Democrats Want To Increase Social Security Benefits
And this could be a problem for Hillary Clinton.
…they’re pushing the party not just to defend benefits but to increase them, and that could present a problem for Hillary Clinton,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“The call for higher benefits is a marked difference from recent years in which the White House and Republicans were negotiating deficit-cutting deals, leaving liberals to argue merely for staving off benefit cutbacks. Separately, many experts in both parties have long argued that extending the solvency of the program would require a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases.”
The WSJ says:
Click here for reuse options!The liberals’ argument is that Social Security benefits are meager and that people in retirement need more, not less, money. Some also contend that concerns about the program’s solvency are exaggerated. And inside the Democratic Party, that argument is gaining traction. Legislation increasing benefits, and boosting payroll taxes to cover the cost, now has 58 co-sponsors in the House.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
70 responses to Democrats Want To Increase Social Security Benefits
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pilotshark April 6th, 2015 at 09:21
Sounds like a stellar idea!
I say that sounds like a win/win for All!
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 09:47
Sounds good to me.
I also believe everyone should pay into social security on all their salary, not stop paying after the first$118,500. Why should someone who makes $40k or $75k or $100k pay on all their salary yet someone who earns $250k pays on less than half of theirs?
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 09:55
Budda – do you also argue for a matching lift on the cap for SS payments? Currently the system is set up such that there is a maximum benefit that goes with the maximum taxable income. The process is such that you are technically paying into a fund that is designed to pay your future benefits based on how much you put in. So if you want to completely change the basis for SS are you going to give that money back to those that paid in or are you just looking for another way to take from the rich and give it to the poor which is not what SS was set up to do?
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 09:57
In a world with increasing inequality where the rich can rig the system in their favor, any time you can help bring balance by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is good.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 10:08
mea_mark – how far do we need to go towards equalization of wealth in the world? You do realize that on a global scale you are probably wealthier than about 80% of the world’s population. The average net worth in the world is about $26,300. So are you ready to give up your wealth to bring you down to this $26,300 figure?
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 10:29
We just need to be moving in a direction toward balance. Right now things are getting worse and that is unacceptable.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 10:58
So for now just the “rich” need to give more while you do not need to be burdened with giving any more in the name of equality?
fahvel April 6th, 2015 at 11:09
you are damn right the rich need to do more to maintain a decent level of income for those who are not and were not dishonest enough to become stupidly rich beyond any human need – let the rich contribute to society – not their illegal and sneaky and dishonest manoeuvres.
Foundryman April 6th, 2015 at 11:13
Considering the rich are the single largest group of parasites and exploiters of human beings on earth, yes, I do think they should pay more.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 11:17
So we all agree that the rich and everyone else above the $26,300 net worth need to give up their excess wealth so that everyone in the world is equal correct? Isn’t that what would be most fair?
Foundryman April 6th, 2015 at 11:33
No, we don’t agree with your hyperbole. Do we provide social security benefits to the entire world or just America? Why should funding it be based on the worlds average income?
And since the old tried and failed attempt to drag America down to the the level of the rest of the world has been shown to be such a colossal failure, why are you advocating expanding on that?
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 11:39
He’s trolling, just trying to get an emotional reaction.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 11:50
I am not trolling. I am pointing out that you don’t really favor equality for all. You just want to see the “rich” punished with higher taxes and forced to give up their money. You probably view the “rich” as only people making more than you when in reality you are part of the “rich” if you live in America and have almost any type of full time job. So you get to feel all good about yourself that you care about the poor because you want someone else to pay for the programs you believe should be in place when you are not willing to really do your part in bringing equality to the world.
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 11:51
Now that is classic trolling.
Foundryman April 6th, 2015 at 11:58
The rich aren’t being ‘punished’ for paying an equal proportion of their income to fund plans that benefit the entire society where they were given the opportunity to get rich in the first place.
Paying back, isn’t a penalty.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 12:08
Hey if you lift the cap on the benefits then I am all in favor of lifting the cap on the salary taxed. That would be fair and along the lines of the intention of the program.
Foundryman April 6th, 2015 at 12:24
Why? Why do you want the rich to get more than the average of around $1000 per month from a plan designed to keep people out of poverty and raise peoples standard of living? In your world it’s only ‘equal’ if someone like Sheldon Adelson gets 20K or more per month instead of his 1000?
Explain how that thesis would benefit the 87 year old widow currently living on less than 1000 dollars? Also, explain how lifting the cap will strengthen the plan for future generations.
Edit…Hell, that 87 year old widow is currently living on less than $700 a month….
Dwendt44 April 6th, 2015 at 14:03
I have a relative that gets about $900 a month. If it weren’t for subsidized housing, and food stamps, she’d be homeless and would starve. And, of course, those programs are also in the wacky right wings gun sights.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 14:16
Why are you not helping your relative? If I had a family member that was out on the street I would drive to them, bring them home, and have them stay with me for as long as they needed.
Dwendt44 April 6th, 2015 at 14:45
How do you know I don’t? As it is, she doesn’t need help. With the help of the local food pantry, she’s getting by. In fact, she did live with me for a few years after she became disabled. In addition, I’m already helping others close to me. Others may not be able to help out distant relatives, others still may not have relatives to help out. Churches, in many cases, have limits on who they help and how much they help.
If Republicans, particularly the rabid right wing, have their way, all programs that help the less fortunate will get huge cuts or be killed totally.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 14:14
SS was not designed to address anything of your above post. If you want more welfare then get that proposed and funded.
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 14:01
Can we agree that someone who has assets of, say $100 million or so doesn’t need a SS check regardless of how much they may have paid in?
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 14:13
I agree that they do not need the payments but if they are required to pay into the system then they should receive the benefits of the system. This would be equality under the law right? Again, SS is not welfare. If you want a new welfare system then get one proposed and funded through Congress.
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 17:07
Why because they are required to pay should they ( the 1% ) also receive? There are plenty of benefits we don’t get even though we payed into (taxes ). Do you get an agricultural subsidy if you live in chicago?
Again, your tone is spiteful, inconsiderate and small-minded. You seem to be stuck on the rich getting richer.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 17:11
Well this goes back to whether or not you want to completely change what SS is and what it was established to do. You say you don’t want to completely change SS while also proposing that a sizable number of people be kicked out of the benefits while increasing their payments into the system. Surely you can see that this is indeed a complete overhaul of what SS is right? Now if you want a new or expanded welfare program then just be honest about that and have congress propose expanded welfare or a new welfare type program. Don’t pass it off as SS reform when that is not what you really want.
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 20:39
“Proposing that a sizable number of people be kicked out”…just how many people do you think have assets greater than $100 million?
Since when has SS been welfare?
I sense you are delusional and hateful…. why do you dislike you fellow Americans so much?
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 09:27
Currently SS is not welfare since your benefits are based on the amount you pay into the system. Your proposal to change SS is what would change it to a welfare system where people would pay into the system but not receive the benefits. You do understand that is basically welfare at that point right?
Budda April 7th, 2015 at 09:37
Tweeking SS does not make it “welfare”.
Do you think welfare is a bad thing?
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 09:53
Changing SS to a system where some pay taxes into it without receiving benefits from it would indeed make it a welfare type system. That is the definition of welfare – tax one person and give it to another person. Welfare in itself is not a bad thing, just don’t try to claim you are “tweaking SS” and instead propose to make it a welfare system.
Budda April 7th, 2015 at 10:22
Call it what you will, however, I believe by your definition insurance is also welfare.
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 10:33
Insurance is not welfare because I am paying premiums to a policy that I get to use the benefits. Where it is welfare is when people do not pay the premiums for their own insurance such as through the Affordable Care Act subsidies. That program is a form of welfare along with Medicaid. It is pretty easy to see if something is welfare. Programs that transfer money from one group to another are welfare programs. That does not make them inherently bad, that is just what they are. Now at some point you will make it worth the time and effort of those being taken from for them to do something about it – be it moving their money, moving themselves, or something else.
Budda April 7th, 2015 at 11:56
Your circular reasoning is wrong. I’ve paid car insurance for decades and never collected a dime while others have. How is that different than your examples?
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 12:30
Well there are a couple of differences.
1. You are free to choose not to have insurance if you don’t want it. For instance, if you do not own a car you are not required to pay for insurance. If you don’t own a home you don’t have to pay for insurance. Or if you do not have a mortgage you are not required to insure your home. Now the ACA has made it mandatory to have health insurance but again if you are paying for the insurance then you get to use the benefits.
2. If you do pay for insurance you are eligible to use the insurance if you have an accident. The insurance company is not going to look at your net worth and tell you that they are not covering you because you are too wealthy.
Budda April 7th, 2015 at 19:36
Sir you are petty. Your “arguments” are based on a premise of no one should help anyone. You my be uncaring about fellow Americans but some of us are. SS is insurance and paying more in and out does not make “welfare” . You may need help (some day) however by your reasoning no one should offer it.
Troll on…but not with me.
Jimmy Fleck April 8th, 2015 at 09:56
I am ok with SS as it is currently structured where people that pay into the system receive the benefits from the system. You want to change it such that the rich pay into the system but are not eligible for the benefits. You then say SS is insurance – which it is. SS is not welfare as it is currently operating. You want to change it to a welfare system and that was not the design of SS. I have never said that people should not help others. This just is not the job of SS. We have lots of other programs in place to help the poor. Pick one of those and argue that they need to increase the benefits to that program.
Dwendt44 April 7th, 2015 at 13:06
‘punished’? The rich are just being asked to pay their share. The rich got richer when the tax rate was 90%, The rich got richer when the tax rate was 70%. the rich are still getting richer when the tax rate is 35%. They are just getting richer a little faster now.
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 13:10
When it comes to SS, the rich are paying their share. Their share is determined by the law and it is how SS was set up.
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 11:31
For now, those with extra billions hidden away should be the target. The money needs to be put back into the economy. The best way to do that would be to give it those who will spend it right away. That would be the poor, elderly and needy.
bpollen April 6th, 2015 at 15:39
GE pays no taxes. CEO Immelt made 21 mil, paid 15% on the majority of it (capital gains.) I pay a higher rate. Plus, since most of my income is spent to live, I pay more in other taxes and fees as a percentage of my income than he does.
Yeah, the rich pay taxes. Just not at the rates the average citizen does.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 16:00
I agree – a flat income tax would be fair to all. No exemptions, just a flat percentage of your income – whatever the source as taxes. Companies and individuals could all pay it too. That would make tax filing alot easier on top of it.
bpollen April 6th, 2015 at 16:30
No, a flat tax is regressive.
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 16:41
According to your information above a flat tax would be more progressive than our current tax system. Seems like a good start to me to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
bpollen April 7th, 2015 at 05:01
“According to your information above a flat tax would be more progressive than our current tax system.”
What the bejesus are you talking about? My post stated “No, a flat tax is regressive.” Did not even mention our current tax system. But thanks EVER so much for finding a comparison within a simple declarative statement. I simply don’t get enough credit for words I don’t say.
Jimmy Fleck April 7th, 2015 at 09:25
“GE pays no taxes. CEO Immelt made 21 mil, paid 15% on the majority of it (capital gains.) I pay a higher rate. Plus, since most of my income is spent to live, I pay more in other taxes and fees as a percentage of my income than he does.
Yeah, the rich pay taxes. Just not at the rates the average citizen does.”
So based on this post you made, a flat tax would be more progressive than the current tax structure that lets GE pay no taxes, Immelt pay only 15% taxes and you pay some higher percentage than those correct?
Dwendt44 April 7th, 2015 at 13:03
Except those that are pushing the flat tax scam are the same crowd that want corporations to pay no taxes at all.
As it is, only about 1/3 of corporations pay any tax at all.
bpollen April 7th, 2015 at 15:01
OK, so the post you replied to wasn’t the post your were replying to… Is the current tax system f’d up? Yes. Is a flat tax the fix? No. To people below the poverty line, that 15% could mean many missed meals, can’t have that checkup because of the co-pay, can’t fix my car to get to work to make minimum wage. Jamie Dimon would go “Woo Hoo! Best tax bill I ever had!”
Dwendt44 April 7th, 2015 at 00:36
The flat tax scam and the fair (sales tax) scam are just ways to give the rich another tax cut on the down low. The Fair(sales tax) means a 30% sales tax. Not that it’s fans will ever admit it.
The flat tax would be higher than the average rate we pay now, The poor pay little now, under the flat tax they would pay taxes that they don’t know. As if they had any money to pay it. Every dollar they have goes to feed and house themselves. No yachts, no limos, no estates.
bpollen April 7th, 2015 at 04:41
Sales taxes are a horrible way to fund government in my opinion. Since people below a certain income level tend to spend ALL of their income just getting by, 100% of their income is taxable. Does Jamie Dimon spend all of his $20mil so that all of his income is taxable? The answer is in two parts – “nuh” and “uh.”
Robert M. Snyder April 7th, 2015 at 01:08
Actually, the payroll tax, which funds SS, is MORE regressive than a simple flat tax. Everybody pays a flat rate on the first $118K of income, and then 0% on every dollar after that. For people making over $118K, the overall percentage is lower. The higher your income goes above $118K, the lower your overall tax percentage.
So while income tax is progressive, payroll tax is regressive. For people making over $50K, they more or less cancel out, resulting in an overall tax rate (payroll tax plus income tax) of between 25% and 35%.
bpollen April 7th, 2015 at 04:35
I have absolutely no qualms at the thought of making ALL income taxable for SS purposes.
Robert M. Snyder April 7th, 2015 at 08:50
This would effectively increase all of the tax brackets above $118,500 by 6.2 percent. It’s a political non-starter.
How about a compromise where the income tax rates on income over $118,500 are also reduced to some degree?
rocker April 7th, 2015 at 15:05
Its the only way…
Obewon April 7th, 2015 at 09:08
Actually those with corps defer $50,000+ SEP IRA annual income, avoiding SS, Medicare & SSDI while paying an average 12% income tax, after very generous deductions on ‘adjusted’ net income.
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 10:47
First of all, nowhere did I say I wanted to COMPLETEY change SS.
Secondly, SS was set up not for the rich. The 1% don’t need it. Perhaps I’m wrong but your tone seems be that the rich shouldn’t have to help the poor. Do you lack compassion or are you just greedy?
Jimmy Fleck April 6th, 2015 at 11:03
i am just responding to your call for lifting the caps. The caps are in place because there is a corresponding cap on benefits. SS was not designed as a program to transfer money from the rich to the poor. It was designed to make sure retired people had some income. It was not meant to be the sole source of income for retirement, it was not intended to be the sole method of paying your expenses in retirement. Your proposal would be a fundamental change to the purpose of SS.
Budda April 6th, 2015 at 11:40
Your comments sound cold hearted and uncaring. SS is the sole method of paying expenses for many, many people in retirement. You seem to have a problem with the rich transfering some of their wealth to the poor, why? Should the poor just die?
mea_mark April 6th, 2015 at 11:41
That would be a good change considering the problems with inequality in the world today.
Foundryman April 6th, 2015 at 11:44
It may not have been ‘meant’ to be the sole source of income. But that belies the reality that for many, (millions actually) it is.
bpollen April 6th, 2015 at 15:30
“The caps are in place because there is a corresponding cap on benefits.”
What is it they call this on Law & Order? Oh, yeah, assuming facts not in evidence. Please show where the one is expressly tied to the other.
jybarz April 6th, 2015 at 09:47
Only mean-spirited bloody bastards will be opposing it.
Yes, that’s you GOP/Conservatives I am talking about.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 12:13
social security was meant to provide a safety net for elderly and retired. based on 20th century standards. since people pay into this, everyone is owed what they paid in.
baby boomers are leaving the work force and fully expect to get what they have paid into.
the wealthy have paid in as well, its their money too. surely they know that they don’t need what little they will get but still, its theirs to take.
my problem with this is, if there are limits placed on the poor who get dis-qualified for any assistance because they make too much money (even though they have paid into the system) why is the wealthy not dis-qualified for the same reason ?
means testing ought to be considered in receiving Social Security.
Bunya April 6th, 2015 at 14:43
If the rich paid their fair share in taxes, I wouldn’t have any problem with them receiving social security when they retire. But as it stands now, the rich are reaping all the benefits and the poor and middle class are getting the shaft – thanks to Ronald “Bonzo Goes to College” Reagan and his failed policies.
oldfart April 6th, 2015 at 15:09
i agree with how you feel but they do pay in and therefore by law are in fact due their payments.
i have no faith this government will ever require the wealthy to pay in more OR receive less. i believe that, based on their income they do not qualify for social security nor should be paid any. something needs to change.
Apocalypse April 6th, 2015 at 12:36
It’s only a problem to Hilary if she wants to appease republicans. It shouldn’t b a problem for any Democrat that wants to energize the base. Lets not make the same mistakes of 2014…being lukewarm in progressive liberal values to court republicans.
Dwendt44 April 6th, 2015 at 14:08
Yes raise the SS payments.It should go hand in hand with measures to secure the Social Security Trust Fund. There are several ways to secure the SS trust fund for nearly forever. Raising/eliminate the cap on income is one, including other income would also work. Capital gains and stock options are two more sources of income that often make the rich richer.
I have no objection to raising the cap on SS payments, as long as that increase is slight. As has been stated below, the 1% don’t need SS at all. Such an income limit would help insure the trust fund as well.
rg9rts April 6th, 2015 at 16:28
How about repaying to the fund what Reagan stole…a pile of money is too much of a temptation for any pol….
Red Eye Robot April 6th, 2015 at 16:37
Interesting. Democrats want to raise benefits now, Not when they controlled the white house, the house of representatives and the senate,
rg9rts April 6th, 2015 at 16:38
Hey Gary hows it hangin
rocker April 7th, 2015 at 15:03
This does not guarantee the $ will be there in 20 years
booker25 April 8th, 2015 at 07:56
remove the caps and this can happen.