Quote:On Wednesday, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) — a caucus that represents 80 percent of House Republicans, including the party’s entire leadership — unveiled a budget that calls for cutting Social Security benefits and establishing that human life begins at conception.

The RSC tried to obscure the implications of its Social Security policy by describing its proposal as an increase in “the retirement age,” and declining to specify what the new age should be.

But that is just an opaque way of describing a large cut in benefits. As Matt Bruenig notes, Social Security does not have a single retirement age: It has 96 different retirement ages, each associated with a different level of benefits.

When lawmakers talk about “raising the retirement age,” they are really calling for an increase in the “full retirement age” — a variable in a formula that determines benefit levels at all 96 retirement ages. Raising the full retirement age to 69 — as the RSC proposed last fall — would translate into a roughly 14 percent cut to Social Security benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The RSC’s proposal would not impact existing beneficiaries, but those retiring as soon as 2033 would have to get by on lower monthly incomes.

The RSC budget falsely suggests that its reforms would leave future retirees better off than Biden’s entitlement policies would. The caucus notes that, absent policy change, Social Security’s trust fund will become insolvent by 2033, a development that would trigger a 23 percent cut to benefits, and it claims that simply letting Social Security go bankrupt is Biden’s actual plan.

But this is a description of Trump’s position, not the president’s. The likely GOP nominee has offered no explanation for how he would keep Social Security funded. To the contrary, he has signaled plans for slashing federal tax revenues by trillions of dollars, policies that would make preserving existing benefit levels even more fiscally challenging.

https://www.vox.com/politics/24108954/re...tion-biden

(March 25, 2024 at 11:08 am)Angrboda Wrote:

Quote:On Wednesday, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) — a caucus that represents 80 percent of House Republicans, including the party’s entire leadership — unveiled a budget that calls for cutting Social Security benefits and establishing that human life begins at conception.

The RSC tried to obscure the implications of its Social Security policy by describing its proposal as an increase in “the retirement age,” and declining to specify what the new age should be.

But that is just an opaque way of describing a large cut in benefits. As Matt Bruenig notes, Social Security does not have a single retirement age: It has 96 different retirement ages, each associated with a different level of benefits.

When lawmakers talk about “raising the retirement age,” they are really calling for an increase in the “full retirement age” — a variable in a formula that determines benefit levels at all 96 retirement ages. Raising the full retirement age to 69 — as the RSC proposed last fall — would translate into a roughly 14 percent cut to Social Security benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The RSC’s proposal would not impact existing beneficiaries, but those retiring as soon as 2033 would have to get by on lower monthly incomes.

The RSC budget falsely suggests that its reforms would leave future retirees better off than Biden’s entitlement policies would. The caucus notes that, absent policy change, Social Security’s trust fund will become insolvent by 2033, a development that would trigger a 23 percent cut to benefits, and it claims that simply letting Social Security go bankrupt is Biden’s actual plan.

But this is a description of Trump’s position, not the president’s. The likely GOP nominee has offered no explanation for how he would keep Social Security funded. To the contrary, he has signaled plans for slashing federal tax revenues by trillions of dollars, policies that would make preserving existing benefit levels even more fiscally challenging.

https://www.vox.com/politics/24108954/re...tion-biden

(Bold mine)

Biden’s actual plan is to remove the income cap on SS taxes and to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Republicans don’t acknowledge this, because taxing the rich would leave them less able to purchase judges and Congresspersons at fire sale prices.

Boru

Addendum, ibid:

Quote:Biden, on the other hand, has called for substantially raising payroll taxes on Americans earning over $400,000 a year in order to sustain Social Security in its current form.

It is true that this by itself would not be enough to preserve benefits indefinitely; as boomers continue retiring and America’s ratio of retirees-to-workers rises, larger tax increases would be required to sustain today’s benefit levels through the 2040s. But there is a simple way to alleviate this problem: We could allow more prime-age adults to come to the United States and contribute to its economy. Alas, Trump and his party would like to do the opposite.

Trump’s in court today for a hearing on the hush-money case. You’d think he’d be out trying to raise that half billion dollars he needs.

Boru

I hope Trump does have several hundred million dollars in cash. That would be prime pickings for Letitia James.

(March 25, 2024 at 11:23 am)Angrboda Wrote: I hope Trump does have several hundred million dollars in cash.  That would be prime pickings for Letitia James.

Apparently, he’s unfamiliar with the term ‘frozen assets’.

Boru

(March 25, 2024 at 10:50 am)Angrboda Wrote: I've been thinking it for some time now but didn't want to go on record with it.  I think Trump is going to lose.  Despite the polls, I think he's got too many headwinds to overcome.

I agree. There's too many Republicans who won't turn out because of all his legal woes, fascist statements, or both. And just like 2020, this election is about turnout.

Well, they gave Trump more time to come up with the money.

Surprise, surprise.

And they cut the bill down to "just" $175,000,000.00

So, which company wants to bet $175 million on Trump being good to his word?