxpayers was expicitly part of the LMS Personal Accounts ‘Reform’ Plan.
Still at least Obama was putting forward SOMETHING, Just something potentially horrible. Clinton’s response was to brightly suggest “Let’s form a bipartisan commission!”
Which left me with “Ugh”. Either I got some version of LMS or another iteration of 1994’s Peterson inspired Kerrey-Danforth Commission.
During the Obot-PUMA wars the partisans of each tried to make the case that one or the other was the read defender of Social Security when instead they had both bought into Third Way/Fix the Debt style ‘Crisis’. So yes we need to put Hillary’s feet to the fire on this.
Don’t know much about this (didn’t know it was that complicated) but according to this piece at Ritholtz today a roll out of taxing everyone with FICA looks like it could be just around the corner. ???
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/04/who-would-pay-more-if-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap-were-raised-or-scrapped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29
If all that roll out would accomplish would be to keep force feeding the trust fund (I’m thinking foie gras) I don’t know what’s the point. Need maybe five years payout to automatically cover shortfall in tax take, temporarily. Seems like eliminating the cap might overfill forever. But, there must be some reason they are at it.
My funny angle is that given the trust fund bonds would be cashed with income tax which would reverse the cap — bottom 50% pay nothing; top 10% hit hard — politically it will never happen 🙂 …
… unless we sufficiently organize labor of course — the answer to everything.
Of course if we sufficiently organize labor we will need more revenue in the long run. Right now, I only get $33,000 credit computing my SS for my $25,000 year in 1968 even though per capita income has doubled. Wage growth in the segment that is is used for computation stalled — most growth way back then. If wage growth in that segment relights more will be paid out eventually.
Did you wish to say something?
I hope that question comes along the lines of “With 58 cosponsors in the house and 42 recent votes in the senate, expansion of Social Security benefits is now a mainstream Democratic policy initiative. Do you support this mainstream Democratic party position?” heheh.
Followed up of course by “Why not?”
Expansion of benefits is good stimulus and smart politics. Expanding benefits will help accelerate late boomers exit from the workforce expanding badly needed job opportunities for the rapidly growing number of under/unemployed college grads. It will shore up the incomes of many who haven’t managed to save much in 401Ks and don’t have access to defined benefit pensions. Since the majority of recipients will probably spend the increase it should be provided a much needed boost in demand.
Win win win! If madame secretary and her corporate sponsors can’t get on board it ought to make life unpleasant for them in early primary states.
In other employment news, Computerworld reports that the Immigration and Naturalization service hit the FY2016 cap on H-1B visas in the first week of April. I guess that’s the consequence of an unemployment rate under 1%…. No, wait…
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2907056/h-1b-cap-is-reached-with-high-number-of-visa-requests.html
Maybe that nice Hong Kong based investment banker can explain how this proves that tech workers here are just overpaid lazy drones. Because Markets!
Bruce Webb
thanks for trying. you can see how well they understand it.
let me try again:
Social Security can be fixed forever by raising the tax below the cap one tenth of one percent per year (eighty cents per week) up to about a 2% total increase after twenty years.
raising the cap does NOT close the actuarial gap. but it does give the Peterson gang talking points. and if it were to actually pass it would make all the lies Peterson has been telling “come true.”
of course more jobs and higher wages would solve the problem “better.” but that is not going to happen soon, we have no way to make it happen, and Social Security was INTENDED as insurance for hard times. these are hard times.
so raise your payroll tax… it’s reall y an insured saving contribution: you will get the money back with interest… eighty cents per week per year, or play mindless political games.
Productivity would pay for SS, if the war mongers were not taking the cream.
Raise regressive tax receipts cash; oil price declines mean the Saudis and emirs need US weapon free, cash provided by US taxpayers and loans from the untaxed 1% for the royals’ permanent war with the Shiites.
If the US were not wasting 6% of GDP for permanent global insecurity and war profiteering SS would be fine until climate change make things too hot.