Home | About | Donate

'No One Should Retire Into Poverty': At Historic Hearing, Progressives Make Case for Expanding—Not Cutting—Social Security Benefits

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/25/no-one-should-retire-poverty-historic-hearing-progressives-make-case-expanding-not

2 Likes

“No One Should Retire Into Poverty”

FDR - JUNE 8, 1934.:
“… we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”

I want FDR Again

8 Likes

Let them eat cake. Maggots like 83-year-old late term Dick Shelby from Alabama don’t give a flying dead Fallujah baby about caring for American poor, crippled, dying and terminally ill.
Dick and his squad of child murdering oil thievin hicks do give a big shabang about gutting dem babies with planes they can’t see and fetchin their bloody war profits to bank in countries we can’t find on a map. Have you EVER read one article about profiting in America from dead babies?
American barbarians just increased the Pentagon budget above 54 percent of all tax revenue and we have no idea who the hell gets dosed. Clueless American rabble screaming at the palace gates may not get us a better world but it scares the utter hell out of the social deviants so keep screaming. They will get their due, in spades. Have a nice day!!

3 Likes

No One Should Retire Into Poverty:
That is the 1%'s plan.
The 99% should work in Poverty until they die.

5 Likes

The nearest thing to FDR running for president this time are Sanders & Warren, possibly Yang & Gabbard.

2 Likes

Sanders - Gabbard

5 Likes

Yunohu? I nohutoo – small world, isn’t it?? [smiley face]

1 Like

I live entirely on SS and Medicare. I am at the 24% level and all I buy are a few books and several streaming services. Even with Medicare it still is second only to rent in my monthly expenses. I could, and I’m guessing many others too, could use a 20% bump in benefits. This is something we we all taxed for out of every check we ever made. It is NOT an entitlement as Congress is want to say. The corporations got a 25-40% reduction in taxes with the Trump tax scam so we should all see 20%, right? Peace

5 Likes

Guillotines anyone?

1 Like

At least stocks on the village green with no time out for good behavior.

1 Like

It actually is an entitlement…welfare type payments are not entitlements.

The “title” in “entitlement” connotes ownership. People have paid into it so they own the right to receive the benefits. The beneficiary of a life insurance policy is “entitled” to the death benefit.

While I support this bill, I find it timid in the extreme. If I remember correctly from earlier reading of it, it provides a WHOPPING 2% (roughly $30 a month) increase in benefits. WHOOPEE!!

Let’s take a look at what has happened over the last half century. Non-managerial incomes have stagnated as in effectively flat-lined while profits made off of our labor kept going up and up. Since wages haven’t gone up, employers have pocketed our contributions to their profitability AND have paid less in FICA contributions than they should have – a double whammy for working people looking to retire.

Solution – employers need to pay more, much more in FICA contributions (all the big boys need to do is bring some of the dough stashed in the Caymans, etc. home). For employers (ERs) which have been reaping the benefit of screwing over their workers over the last 45+ years, triple the percentage paid on those employees they pay the least, say <$25K while those employees (EEs) pay half of their current rate. For EEs making something like $25K - $50K, ERs pay double their current rate into FICA and EEs pay 3/4 of their current rate. For EEs paid about $50K - $90K, ERs pay 1.5 X the current rate while those workers pay the current rate. For all those above that level, both pay at current rate. And revise the cap along the lines Sen. Sanders has proposed, i.e. full FICA for all annual incomes over about $250K.

That should allow for some serious increases in benefits as well as improving solvency – somewhere between about $350 and $500 a month paid (same dollar amt.) to all beneficiaries. It’s time the thieves were brought to the bar of justice.

2 Likes

simple solution. SCRAP THE CAP on social security. the poorest workers pay the greatest percentage of these taxes based on their income, all of their income is taxed. the richest pay but a pittance. time to have equality for all

5 Likes

I called Rep. John Larson’s office at 202-225-2265, explained who I am, sent him to my site, explained a bit of my circumstance and asked him to keep pushing, we need help. Won’t you please do the same?

1 Like

This is all for show…nothing will come of it.

If these politicians were serious, they’d be talking about how the federal government has manipulated inflation reporting since 1990, when the 1980 method of calculating inflation was scrapped so the government could lower reported inflation and, thus, reduce cost of living increases to Social Security recipients and federal retirees.

Using the 1980 method of calculating inflation, inflation has been running between 8 and 10 percent for decades. This is why Social Security no longer is sufficient to cover retirement necessities.

3 Likes

But yet more voices demanding what’s right and due probably doesn’t reduce the chances of change…

1 Like

You’re right…I should be more optimistic. (-:

1 Like

RUSSIAAAAAA !!!

(For some reason your bot wants me to write a complete sentence. This is bullshit, Common Dreams.)

I believe I have read an articale about “profiting off of dead babies”. Apparently anti-abortion types like those stories.

Social Security tax rates-one more perk for the rich.