There aren’t many things Republicans and Democrats agree on these days, but it appears voters in the two parties actually have lots of common ground when it comes to “fixing” Social Security.
A new public consultation survey finds significant bipartisan consensus on major proposals that would address the Social Security Trust Funds’ looming shortfall. Last week, the Social Security Board of Trustees released its 2022 annual report, which found that without revenue increases or benefit cuts, monthly benefits would need to be reduced by 20% by 2035 (which is actually one year later than last year’s report).
The in-depth survey conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation of a representative sample of more than 2,500 registered voters found that large majorities of Republicans and Democrats favored proposals for increasing revenue (increasing taxes on the wealthy, raising the payroll tax) and trimming benefits (raising the retirement age, trimming benefits for high earners), as well as increasing the minimum monthly benefit for low-income earners.
Together, the organization said these steps would eliminate 95% of the shortfall. The SSA calculates the shortfall based on what is needed to maintain solvency for 75 years.
More modest majorities, with bare majorities of Republicans, favored increasing benefits for those in their 80s and increasing the cost of living adjustments (COLA). With these additional provisions, the amount of the shortfall eliminated would be reduced to 78%.
“Many politicians think that addressing the problems of Social Security is a ‘third rail’ so they have persistently avoided taking action,” said Steven Kull, director of the PPC. “But large bipartisan majorities say they are ready to take tough steps to secure the Social Security program for future generations.”
Unlike standard polls, public consultation surveys take respondents through an online process called a “policymaking simulation” that seeks to put them in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents were given a briefing on the Social Security program and the projected shortfall, and asked to evaluate arguments for and against proposals addressing the shortfall and increasing some benefits. They were informed about the impact of each proposal on the shortfall. The content of the simulation was reviewed by experts on different sides of the debate to ensure accuracy and balance.
All of the proposals tested have been presented as options by the SSA and scored in terms of their impact on the Social Security shortfall. Most have also been included in proposed Congressional legislation.
Read on to learn more about specific Social Security proposals favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, including some that would increase benefits.
Next page: Increasing Revenues
Hi Brian,
One change makes a better, actuarially sound program that uses current taxes to invest a small portion of Americans’ Social Security taxes in the stock market (the world’s greatest wealth generator). This is what 58% of Americans want according to the recent Social Security survey (Note: 58% desiring this method is hard for ANY politician to go against.)
Social Security is already broken – BUT NOT in the way you are thinking. Social Security has a $255 death benefit (added by Roosevelt’s female Secretary of Labor)to pay for the funeral costs. During the pandemic, this amount( unchanged for 85 years) proved insufficient. Hence, the Administration had to use Federal EMERGENCY Management money to pay the funeral costs which Social Security should have paid. Because our politicians did not maintain a meaningful benefit, this failure proves the benefit needs to be redesigned and people usually use life insurance for a funeral expense, How we can achieve a redesigned life insurance component is enumerated in my comments to SEC Regs. S7-25-19 published 02/03/2020. Further comments are elaborated in Advisor Perspectives article “A Proposal to Address Wealth and Health Inequality”.
The use of life insurance leverages money and offers these additional domestic benefits including but not limited to: a national debt solution, starting retirement at birth, reducing Medicare and Medicaid entitlement costs, increased medical research funding, increased investment participation for all Americans, increased Social Security retirement payments, provide economic stimulus to the States/municipalities during pandemic(s), increased financial services diversity and compliance, and resolve the Black Lives matter concerns. Tacit Congressional approval exists.
This was also proposed to refute Build Back Better and CT’s Insurance Commissioner has institutionalized the use of tax money to train and aid minorities through the CT Broker Academy for health insurance. (This copies my 2-3-2020 proposal for life insurance.)
SUMMARIZING OVERVIEW – Civilizations have prospered when a people develop an economic benefit that their citizens and others beyond their borders (See Europe, China, Russia, etc.) need. As the civilization’s economy grew and prospered, there was a separation between rich and poor which grew larger in the ensuing years. The rich became more powerful but as the number of poor became larger, they became strong enough to overwhelm the rich and the civilization dissolved.
The United States’ chasm between rich and poor has increased in the past decades – increasing even more significantly during the recent pandemic. Additionally, the number of poor has been increased by the pandemic. Some leaders’ solution is to close the chasm through taxes on the rich. While this legal “robin hood” philosophy has an initial impact, the poor may not be satisfied by the share they receive and demand more. Further the chasm may actually increase because the investments (e.g. during the pandemic) grow faster due to compounding.
This pattern bodes ill for the United States’ society until we realize that every citizen could have access to the world’s greatest wealth generator (US stock market) through our Social Security system. A single update to our Social Security’s life insurance system would enable this access – permitting all citizens the opportunity to become wealthy.
Respectfully,