Assumptions on social security benefit cuts

[lostnfound]

As the “third rail” of US politics, it presumably was untouchable. But that was before the creatures from the black lagoon took over. So what will the bank of the greedy old perverts / misfit techbros want to do?

Project 2025 was even reluctant to write it down.

This is notable since Project 2025’s 900-page Mandate for Leadership fails to propose any solutions for Social Security and says, on page 710, that its proposals for the program could not be “covered here in depth.” Notably, that line was co-authored by economist Stephen Moore, who has advocated to slash and privatize Social Security, once calling it a “Ponzi scheme” and encouraging students to burn their Social Security cards. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, has also gone on record to say the Mandate for Leadership manifesto is just the basis of their plan and “there are parts of the plan that we will not share with the left.” Last month, his organization called for raising the retirement age, and the author of that analysis, Rachel Greszler, is listed as a Project 2025 contributor.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/raising-the-retirement-age-for-social-security-would-cut-benefits-by-thousands-of-dollars-each-year/

Since i am eyeing retirement in terms of months not years, and partner is starting his benefits in a couple of months, I can’t afford optimism. And the vicious tax changes inflicted on blue states in the first Trump administration easily cost me over $200,000 due to the impact of SALT tax caps and its effect on housing values in my old high-tax state. An engineer by training, I was at the height of my career and in its final years when the GOP did that. They didn’t care because blue-states’ educated middle and lower-upper class were not on a list that the GOP cared about.

So now what? I’m expected that they will:
1. Raise retirement age by at least 2 years, with more planned
2. Get rid of benefits to offspring or widows
3. Get rid of ability to file on ex-spouse’s record, or reduce it to poverty level
4. Cap monthly benefits much lower, and/or reduce benefits based on if you have 401K savings.
5. Convert most of what is left into private accounts
6. Hand off the whole program to private company to oversee, claiming ‘efficiency’.
They already have proposed a plan to postpone retirement by 6 months in order to fund time off for maternity leave (per child).

When it comes to #4, the reason i think they may cap benefits is to further differentiate between their supposed MAGA base and the professional class that earned and expected as much as $4,000 per month, or even $5,000 per month for those who wait to age 70. The MAGA base doesn’t worry their tiny tiny heads with ‘fairness’.

Similarly in Florida, they’re handing out $10s of thousands of dollars to “homeschooling families” for use in a wide variety of expenses, and favored treatment for clean-energy tax breaks based on family size, but childless single catladies are disadvantaged.

What do you think?

[Omnipresent]

1. They probably won't cut benefits, but they will most likely raise the retirement age.

That way current retirees won’t vote them out.
The saying will be, “If you’re under 62, you’re screwed”.

[anciano]

2. Although any of those items

are within the realm of possibility, due to the disarray and infighting within the Repub party I really don't expect any significant changes before the midterm elections when we will almost assuredly win back the House. JMHO.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. From the day Reagan proposed IRAs, I knew this day would come.

SS was to help with rent, heat, food, in old age. Medicare added medical care. I really don't know if it originally, when enacted, was supposed to be a sort of annuity. It doesn't help the poor very much.

I agree with the OP: means-testing and survivorship will be on the table.

Social Security Advantage Plan will include the largest private investment companies. How long can we tease 16% a year out of index investing?

It was supposed to be contributions and the working supporting old age. It tied the generations together, politically and economically. COLAs added immediate payout increases that current workers paid for. There is a little tug of war now between young workers, old workers, and retired ones.

Privatizing it won't fix anything. It will reward Republican businesses and constituents: investment banks, mutual fund companies, financial planners. They can skim 1/3 of investment earnings over your life span in the form of fees.

Expect a battle, but as sure as insurers and corporate medicine feed off Medicare, MBAs and hedge funds will feed off Social Security.

[Silent Type]

6. Might not change point, but IRA's were approved during Ford's admin. Employee Ret Income Security Act (ERISA) 1974.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Until Reagan's IRAs, only workers without pensions could contribute to their own retirement account

With Reagan, IRA's became universal for anyone with taxable income, and they were tax deductible for most workers, though the value of the deduction was phased out for high income earners.

[Silent Type]

4. It'll take Congress to do that. With mid-terms coming it, I'm skeptical any of that will happen.

A small increase in age is likely, though.

[spooky3]

5. Just wait until you have to pay IRMAA on Medicare.

The brackets are ridiculously unfair—people who make about $180k in retirement pay the same high premium as those making about $500k. And none of this is adjusted for variations in the cost of living across the country.

[The Madcap]

8. Maybe I should stay

In hiding in my sort of red state...At least I should be out of the crosshairs for a while. I'm also near retirement and don't want to see reductions in the benefit, especially with the upcoming inflation due to their deportation plans.

[Wiz Imp]

9. Probably pretty accurate List. And you have them in a likely order by likelihood of happening as well.

I do think the privatizing part would be the hardest part for them to accomplish. Raising the retirement age is all but guaranteed as it won't face as much political blowback as it should because it won't impact current recipients.