A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.

For Social Security, the budget endorses “modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy.” It calls for lowering benefits for the highest-earning beneficiaries. And it emphasizes that those ideas are not designed to take effect immediately: “The RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement.”

Biden has blasted Republican proposals for the retirement programs, promising that he will not cut benefits and instead proposing in his recent White House budget to cover the future shortfall by raising taxes on upper earners.

  • Xhieron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The Democrats need to immediately trumpet this thing from the rooftops. The GOP wants to take away Social Security and Medicare. 170 of them put their names on this budget, if NBC is to be believed.

    The Republicans want you to never be able to retire, and they want you to never have the healthcare that your parents and grandparents had or that they themselves enjoy. They want you to be poor and stay poor, and they want the same for your children.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      8 months ago

      Republican voters will accept it wholeheartedly simply because a Republican suggested it. Then they’ll view themselves as heroes who made a huge sacrifice for the good of the country when really none of this needed to happen and the country’s just getting worse. Of course, when they actually get to retirement age they’ll be confused and angry as to why THEY can’t retire yet; after all, they’re heroes!

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      8 months ago

      Honestly this might be the only thing that gets my parents to vote in their best interest. Because theyre slightly over one presidency away from retiring.

      • june@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        It won’t impact anyone who retires in the next 15-20 years. I guarantee it. They’re targeting Gen X and millennials with this one.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          8 months ago

          GenX will largely be retiring in the next 15-20 years. So if your estimate is true, its squarely targeting Millennials. Goddamn, how much more can Millennials take? They were in college at the peak of tuition costs, with high student loan interest rates, graduated right into the time of the Great Recession, having their career progress stunted by the pandemic, haven’t been able to save for retirement on their own, and now Republicans want to raise the bar again so they can’t retire on Social Security until later, and even when they do they’ll get lower payouts?

          I can’t even imagine what Millennials are feeling now.

          • june@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yea I suppose it’ll be the younger gen xers impacted. But yea, it’ll be us millennials that get fucked the hardest by these boomers.

            Mostly im feeling hopeless, but that’s in no small part because I’ve been unemployed for 3 months and have only landed one interview in that time.

            • bss03@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I usually only have to deal with this feeling a few days at a time. I hope it gets better for you.

          • RBWells@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Gen X will be retiring never. I’m older genX and nope. It’s true we are close to the age our parents did (well, not my parents actually, dad died in his 50s and Mom worked till mid 70s) but no, the “wealth transfer” will skip us, we will just work, barring disability, straight through. I take my PTO, work out, and try to move through life at a sustainable pace in general.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not just make noise, but propose an alternative of raising the income limit on social security, and mandate contributions for capital gains.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I guess if they won’t shout then we have to. Surely we know some older people who need to know this…

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Medicare is projected to become insolvent in 2028, and Social Security will follow in 2033. After that, benefits will be forcibly cut unless more revenues are added.”

    As of today, payroll tax contributions only apply to the first $168,600 of income.

    https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm

    If you remove that cap, or apply it to other forms of income besides payroll, the funding problem pretty much goes away.

    • karashta@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Except that’s a sham way of framing things that most people use.

      The US is monetarily sovereign and can always issue enough currency to meet any demands upon it.

      Uncle Sam doesn’t go around collecting dollars like a beggar to apply to things. It creates money directly through spending, or backstops the creation of demand deposits by private banks via the reserve system. Money has to be created before it can be destroyed through taxation.

      The issue isn’t, “Where will we get the money?”

      The REAL issue is, “Will we have the infrastructure to care for our elderly?”

      Warren Mosler goes over this in one of his better short pieces of literature.

      https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        And if we take both your comments together, we end up with “should we get rid of the cap so the rich pay a fair share or keep it and collectively pay for things by way of inflation?”

        Personally, I’m all for uncapping it.

        • karashta@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s not about the rich paying their fair share.

          We need to tax them specifically to reduce their insane power in our system.

          The federal government doesn’t need them to finance a damn thing. It can finance anything it wants to with the stroke of a pen.

          We are not reliant on the rich.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          “should we get rid of the cap so the rich pay a fair share or keep it and collectively pay for things by way of inflation?”

          The problem with the latter is honestly that inflation hurts the poor a lot more than it does the wealthy and if anything, gives the wealthy a lot more power. Power is really the issue here- when the rich have the ability to override democracy by spending money, that’s a big damned problem

      • Zugyuk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a pity we have three battleships and no moneys. I want no battleship and three moneys

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The US is monetarily sovereign and can always issue enough currency to meet any demands upon it.

        Yes. When congress appropriates funding and it’s signed into law, the effect is that the US Treasury spends that money into existence. The mechanism, of course, is that Treasury directs the fed to issue bonds to create the money, and when you pay taxes that money doesn’t go into an account Congress can spend from, it goes back to the fed to zero out the bonds used to create it.

        Of course, if we continue cutting taxes the way we have, that will eventually balloon the amount of currency in circulation and that can be problematic if it’s untethered to reality

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      5-10% of US GDP is capital gains. Close these loopholes and treat it as normal income and every person in the US could retire wealthy.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I am extremely familiar with Hudson. Ironically, I’ve been pilloried (and banned) on .ml many times for espousing various versions of his revisionist Marxism. I’ve literally had people tell me I’m misinformed and should read more Lenin smh.

          • 𓅂𓄿@c.im
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            @Socsa Haha, it’s funny how hostile people who call themselves leftists online are to talking about geopolitics or finance. That’s what you get when you overinvest your skillpoints in memes and not books 😅

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Well, this is currently just a dream in the hearts of most Republicans, so there’s still time before it might get implemented. We should probably riot that our existing retirement age is already too high though.

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    Gotta love republicans “the spend and print regime” was bi-partisan and, importantly, initiated under Trump. Further they’ve continuously held control of the Senate while Biden has been in power and the house since 2022.

    Finally the Affordable Care Act was a republican bill that Obama compromised on instead of the Democratic proposal, to get some improvements through. It’s always amusing when Republicans now shit all over it…

  • DefiantBidet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    8 months ago

    They want to strip social security to pay for more tax cuts for the top 1%

    You have to work more so rich people pay less taxes than you.

  • ColeSloth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    That only seemed plausible back when we were starting to live longer and stay healthier.

    That train left the US quite a while back.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem with this is that living longer isn’t really the same as “has extra productive years of labor”. Not dying of cancer at age 75 is living longer, but you’re still old. Even desk jockeys are slowing down in their 60s, let alone people performing physical labor. They’ve given their best years to the economy and deserve to have a little time to enjoy their life before they’re too infirm to do anything.

      • ColeSloth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hence the part where I also said and healthier. I’ve seen some 70 year olds with a lot of strength and energy left to burn. I’ve seen others that look like they might need a breather after walking 20 feet.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          There have always been a lucky few who seem vital late into life. It’s irrelevant to when retirement age should be, because that limit is applying to people who haven’t had that good fortune (and/or top notch preventative care throughout their lives). Even if your argument is that there are more of those lucky elderly, that’s far from a universal gain.

          We’ve had 40-some years of productivity growth disconnected from wage growth that all of them (and us) have fed into. The wealth exists, it’s just been sucked away by their employers all these years. They deserve to benefit from it and have some time to spend with their grandchildren or finally take the vacation they never had the time for earlier. The economy doesn’t need hale and hearty 75 year old workers waiting to get unsteady enough that their job finally kills them.

  • massacre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 months ago

    There is no way on earth that budget passes while Biden is President. But look for it to come back with vengeance if Biden loses.

    Millenials (and maybe some younger GenX) will almost certainly be fucked. They will not touch any precious retirees because they know their voter base: “fuck the planet, fuck the youth, I got mine”

  • SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am sure MAGA hats will cheer for this. Because it is their party proposing this and has to be good. Every rednack will love to work longer.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      That only matters if your goal isn’t to destroy social security ( and medicare) like the GOP

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON — A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.

    Apart from fiscal policy, the budget endorses a series of bills “designed to advance the cause of life,” including the Life at Conception Act, which would aggressively restrict abortion and potentially threaten in vitro fertilization, or IVF, by establishing legal protections for human beings at “the moment of fertilization.” It has recently caused consternation within the GOP following backlash to an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that threatened IVF.

    The plan became a flashpoint in the 2012 election, when Ryan was GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s running mate, and President Barack Obama charged that it would “end Medicare as we know it.”

    Notably, the RSC budget presents three possible options to address the projected insolvency of the retirement programs: raise taxes, transfer money from the general fund or reduce spending to cover the shortfall.

    “Raising taxes on people will further punish them and burden the broader economy–something that the spend and print regime has proven to be disastrous and regressive,” the budget says, adding that the committee also opposes “a multi-trillion-dollar general fund transfer that worsens our fiscal situation.”

    The RSC budget launches blistering criticism at “Obamacare,” or the Affordable Care Act, and calls for rolling back its subsidies and regulations that were aimed at extending insurance coverage.


    The original article contains 619 words, the summary contains 235 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!