Social Security, the federal government’s retirement and disability program, is in the cross hairs of Republican presidential candidates. LIFE FOR working Americans has changed considerably in the past 25 years. Most today cannot depend on a private pension from their workplace and look to Social Security to help take them into retirement. AS THE campaigns further unfold all eyes will be on Social Security and whether it’s viewed as a handout or a leg up for America’s workers.
The wealthy view it as an entitlement program that after 80 years should be drastically revamped, if not eliminated. It’s big government gone soft, they claim.
And because it’s the super rich who contribute to their campaigns, most Republican candidates are maintaining Social Security should be changed by either pushing the retirement age from 67 to 70, privatizing the system or reducing benefits — or a combination of the above.
U.S. demographics since Social Security’s inception 80 years ago have put it at a disadvantage. Today the worker/retiree ratio is not as great. If left unchanged, benefits will need to be reduced beginning in 2033.
Age 65 used to be the magic number for U.S. workers to hang up the apron. In 1983, Congress voted to extend that age limit to 67 over an extended period. People live longer, goes the argument. Today’s 65-year-old male can expect to live to 84.3; female, 86.6.
Extending the retirement age to 70, as proposed by candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Ron Paul, is all well and good for those who sit behind a desk, but for those who do manual labor for a living, it’s another story. Maneuvering patients takes a toll on health aides, standing on concrete floors and lifting heavy loads is the bane of factory work, and the physical labor required by farmers is legion.
Yes, Americans may be living longer, but for many, their quality of life has been compromised by their jobs, which for many began right after high school.
As far as privatizing Social Security, as endorsed by Cruz, Bush and Paul, the idea is to divert a portion of a retiree’s SS contributions into private accounts on the stock market.
Not only does that mean the program will receive less to work with, but it also will subject retirees’ benefits to the whims of the stock market. In the economic downturn of 2008, the average 401(k) retirement portfolio lost 37 percent of its value on the U.S. stock exchange.
The same logic can be applied to Kansas legislators wanting to privatize KPERS, the state’s pension program: Not a good idea.
The idea to adjust, if not eliminate, the cap at which earnings are taxed, has the most merit.
Today, the payroll tax for Social Security extends up to $118,500. For those who earn more, those additional earnings are not taxed at what would be a rate of 6.2 percent.
So your multi-million dollar entertainer pays no more toward Social Security than your factory manager.
Candidate Christie proposes eliminating benefits for all those who earn $200,000 and above, even if they’ve paid into the system all their lives.
Candidate Cruz, on the other hand, wants to tether SS benefits to the rate of inflation, instead of to the cost of living index, which he said is the higher of the two. For 2015, benefits increased by 1.7 percent.
— Susan Lynn
Social Security: Is it government gone soft?
