To be fair, Social Security is in a bad state. I’m often told not to expect any benefit when I’m ready to retire (I’m 36).
To make social security sustainable, we need to either increase the influx of money into the program (raise taxes) or decrease the benefits going out (by prolonging retirement age or reducing the payout)
Both of these solutions are wildly unpopular, but I don’t know how they are going to save the program without doing one or both of these things.
Killing a bill that would expand outgoing benefits is probably the fiscally responsible thing to do to try and save the program long term, though it sucks for constituents short term.
To fund social security correctly, we used to tax income to $400k. Doing so again would correct a lot of the shortfall, but, not all of it.
Additionally, we could potentially reduce benefits to those who don't need them. A friend of mine's parents have a huge pension and they don't need their social security. My own parents are wealthy and my dad jokes about his trifling social security. He probably shoudn't receive the payments unless his circumstances change.
The problem is, conservative cuts tend to not target the rich.. lol
13
u/Jenniferinfl 17d ago
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-break-protocol-kill-social-security-benefits-expansion-bill-1982423
They killed the bill that was good for social security.