# Social Security Reform Act of 2016 introduced by Sam Johnson (R)



## Bobw235 (Dec 9, 2016)

It's characterized in his press release as "legislation that will permanently save Social Security, ensuring this vital program continues to work for today’s workers and beneficiaries and future generations."  Just a hunch, but I'll bet this is going to scare lots of folks. Added to the talk about slashing Medicare benefits, and this sure is going to get scary for a number of folks. A copy of the bill in PDF is available on the site.View attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdf

http://legislation that will perman...ers and beneficiaries and future generations.



*Modernizing how benefits are calculated to increase benefits for lower income workers while slowing the growth of benefits for higher income workers. *
*Gradually updating the full retirement age at which workers can claim benefits. The new retirement age better reflects Americans’ longer life expectancy while maintaining the age for early retirement.*
*Ensures benefits keep up with changes in the economy by using a more accurate measure of inflation for the annual Cost-of-Living-Adjustment.*
*Protecting the most vulnerable Americans by increasing benefits for lower-income earners and raising the minimum benefit for those who earned less over the course of long careers.*
*Promoting flexibility and choice for workers by eliminating the Retirement Earnings Test for everyone. This allows workers to receive benefits—without a penalty—while they are working, or fully delay retirement and wait to receive benefits. For those who delay claiming benefits, they can receive increases in a partial lump sum or add it all to their monthly check.*
*Encouraging saving for retirement by phasing out Social Security’s tax on benefits for workers who continue to receive income after they retire or stop working due to a disability.*
*Targeting benefits for those most in need by limiting the size of benefits for spouses and children of high-income earners.*
*Treating all workers fairly when their Social Security benefits are calculated by using the same, proportional formula that looks at all of an individual’s earnings over the course of his or her career.*View attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdfView attachment sj_ss_reform_packet_december_2016.pdf


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 9, 2016)

Yes, scary for sure, here is Yahoo Finance's take on this....

*GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security.*

On Thursday, Rep. Sam Johnson, a Republican from Texas and chair of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced legislation to significantly cut Social Security. 

The bill introduced by Johnson, who is also the chair of the Social Security subcommittee, slashes benefits, adds means testing, and would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69. 

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%. 

Nearly every income bracket would see a reduction, save for the very bottom. People making around $12,280 in 2016 who have worked for 30 years would see an increase of around 20%. But young people making the same amount would be hit hard by the changes. If they had 14 years of work experience by 2016, they would see their benefits cut in half. 

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html 


http://samjohnson.house.gov/contact-me/3rd-d-tr-ct-contact-nformat-on.htm


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 9, 2016)

Of course it's being touted by the author of the bill as a way to "save" social security and that it looks out for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 9, 2016)

I don't understand why they simply don't uncap the earnings like they already do for Medicare.  Yes. I appreciated getting that raise in take home pay every August or so once I maxed out, but I would have much rather paid the difference and help keep the fund solvent.

My son, who is 53, doesn't plan on getting anything from SS.  His kids, in their early 20s, will likely never see a penny of it either.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 10, 2016)

I can't understand why they don't uncap the SS earnings, either!!!!


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 10, 2016)

This will get interesting and there will be no end to opinions about it until it gets settled. My initial opinion is that they dang sure need to look at things and figure out the best way to handle it because there are fundamental problems. Somewhere along the way they need to take a long-term view of it to keep it solvent and they need to do that before it gets to the point that there is no fix.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 10, 2016)

I wish that instead of looking at each individual program they would convene a group of people to look at each item in total to come up with a long range solution.  Don't look at Social Security, look at financial/retirement security.  Don't look at Medicare or the ACA look at healthcare in total.  We need some real, lasting changes that can strengthen our society instead of shoring up or tinkering with programs that are not working for us.  I would like to see programs, private or government run, that a person could invest in when they enter the workforce that would provide protection and benefits for them and their families from the cradle to the grave.


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 10, 2016)

I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced *before the *election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 10, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> I can't understand why they don't uncap the SS earnings, either!!!!



It's simply considered a tax on the wealthy... and therefore unpalatable..


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 10, 2016)

Bobw235 said:


> I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced *before the *election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.



This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone..  Ryan and his merry band have been very open about their intentions.. They have made no secret about wanting to cut benefits..  NOW they have a President who will likely sign it into law..  yey.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 10, 2016)

I hope this bill creates some serious discussion, AND action, in Washington.  It has been known, for years, that SS and Medicare will be facing some serious shortfalls in the future...but these topics have been ignored, thus far.  The sooner Congress begins to debate, And Fix, these programs, the better for everyone.  The longer they delay, the more likely that the solutions will be extreme.


----------



## tnthomas (Dec 10, 2016)

Well, I am going to have to pay attention to these ongoing developments like I've never paid attention to anything before.  I have 1-1/2 years before I turn 66, which is when I planned to apply for S.S.      Maybe it would be best to apply 'early' and take the lessor about, since the 'full' S.S. pension amount will be gutted anyway.    ??


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 10, 2016)

I'm likely taking Social Security early next year, when I turn 62. My wife will follow me the following year.


----------



## The Inspector (Dec 10, 2016)

*Top House Republican Unveils Plan To Gut Social Security*

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform the program that features major benefit cuts.

I'm get my don't blame me " I voted Democatic" bumper sicker ready


----------



## BlondieBoomer (Dec 10, 2016)

The Inspector said:


> Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform the program that features major benefit cuts.
> 
> I'm get my don't blame me " I voted Democatic" bumper sicker ready



And with majorities in the House and Senate it'll breeze right through.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 10, 2016)

Bobw235 said:


> I'm likely taking Social Security early next year, when I turn 62. My wife will follow me the following year.



I would suggest that a person sign up for SS as soon as they become eligible.  You can get more, per year, if you wait...but the overall payout depends upon how long you live.   The wife and I signed up as soon as we become eligible, and we have already gotten 2 1/2 times more than I paid in during my entire working career (the wife was a homemaker)...I've been drawing payments for about 12 years, and she about 7.  Besides, if the government starts playing games with SS, they are less likely to mess too much with those who are already "Grandfathered" in....I hope.


----------



## BlondieBoomer (Dec 10, 2016)

Don't forget about Medicare.

"*Public divided on the ACA, many unaware of proposed Medicare changes*



The public is divided over the Affordable Care Act 
A second major issue likely to be considered by the 115th Congress – possible changes to Medicare – has not resonated widely with the public. Overall, only about half of the public (51%) has heard a lot (12%) or a little (39%) about a proposal to change Medicare to a program that would give future participants a credit toward purchasing private health insurance. About as many either have heard nothing (48%) or don’t know (1%).
Those who have heard about possible changes to Medicare oppose these changes by a wide margin. Among the small share of Americans who have heard a lot about the proposal, two-thirds (67%) oppose it, while just 32% favor it. Opinion is divided among the much larger group who have heard little or nothing about the proposal (41% favor, 40% oppose, 19% don’t know)."  

http://www.people-press.org/2016/12...tion-but-outlook-for-his-presidency-improves/


----------



## Ken N Tx (Dec 11, 2016)

tnthomas said:


> Well, I am going to have to pay attention to these ongoing developments like I've never paid attention to anything before.  I have 1-1/2 years before I turn 66, which is when I planned to apply for S.S.      Maybe it would be best to apply 'early' and take the lessor about, since the 'full' S.S. pension amount will be gutted anyway.    ??





Bobw235 said:


> I'm likely taking Social Security early next year, when I turn 62. My wife will follow me the following year.





Don M. said:


> I would suggest that a person sign up for SS as soon as they become eligible.  You can get more, per year, if you wait...but the overall payout depends upon how long you live.   The wife and I signed up as soon as we become eligible, and we have already gotten 2 1/2 times more than I paid in during my entire working career (the wife was a homemaker)...I've been drawing payments for about 12 years, and she about 7.  Besides, if the government starts playing games with SS, they are less likely to mess too much with those who are already "Grandfathered" in....I hope.



Ditto to all of the above..


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I don't understand why they simply don't uncap the earnings like they already do for Medicare.  Yes. I appreciated getting that raise in take home pay every August or so once I maxed out, but I would have much rather paid the difference and help keep the fund solvent.
> 
> My son, who is 53, doesn't plan on getting anything from SS.  His kids, in their early 20s, will likely never see a penny of it either.




earnings are already means tested . the lower your income  the more you get out in comparison to your share paid in . we are also double taxed on it if your earnings are higher. we pay taxes on ss money going in and coming out .

without changing the ss formula which is your 35 highest years  you would be paying everyone who is a higher earner and their spouses more if they earn more . which if you didn't ,on top of everything else that ss means tests already , that would be unfair . 

it becomes much to unfair to ask higher earners to keep putting more and more in and get out less and less .

paying more out would just defeat the increase and not paying more out would be most unfair if you are asking for more money .

we saw a 300% increase in medicare premiums for 2016 because we sold an investment in 2014. no one was on medicare yet nor retired yet they wanted what amounted to a 600 a month INCREASE  on top of the normal medicare premiums for a couple . had we sold it in 2013 instead there would be no increase .

luckily i got it appealed and won on a technicality


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 11, 2016)

I've been collecting SS for the last two years.. even though I have continued working full time.   It didn't seem to be much of an advantage to wait..


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 11, 2016)

It doesn't matter what happens.... the true Trump fans will find a way to blame Obama and the Democrats.. You can count on it.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

depends . 

it all depends whether you want to be more dependent on markets and rates if you need to live off your portfolio.  it can also matter how long you live if maximum income and balance is what you want  .

if one person in couple lives to 90 which is a 50% chance today you can see almost a 6% real return . that is adjusted for inflation . that return by delaying can rival a balanced portfolio in decent times but with zero risk .

we are delaying because the 55k in ss we will see cuts our portfolio dependency by a lot .


----------



## garyt1957 (Dec 11, 2016)

Bobw235 said:


> I don't question the need for Social Security reform, but it certainly seems from the little I've read thus far, that the bill in its current state will hurt a lot of folks that have come to rely on that monthly check. Granted this is just a bill, and it still has to pass through the committee, be voted on, etc., but I find the timing (along with Ryan's proposals for "reforming" Medicare) to be very interesting. Certainly wouldn't have seen this kind of change introduced *before the *election, but I guess that's the nature of politics. What I have a hard time rationalizing is how politicians can claim to be for the "little guy, the common working man" on one hand, and stick it to them on the other. Again, the nature of politics. Strap yourselves in, this is going to get nasty.



Nobody from either side will win any election if they propose to cut anything. So of course they're not going to propose any such thing before an election. We are our own worst enemy. With the R's in power, if they do anything to fix SS and MC (and we all know they need fixing) they will be demonized by the other side no matter how good the plan. And it would be the same the other way around.


----------



## Myquest55 (Dec 11, 2016)

Well, it certainly scared me!!  The government takes social security OUT of our paychecks every week - it cannot be that dire!  With pensions gone and a lot of people financially illiterate this will create a nightmare!  We all need to keep an eye on this.

They also want to raise the Full Retirement Age to 69, what the heck?   This comes the day after a big article ran to say the average age of death is now dropping.  We are not necessarily healthier than our parents (again, thanks to government meddling but will save that for another discussion)  More people take SS at 62 than any other age - why do they think we'll wait until 69?  Hardly anybody I know is healthy enough to be able to work that long - let alone WANT to.  We are scrambling (at 60 & 61) to try to wait until 66-1/3 when we planned on 65 all this time.  I guess the billionaire's club will rule the world!

One other note - if they took off the income cap to garnish wages then they would have to pay OUT larger amounts.  It was originally designed to help the poor.  Anyone with a salary over $113,000 (or whatever it is now) should be smart enough to take care of themselves over the minimum.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

70k in nyc quailfy's you for a low income nyc housing project . so 113k is really not a lot in high cost of living areas .


----------



## Myquest55 (Dec 11, 2016)

From someone whose first job paid $2.36/hr and seeing the avg. income in south, $113,000 still looks like a LOT of money but, you are absolutely correct.  Perhaps there should be some adjustments for where you live - both in deductions and distributions.  I know that some states supplement the SS disability but not sure they do for Soc. Sec..


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

no , where you live is irrelevant with ss . that is where high cost of living area's are nice .

you get ss based on higher wages and then relocate to cheapsville with that bigger check


----------



## Knight (Dec 11, 2016)

Doing something to get attention is working. Facts should be the driving force behind the need to address Soc. Sec. payments. Maybe if presenting legislation to address the long term is transparent and explained in lay men terms not legal terms people would be willing to accept changes.  But until now over the terms of many presidents ignoring the future in favor of looking good now that hasn't happened. 


Bottom line people want to know how it will affect them. If it doesn't then they don't care.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

funding the 25% ss is short is a drop in the bucket . shoot a few less tomahawks and it is covered . it really is not a lot in the scheme of things . 

medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue


----------



## Bobw235 (Dec 11, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> funding the 25% ss is short is a drop in the bucket . shoot a few less tomahawks and it is covered . it really is not a lot in the scheme of things .
> 
> medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue



I think when it comes to medicare (and fixing the ACA), Congress has a hard time saying no to the big lobbyists from the medical device industry, the insurance industry, Big Pharma, etc. They all want to protect themselves, and Congress wants to protect their jobs, thus the public ends up getting screwed. No one speaks for us, the voting public, except in an election year. Thus if anything gets done, it's to the benefit of those with the most power and the best lobbyists.

Agree with your comment about SS and maybe just trimming a bit from other places. Or, here's a novel idea: Have Congress pay back the money they've "borrowed" from  Social Security over the years to balance the budget. Wonder how much that comes to and if it would fix the issue. Congress sure has no problem borrowing for other things and adding a few billion on to the deficit.


----------



## BlondieBoomer (Dec 11, 2016)

Regardless of the formula they use, I think we will see large cuts in both SS and Medicare for everyone other than the very lowest income brackets. Where else are they going to get the money to cover the lowering of business taxes from 35 to 15% and alternative minimum tax for business? That is a massive amount of money no longer coming in. Do you really think it will trickle down and create millions of high paying jobs that will take in more in taxes?


----------



## Manatee (Dec 11, 2016)

The only thing that is needed to preserve SS is for congress to be subject to it like everyone else.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 11, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> medicare is the real gorilla in the room . that is a huge issue



For Sure!  No one in Washington talks about Medicare, but that program is going to be in crisis mode well before Social Security.  At the rate medical costs are rising, I don't give Medicare much more than another 4 or 5 years before it is in serious trouble.  SSDI funding was set to run out in early 2017, but Congress "manipulated" the numbers so as to push that issue down the road another year or two.  Medicare, however, is a massive program, serving over 60 million seniors, and keeping that program solvent is going to force Congress to earn its pay.  The actions that will certainly have to be taken to keep Medicare alive will go a long way towards determining what happens to SS.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 11, 2016)

The Republicans have had Social Security and Medicare in their sights for quite some time. I strongly suspect that if they get too carried away with that in addition to killing the ACA without a replacement that they may be shooting themselves in the foot - seriously damaging the party's future prospects. The wealthy may like it, but the average citizen will be outraged - especially those left with no medical resources.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 12, 2016)

I agree, Dragonlady.  SS/Medicare is still the third rail and I think they know that if they want to keep their cushy congressional seats they should act with great caution in considering cutting benefits.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 12, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> I agree, Dragonlady.  SS/Medicare is still the third rail and I think they know that if they want to keep their cushy congressional seats they should act with great caution in considering cutting benefits.



Problem is.. they think they can get away with it if they defer it out 10 years so that it won't affect anyone over 55... Do they think we seniors don't care about our kids?   My kids are 47 and 45.. they have worked and paid into FICA.. but they will be short changed big time.  Not fair.  Especially when it can be fixed as easily as lifting the cap on FICA withholdings.


----------



## manrico (Dec 12, 2016)

> Do they think we seniors don't care about our kids?



That's what they're counting on.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 12, 2016)

manrico said:


> That's what they're counting on.



Then we must let them know that we do..   Don't screw over our kids... That is not going to sit well with us.


----------



## tnthomas (Dec 12, 2016)

Dragonlady said:


> The Republicans have had Social Security and Medicare in their sights for quite some time. I strongly suspect that if they get too carried away with that in addition to killing the ACA without a replacement that they may be shooting themselves in the foot - seriously damaging the party's future prospects. The wealthy may like it, but the average citizen will be outraged - especially those left with no medical resources.



Well, the Republicans pulled off what virtually everyone thought was impossible-their candidate won the presidency.   After that, I see the Republicans as being able to continue pursuit of their agenda, without the Public actually understanding the ramifications.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 12, 2016)

Trump already has his eye on a second term - if he cons the people too much and keeps too few of his promises, he may turn out to be a one tern wonder. None of the medical supplies people (including the big pharmaceutic companies) will fare very well if people have no insurance and/or cannot afford to pay for their equipment/services/medicines. Less insurance means fewer customers. 

ACA is and has been since it's inception  a target at least partially because it's Obama's and the Republicans have fought long and hard to keep him from accomplishing anything to discredit him - both because he's a Democrat and the first African American president (and if they can discredit him enough - maybe the last)

I definitely want to protect it for my kids - they range in age from 55 to 61 - also my grandsons and great grandsons and great grand daughters. It's bad enough that the have to wait until past 65 to collect - given the age discrimination in the job market. They killed pensions - and now they want to take SSI!


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 13, 2016)

BobW I don't blame you. Take your SS at 62 while you still can! I'm thinking they will eventually change the minimum age as well.  Your initial post of the points of the proposed bill sure have a different "tone" than Yahoo's interpretation of it. I did see that the SS administration was planning a 23% cut across the board by 2033 or 2034. I actually saw this on their site twice...once on the home page, then it was removed. Then I got a message from them within my account about it. I wish I'd taken a screen shot of it. I am preparing myself financially for such a cut should I live that long. Many others do not have that option.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 13, 2016)

i would bet my bottom dollar they will refund ss when the time comes . it is no different than the refunding of the budget when it expires . ss is such an important part of american life as well as a relatively small amount needed to replenish it  . you see how fast these wars are funded .

80 million voting baby boomers says we see little change for those of us of age . there is really nothing done that did not either grandfather you or give you a window to react before the change .

the youngin's may get a different deal but i would bet we get just what we would have gotten whether we file early or not .


----------



## dpwspringer (Dec 13, 2016)

Retirement funding got changed on the fly for a lot of us. Companies phased out their pension plans while replacing them with 401k's. I took a hit on that. If I had been younger or older I would have fared better. That's the way the world works, things are always subject to change and sometimes change works in your favor, sometimes it works against you, and sometimes it doesn't make that much difference.





mathjak107 said:


> i would bet my bottom dollar they will refund ss when the time comes . it is no different than the refunding of the budget when it expires . ss is such an important part of american life as well as a relatively small amount needed to replenish it  . you see how fast these wars are funded .
> 
> 80 million voting baby boomers says we see little change for those of us of age . there is really nothing done that did not either grandfather you or give you a window to react before the change .
> 
> the youngin's may get a different deal but i would bet we get just what we would have gotten whether we file early or not .


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 13, 2016)

like i said , those of age will likely see no real differences . the youngin's i am pretty sure will see changes


----------



## manrico (Dec 13, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> like i said , those of age will likely see no real differences . the youngin's i am pretty sure will see changes



ANd 20 years from now when they see what they've done to themselves they will fix the problem


----------



## Knight (Dec 17, 2016)

Surprise! Republicans Just Introduced a Bill That Would Completely Reform Social Security
If passed, the Social Security Reform Act could have wide-reaching implications for seniors. 
Sean Williams 
Dec 17, 2016 at 7:21AM 


•It would reduce cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for higher-earning individuals, while at the same time increasing benefits at a faster pace for lower-income retirees. In particular, individuals earning in excess of $85,000 and couples with more than $170,000 in earnings would have their COLAs completely cut out beginning in December 2018

•Johnson's legislation would begin phasing out the taxation of Social Security benefits beginning in 2045 and ending by 2054. Currently, Social Security taxes a percentage of benefits if an individual earns more than $25,000 annually, or a couple earns more than $32,000.

•The bill would place a cap on the benefit amount for spouses and children of higher-earning retired and disabled individuals.

•It would eliminate the retirement earnings test, which applies only to people receiving benefits before hitting their full retirement age (FRA). In 2017, the Social Security Administration can withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 in wages earned above $16,920, and $1 in benefits for every $3 in wages earned above $44,880 if you'll hit your FRA in 2017 and are already receiving benefits. The earnings test would disappear by 2023, giving elderly working Americans the ability to double-dip with their wages and Social Security benefits.

•Finally, Johnson's legislation would raise the minimum benefit available to people who worked throughout their lifetime but failed to earn a lot.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/9243d0b9-5408-30e4-9827-d50b329e21a7/surprise!-republicans-just.html

The article posted high lights of the legislation. The only benefit for us, my wife and me would be the phase out  taxing our soc. sec. in 2054. I don't think I'll live to 113 to get that benefit. Meanwhile some of that seems to favor low income and penalize high earners. Is that a bad thing?


----------

