# Will GOP Tax Plan Negatively Affect Our Social Security Benefits?



## OneEyedDiva (Nov 30, 2017)

Before I get into that, this paragraph from the article in USA Today published Nov. 23, 2017 reinforces what I've been saying about the impending 23% cut in SS that people don't want to believe is coming. It reads "The most recent annual report from the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates that it'll begin paying out more in benefits than it's collecting in revenue by 2022. Just 12 years later, in 2034, its approximately $3 trillion in asset reserves will be completely depleted. To continue making monthly payments through 2091, the Trustees believe an across-the-board cut to benefits of up to 23% may be needed."  

There's a possibility that the Chained CPI will be used to calculate SS benefits if this bill is passed. , I had read several articles over the past year or so stating that the Chained CPI would be bad for SS recipients. Here are 5 reasons why from an AARP article. http://http://blog.aarp.org/2013/02/11/5-reasons-chained-cpi-is-bad-for-social-security/

Here's the entire article about what the GOP tax plan may mean for we seniors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...fect-your-social-security-benefits/107865406/


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 1, 2017)

So if things stay the same there will be a possible 23% cut in 2091.  Do you not realize that's 74 years from now? I don't expect anyone on this forum will still be here I do expect there will be a lot of changes in the next 74 years. 

The tax cuts proposed will be beneficial for us living in today's world.


----------



## Meanderer (Dec 1, 2017)

The future hasn't been written yet.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 1, 2017)

If only the receipts for SS had gone into a safe fund, protected from raids by both parties over the years  the funds solvency would be assured.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 1, 2017)

AZ Jim said:


> If only the receipts for SS had gone into a safe fund, protected from raids by both parties over the years  the funds solvency would be assured.



So true.

Does anyone else resent hearing SS called an entitlement when we paid into it our entire working lives?


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2017)

These 3 in caps are the most importatnt.

1. The GOP tax plan "could" negatively affect your Social Security benefits
2. The Republican tax plan is a "potential" threat to your Social Security COLA
3. Nothing is written in stone

******************************************************************

1."Could" instead of will
2."potential" instead of a definate [is a threat to your Social Security COLA]
3.The fact that "Nothing is written in stone" may be lost in the biased MSM that is hyping in a negative way what hasn't happened. 


I looked for some examples of what isn't written in stone. Like what the impact would be on a single person living only on Soc. Sec. benefits, same for a married couple. Then some examples at different levels of both single & married that have some form of income from sources other than Soc. Sec. Nothing there so how is it possible to determine impact?

For Smiling Jane

I don't resent Soc. Sec. being called an entitlement because that is exactly what it is. We that have paid into it are entitled to receive the benefit.  This is possibly the only true entitlement.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 1, 2017)

I disagree with everything you've written in this thread.


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2017)

Smiling Jane I'm going to guess your post #7 was meant for me. 


Easier to use dictionary definitions 
Definition of entitlement

1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


Could
auxiliary verb  
(used to express possibility):


will
A2 also 'll used to talk about what is going to happen in the future, especially things that you are certain about or things that are planned: 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/will


Not set in stone
not be set/carved in stone
 UK US not be carved/etched in stone  
 to be able to be changed: 
These are just a few ideas - nothing is set in stone yet.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/not-be-set-carved-in-stone


I guess with nothing more to go on works for some. I prefer examples of what the impact would be in dollars for those living solely on Soc. Sec. and examples of the impact in dollars for the various income levels. None were in the article.

We do know that a tax plan has passed the house of representatives and is being discussed in the Senate. 

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/11/02/Read-House-GOPs-Tax-Bill-or-Summary-Key-Points


Obama care was passed by democrats without the same ability to see any points. Remember Nancy Pelosi's explaining after it was passed "You Have to Read It To Know What's In It".  Obama  promised transparency and didn't deliver. 


Nice to know that something is in the works relative to taxes but most have known that for months now. The liberal media manages to upset people that are easily confused by making something that hasn't been signed into law sound horrible without any financial impact explained.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 1, 2017)

Social Security, in its present form, cannot survive forever.  When it was first enacted, there were over a dozen workers paying in, for every one drawing out.  Now, that ratio is down to about 3 to 1, and slowly declining even more.  In 1935, it was fairly rare for a person live live much past age 65...now, the norm is more towards 80 years old.  With fewer paying in vs. the number drawing benefits, it doesn't take a genius to see the problems.  Future funding has Not kept up with future demand, and unless some substantial changes are made, and fairly soon, Social Security will not survive anywhere near its present form.  

I'm a prime example of why this program is facing trouble....and there are many others who are in the same boat.  When I look at my SS statement, and see how much I paid in over my working career...then, compare that to what I am receiving every month, since age 62 1/2...I have already received well over 3 times what I paid in.  If I live to be as old as my parents were, I will receive about 8 times what I paid in.  I wish my other investments could show the same rate of return.  

Many of the critics refer to SS as being a "Ponzi Scheme"....and unfortunately, as it currently exists, they are somewhat correct.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 2, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> So if things stay the same there will be a possible 23% cut in 2091.  Do you not realize that's 74 years from now? I don't expect anyone on this forum will still be here I do expect there will be a lot of changes in the next 74 years.
> 
> The tax cuts proposed will be beneficial for us living in today's world.


Read it again Rkunsaw. The sentence signifies that the cut will BEGIN in 2034. This is not the first time I've come across this or posted about it. In additions to seeing the date in other articles written by analysts over the past two years, I actually saw the start date of the proposed cut on the Social Security website twice but it was taken down. 
"in 2034, its approximately $3 trillion in asset reserves will be completely depleted. *To continue making monthly payments through 2091*, the Trustees believe an across-the-board cut to benefits of up to 23% may be needed."


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 2, 2017)

Meanderer said:


> Good points, Larry!


If Larry is Rkunsaw, see my reply to him Meanderer.


----------



## Knight (Dec 2, 2017)

Getting back to will the GOP tax plan affect Soc. Sec. benefits. 


The expectation that the reserves will be depleted by 2034 so a 23% reduction is likely gives younger people the chance to set aside money. Others older like myself unlikely to be alive 17 years from now why worry? 


The GOP tax plan I think is aimed at boosting employment. More employees translates into more money flowing into Soc. Sec. Will it? Time will tell.


Like Don M  my wife & I will receive far more than what we paid in. Probably unlike many, our financial plan didn't include soc. sec. as an income source. At 62 when I began payments $1000.00 a month was put into a brokerage account the rest spent for fun stuff. Four years later @ 62 my wife's soc. sec. kicked in. For the last 13 years $2000.00 a month was put into that brokerage account. The rest we spend on fun. The purchases in the account have been low risk. It's not about anything other than leaving our 3 sons something to buffer their financial needs since the potential of the "safety net" of soc. sec. may not be there for them or at least not as it is now.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 3, 2017)

Knight said:


> Getting back to will the GOP tax plan affect Soc. Sec. benefits.
> 
> 
> The expectation that the reserves will be depleted by 2034 so a 23% reduction is likely gives younger people the chance to set aside money. Others older like myself unlikely to be alive 17 years from now why worry?



Because for me Knight, my mother lived to be 97 years old. My great grandfather lived to be 99. My father and his sister lived to be in their mid 80's. I have other family members who are in their 90's.  I'm 70 now and there's a good chance that I will still be alive 17 years from now. I'm not worrying, I'm preparing. And should I pass away before 2034, then my son and grandchildren will hopefully have a nice chunk of money....unless the nursing home takes it. 

You consider yourself "older" but guess what? You are not the only one in this forum. There may be some on this forum who are in their 60's and could have 30 or more years to live. I just don't want people who will be alive and will be depending on SS to be blindsided and unprepared.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 3, 2017)

One way the tax cuts will help social security is by putting more people to work. More jobs and higher wages will put more money in the system. 

And there is always the likelihood of changes during the next 17 years as well as the next 74 years. For one thing Trump will no longer be president. Well , Donald Trump won't be president, maybe another Trump though.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 3, 2017)

AZ Jim said:


> If only the receipts for SS had gone into a safe fund, protected from raids by both parties over the years  the funds solvency would be assured.



i guess you don't know that safe secure investments  is the only thing that can be done with ss reserves  by law .

these myths you hear about ss money being stolen out is blatantly false . it makes for  great political news but is nothing more than someone's lack of knowledge about how ss works .

money that is ear marked for social security can ONLY  be  put in social security retirement , ss disability, ss survivor benefits or used to  buy special treasury bonds which have never defaulted .

that is it ! 

just like any bonds  that are bought the issuer is free to use that money for whatever they like . it is no different than when you buy treasury bonds or your funds do .  the gov't is free to spend BORROWED  money they get from selling bonds  any way they want .

what has hurt the ss fund is ss disability . it has been abused since 2000  like crazy . 

the billions stolen from ss you see on social media  political propaganda was money that had to be moved from one pocket to another . ss disability was going broke because of all the claims , many of which are really not justified .  ssdi has become the new unemployment insurance and through corrupt ss  workers , lawyers and doctors  have manipulated billions in  un-deserved claims out of the fund .  that is where the billions went that had to be taken from ss retirement


----------



## Don M. (Dec 3, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> what has hurt the ss fund is ss disability . it has been abused since 2000  like crazy .



I tend to agree.  In our area, there has been an abundance of large billboards popping up along the highways...advertising by lawyers who specialize in SSDI.  It is common to see TV ads on the local evening news for lawyers who specialize in SSDI claims.  There MUST be some serious money being tossed around if all these lawyers are seeking clients.  

I have been convinced, for a long time, that at least 1/3rd of every dollar sent to Washington is siphoned off for corruption and waste.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 3, 2017)

ever since things that are hard to disprove like mental and pain were allowed the claims are off the hook .


----------



## Granny B. (Dec 3, 2017)

My bet is on them continuing to raise the age before benefits start.   Cuts in payments are surely coming as well.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 3, 2017)

i doubt  any politician screws with social security for any boomer . they can find billions at the drop of a hat when they want to .

i can see ss being pushed out age wise or eventually not having 62 as an early retirement date .

but the amounts will not take a cut if the politicians want to keep their jobs .80 million retiring baby boomers guarantee that .


----------



## ShokWaveRider (Dec 3, 2017)

I am not sure it will right now. But I think it "may" affect Medicare down the road. I seem to remember something about that in it.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 3, 2017)

medicare is a whole other thing . social securities deficit is peanuts compared to medicare . medicare will be a big problem .


----------



## Don M. (Dec 3, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> medicare is a whole other thing . social securities deficit is peanuts compared to medicare . medicare will be a big problem .



For Sure!  Medicare will hit a brick wall well before SS does.  Presently, Health Care (Medicare) is the single largest item in the Federal budget...at 27%.  Following that closely are Pensions, which includes SS(26%), and Defense (22%).  The "Dreaded" Welfare only takes up 9%.  

Given that the number of retirees continues to increase, and those with health problems are growing at a rapid pace, Medicare is going to "test" this nations resolve....and not very far into the future.  

www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_highlite.php?title=us_federal_budget_pie_chart&meta=pie


----------



## Lethe200 (Dec 3, 2017)

Current retirees should be unaffected by STRUCTURAL changes to Medicare/SocSecurity. Such changes will affect future retirees. HOWEVER, they may be affected by the triggering of automatic budget cuts to Medicare if, as predicted by analysts, the deficit rises:

*HeadingToward Tax Victory, Republicans Eye Next Step: Cut Spending*
NYTimes DEC. 2, 2017

(Excerpt) As the tax cut legislation passed by the Senate early Saturday hurtles toward final approval, Republicans are preparing to use the swelling deficits made worse by the package as a rationale to pursue their long-held vision: undoing the entitlements of the New Deal and Great Society, leaving government leaner and the safety net skimpier for millions of Americans.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other Republicans are beginning to express their big dreams publicly, vowing that next year they will move on to changes in Medicare and Social Security.....

…..Senator Marco Rubio of Florida was more specific on Wednesday, telling business leaders that the tax cuts were just the first step; the next is to reshape Social Security and Medicare for future retirees.

“Many argue that you can’t cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit,” he said. “But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth, which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.”

….And even if Republicans do not pursue changes to entitlements, the tax bill will trigger pay-as-you-go requirements that Congress cut spending. That would be a particularly big hit to Medicare, which would face a $25 billion cut for the current fiscal year. Groups like AARP, the lobby for older Americans, warn that it would force doctors and hospitals to turn away patients because reimbursements would be  cut so drastically.

….Some deficit hawks complain that Republicans have cast away any mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Robert L. Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that encourages fiscal responsibility, complained of hypocrisy from Republicans who have been clamoring to lift the spending caps that were created by the 2011 Budget ControlAct.

If the tax cuts do not generate the revenue Republicans are expecting,he predicted, “people will say, ‘No, we’re not getting the growth because we should have cut taxes even more.’”

The United States is already facing a gloomy fiscal landscape. The federal deficit this year topped $660 billion, despite healthy economic growth, and the national debt now exceeds $20 trillion. Janet L. Yellen, the outgoing chairwoman of the Federal Reserve,appointed by President Barack Obama, warned last week that the national debt “is the type of thing that should keep people awake at night.”

But Democrats and their allies — and even some usual Republican allies— complain that Republicans are dishonest not to debate changes in spending and tax cuts at the same time, as the Simpson-Bowles commission did.....

Full article:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/...titlements-medicare-social-security.html?_r=0


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 4, 2017)

Lethe200 said:


> Current retirees should be unaffected by STRUCTURAL changes to Medicare/SocSecurity. Such changes thwill affect future retirees. *HOWEVER, they may be affected by the triggering of automatic budget cuts to Medicare if, as predicted by analysts, the deficit rises:*



I agree, it's sort of a harmless sounding Trojan Horse.  While everyone is focused on how it will help control the deficit they won't look at what those cuts actually mean to them as individuals.

Another concern that I have over the proposed corporate tax cuts is that it will push the stock market higher because corporations will have more cash to invest or use to buy back stocks.  The flip side of that coin is that the increase in the stock market will widen the gap between the haves and the havenots in our society.  Sure it may result in a few new jobs but the real money will be in the growth of those corporations and the people that own them.  People really need to understand the long range importance of investing in the American dream.  It's time to wake up America, you've got to be in it to win it!


----------



## ShokWaveRider (Dec 4, 2017)

The funny part is our economy appears to be doing great and the country is at full employment. Moral, we do not need tax cuts really, at least not at the national level. Some non performing states maybe, but not nationally.


----------



## NancyNGA (Dec 4, 2017)

There was some talk during negotiations of the bill, that lowering of corporate tax rates should come with some guarantees that at least a portion of the money saved by companies be reinvested in employees, job training, creating new jobs, etc.  I wonder if anything like that is part of the Senate version of the bill? 

I'm also afraid the _projected_ increase in the deficit may rule out any more spending on an infrastructure package.  That was something I was hoping would get accomplished.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 4, 2017)

NancyNGA said:


> There was some talk during negotiations of the bill, that lowering of corporate tax rates should come with some guarantees that at least a portion of the money saved by companies be reinvested in employees, job training, creating new jobs, etc.  I wonder if anything like that is part of the Senate version of the bill?
> 
> I'm also afraid the _projected_ increase in the deficit may rule out any more spending on an infrastructure package.  That was something I was hoping would get accomplished.



IMO, corporate taxes should be lowered ONLY for companies that bring jobs back to the U.S.  If they want to continue offshoring to Mexico, etc., they should NOT be given any breaks.  

Insofar as infrastructure is concerned, I see nothing major happening until/unless our roads and bridges really get in sorry shape.  Infrastructure spending "hype" seems to be reserved for campaign rhetoric, and once the elections are over, it is shuffled back to the background.  The Only real attempt to do something in that arena was Obama's "shovel ready jobs"...which turned out to be a total fiasco.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 14, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> One way the tax cuts will help social security is by putting more people to work. More jobs and higher wages will put more money in the system.
> 
> And there is always the likelihood of changes during the next 17 years as well as the next 74 years. For one thing Trump will no longer be president. Well , Donald Trump won't be president, maybe another Trump though.


I hope you are right rkunsaw!


----------



## KingsX (Dec 18, 2017)

.

I'm glad the final version of the tax bill maintains the over age 65 extra standard deduction.

Single senior =  $12,000 standard deduction plus $1,600 extra over age 65 deduction = $13,600. tax exempt.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2017)

last i heard all exemptions were going .  did they change that fact ?  i have not seen anything yet  to that effect .

deduction amount. 
 Eliminates personal exemptions: Today you're allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents. The House bill eliminates that option. 
 For families with three or more kids, that could mute if not negate any tax relief they might enjoy as a result of other provisions in the bill.


----------



## KingsX (Dec 19, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> last i heard all exemptions were going .  did they change that fact ?  i have not seen anything yet  to that effect .
> 
> deduction amount.
> Eliminates personal exemptions: Today you're allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents. The House bill eliminates that option.
> For families with three or more kids, that could mute if not negate any tax relief they might enjoy as a result of other provisions in the bill.




Both the House and Senate versions as well as the final bill eliminates personal exemptions.

.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2017)

KingsX said:


> .
> 
> I'm glad the final version of the tax bill maintains the over age 65 extra standard deduction.
> 
> Single senior =  $12,000 standard deduction plus $1,600 extra over age 65 deduction = $13,600. tax exempt.



but they are keeping the 1600  deduction  for seniors ? origonally seniors got an extra exemption , then they changed it to a deduction  but i didn't here it was staying .


----------



## KingsX (Dec 19, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> but they are keeping the 1600  deduction  for seniors ? origonally seniors got an extra exemption , then they changed it to a deduction  but i didn't here it was staying .




The bill eliminates the personal exemption but retains the extra over age 65 standard deduction.

.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 28, 2017)

KingsX said:


> The bill eliminates the personal exemption but retains the extra over age 65 standard deduction.
> 
> .


Your source? I've read a few articles about the new tax law getting rid of personal exemptions but haven't seen anything about the deductions for over 65 you refer to.


----------



## KingsX (Dec 28, 2017)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Your source? I've read a few articles about the new tax law getting rid of personal exemptions but haven't seen anything about the deductions for over 65 you refer to.




Only the original House bill eliminated the over age 65 and/or blind extra standard deduction. The Senate version of the bill did not.

The final bill which is now law followed the Senate version which did NOT change or eliminate the over age 65 and/or blind deduction, so it remains the same.


Here is a quote from a Wall Street Journal news article:


" What about the additional standard deductions for the elderly and blind?

The bill keeps them in place. For 2018, the additional standard deduction for people 65 and older is $1,300 for each partner of a married couple and $1,600 for a single person.

Thus, if each spouse is above 65, the additional standard deduction is $2,600 in 2018. If one spouse is 66 and the other is 60, the additional standard deduction is $1,300.

There’s also an additional standard deduction for taxpayers who are legally blind. For 2018, it is $1,600 for a single person and $1,300 for a married taxpayer. If both spouses are blind, the additional standard deduction would be $2,600.

Taxpayers who are elderly and blind can take both additional standard deductions. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-gop-tax-plan-means-for-your-favorite-deductions-1513453149


Here is a quote from an AARP news article:

"  Other tax brackets would change as well, and personal exemptions would be eliminated. But the legislation would nearly double standard deductions to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.

The tax plan also maintains the extra standard deduction for those 65 and older, currently $1,250 for individuals, $1,550 for heads of households and $2,500 for couples who are both 65 and older. "

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/update-tax-reform-fd.html


Here is a quote from a CNBC news article:

" The GOP tax overhaul kept this $1,300 tax break for seniors

    * GOP bill doubles standard deduction to $12,000 for singles, $24,000 for married couples.
    * Individuals over 65 or blind -- and married -- can claim at least $1,300 more in deductions.
    * The break is $1,600 for singles. "

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/22/the-gop-tax-overhaul-kept-this-1300-tax-break-for-seniors.html

.


----------

