Sweeping Social Security changes for women, caregivers and same-sex couples proposed

[eridani]

National Coalition Urges Congress to Consider Sweeping Social Security Proposals for Women, Caregivers and Same-Sex Couples

"The truth is -- as our nation ages and retirement income continues to decline for millions of Americans" Congress should be talking about the adequacy of Social Security’s benefits not cutting them. Congress should examine the inequities that have created a poverty rate for senior women and widows that is 50% higher than other retirees 65 and older. We can break this Social Security glass ceiling…in fact, we must do so to preserve the economic security of generations of American women and their families.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation, the National Organization for Women Foundation and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research briefed Congressional staff today on their research examining the challenges facing America ’s elderly women and their families. Their report, Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling also proposes initiatives to ensure Social Security benefits are adequate for all Americans, particularly for women and women of color.

“Our proposals are designed to modernize the Social Security system and recognize particularly the changes that have occurred in women's lives and in family life, so that women will be rewarded more fairly for the full value of the work they do, both in the labor market and in raising the next generation. We can strengthen the Social Security system to address the gender gap in retirement that reveals many more older women in poverty than older men, while still addressing the financial needs of the program.” Dr. Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy Research President

“If implemented, the recommendations we make in 'Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling' will go a long way toward creating a retirement and disability insurance program that recognizes the new reality of working women and men and values women's role in society as both breadwinners and primary caregivers. Crediting women's years out of the paid labor force is a long overdue feature that NOW strongly supports and urges lawmakers to support as well.” Terry O’Neill, NOW Foundation President

Here are just some of the recommendations in this groundbreaking report:

---Improving Survivor Benefits. Women living alone often are forced into poverty because of benefit reductions stemming from the death of a spouse. Providing a widow or widower with 75 percent of the couple's combined benefit treats one-earner and two-earner couples more fairly and reduces the likelihood of leaving the survivor in poverty.

---Providing Social Security Credits for Caregivers. We recommend imputed earnings for up to five family service years be granted to a worker who leaves or reduces his/her participation in the work force to provide care to children under the age of six or to elderly family members.

---Equal Benefits for Same-Sex Married Couples and Partners. Gay and lesbian same-sex couples, whether married or not, are denied a host of benefits under state and federal law that are routinely provided to heterosexual married couples. Social Security benefits should not be denied to qualified retirees because of their sexual orientation.

---Restoring Student Benefits. Social Security pays benefits to children until age 18, or 19 if they are still attending high school, if a working parent has died, become disabled or retired. In the past, those benefits continued until age 22 if the child was a full-time student in college or a vocational school. Congress ended post-secondary students’ benefits in 1981 which has disproportionately hurt children of parents in blue-collar jobs, African Americans, and lower income students.

“Social Security is a vital lifeline for all Americans, especially women and people of color. When you consider that Social Security provides 90% of seniors’ income for 58% of unmarried women of color, 53% of Hispanics and 47% of African Americans it’s hard to understand why benefit cuts are always the first answer for fiscal hawks hoping to use Social Security for deficit reduction. Building on what works, ‘Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling’ offers a modernization plan for Social Security that would strengthen benefits for women and their families while improving the equity and adequacy for generations of Americans.” Dr. Carroll Estes, NPCSSM Foundation Board Chair

While some suggest we can’t afford to provide even current level benefits to America ’s retirees, disabled and their families, we disagree. In fact, we believe our nation can’t afford not to provide fair and adequate benefits for future generations of working Americans. A number of funding options are included in this research, including:

---Eliminate the Cap on Social Security Payroll Contributions.
---Slowly Increase the Contribution Rate by 1/40th of One Percent over 20 years.
---Treat all Salary Reduction Plans like 401K’s.

Together, these proposals provide revenue increases equal to 3.99% of taxable payroll. They would close the actuarial deficit (2.67% of payroll) while also funding the modest program improvements recommended.

The full report, “Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling”, is available online at: http://www.ncpssmfoundation.org/breaking_ss_glass_ceiling.pdf.

You can watch the entire briefing on CSpan at: http://www.c-span.org/Events/NCPSSM-Releases-Report-on-Women-and-Social-Security/10737430628-1/

###

The National Committee, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization acts in the interests of its membership through advocacy, education, services, grassroots efforts and the leadership of the Board of Directors and professional staff. The work of the National Committee is directed toward developing better-informed citizens and voters.

Media Inquiries to:
Pamela Causey 202-216-8378/202-236-2123/ Kim Wright 202-216-8414


Kim Wright
Assistant Director of Communications
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
[phone] (o)
[phone] (fax)
http://www.ncpssm.org
http://www.entitledtoknow.org

[Autumn]

1. Sounds like good policies to implement

DU rec

[northoftheborder]

2. some really good ideas. hopefully, they will at least be considered.

[danbeee46]

3. Uh uh

With all due respect, as long as the GOP controls the House and as long as the Senate filibuster rules remain, these proposals don't stand a chance in hell of even being considered, let alone passed.

[eridani]

4. Which amounts to a huge motivation for me to change that n/t

[freshwest]

6. +1,000. Giving in to the GOP by not voting is voting for misery.

[limpyhobbler]

16. I agree with that but will just add that it also matters what kind of Democrats we elect.

If we have 61 Dems in the Senate but two of them side with the gop to block progress, that still sucks. Or if one or two Dems side with the gop to kill something in a committee. Like say the Finance Committee or something.

Primary season is just as important as the general election. Got to pin down candidates positions on these issues. Kind of how Norquist does on the gop side, makes all the gop candidates sign anti-tax pledges.

[RB TexLa]

5. If you stop spending money and save half your income, invested not even aggressively

you won't even think about what Social Security pays when you retire.

[Scuba]

7. Hard to do when your full time job pays you below the poverty line.

[varelse]

10. Many California residents pay more than 1/3 of their income on rent

That would make saving half of of their income somewhat difficult. It's not an option for everyone, or even the majority of Americans now.

And what about all of the millenials who are paying off massive student debt while working retail?

[limpyhobbler]

14. I don't know anybody who can do that. Everybody is struggling to make it to the next paycheck.

If they are lucky enough to even have a job.

[cheapdate]

15. That may be,

but I've got twelve dollars left in the bank until my next payday, and I consider this an achievement. We've cut expenses until there's little left to cut. I'm aware of how interest works and I'd love to have Charles Schwabb manage my retirement investment portfolio like the dapper looking citizens in the commercials on teevee.

Saving half my income isn't a realistic possibility while maintaining a semblance of a normal life with a wife and two kids. If I could save enough money for a new set of tires for my 1985 Nissan pickup, that would be an achievement.

Social security was good to my grandparents, and its working out for my parents as well. I've paid a lot of money into social security and I expect it to be there when I retire.

[Cass]

19. Save half your income?? Really? That is impossible for most people. nt

[Matariki]

20. You don't understand how the majority of people live, do you?

plenty of folks have trouble saying *anything* - and not because they're 'spending money' on non-necessities.

[etherealtruth]

21. That's an opinion, alright

I suppose an opinion would also be that we should all be born into great wealth and then ss wouldn't be a concern

What is that saying about opinions .... it ends "we all have one"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Yeah, I hear a lot of especially affluent people say that

They're of the same ilk as the Ivy League students who, upon hearing that I was worried about not getting a fellowship to do research in Japan, said, "Why don't you just go?"

[lunatica]

27. Stop spending money on what?

Mortgages and Home Owners Association dues and State property taxes that eat the majority of your income? Food? Gas for the car? Car insurance? Or just eliminate the car altogether? Clothes and shoes for the kids who are outgrowing what they already have?

Fucking hilarious.

[annabanana]

35. really dear

You've been here long enough to know better than to post like that.....

[RB TexLa]

36. Dear???? There is no reason to use a sexist term toward me. Using a racist or sexist term toward

someone is uncalled for.

[FogerRox]

41. Yeah... Okey dokey.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Dude, my RENT is almost half my income.

Seriously. And I live with roommates.

Looks like the Romneys aren't the only ones out of touch with working class America.

[CreekDog]

61. ...said Mitt Romney to the homeless man

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. These are excellent ideas, and they need to be shouted from the rooftops.

Let's work like crazy to make sure we have a Democratic Congress that will give these ideas a chance.

[Auntie Bush]

9. Ken Wright has some might fine ideas.

Some of those ideas I had thought of and wished we had. Women get screwed...as usual.

[varelse]

11. K&R

[vaberella]

12. Is all this retroactive? For instance the survivor benefits. n/t

[eridani]

17. If people advocating that are loud and visible during the process of negotiating the details--

--that's possible.

[unkachuck]

13. K&R....n/t

[FogerRox]

18. Eliminating the cap creates the first 16k monthly benefits check

[eridani]

22. Nope. There is a cap on benefits now

Initial benefit calculations are skewed toward low income earners now, and would be skewed moreso with the selected enhancements. They are now capped at $32K/year, a cap which would be replaced by an upward trending limit line with a pretty small slope.

What we can't do is tell people who put a lot in that they can't get anything out.

[FogerRox]

23. There is no benefit cap, that max of you cite is based on payments

Payments are capped at 110k.

Social Security benefits are typically computed using "average indexed monthly earnings." This average summarizes up to 35 years of a worker's indexed earnings
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/Benefits.html

110k represents about the 83 percentile, historically that cap has been at 90%, and has been adjusted before- back to 90%. Congress raised the cap from 107k last year to 110k this year. Meaning ones AIME isnt increased much.

[eridani]

25. There most assuredly is a benefit cap

Maximum payout is $30,156/year.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. And you know what, I'd be willing to raise the benefit cap

as the price for raising the assessment cap.

[Mariana]

29. There's no need.

The legislation could easily include an actual maximum benefit. All these formulas to calculate benefits are subject to change. There's no requirement to allow infinitely high benefits for the super-rich.

[FogerRox]

32. just by raising the cap from 106,800 to 110k this year

isnt that an increase in the benefit? In fact that was the first COLA adjustment since 2009
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/2012cola-pr.html

in 2008 the cap was 102k, rising to 106,800 in 2009 where it has stayed untill 2012, now at 110k.

I am not in favor of capping benefits, that constitutes a means test. I am in favor of adjusting the cap to 90%, as it has been adjusted before, currently at 83%, that would represent a significant increase in benefits, as the AIME formula is currently constituted.

And lets note that the Trustees tell us the Low cost scenario says SS is fine thru 2090. ALowing for some job creation, moderate GDP growth of 2.8%+, workforce growth of .5% or better.

Fixing the economy fixes SS finances....

Now.... lets talk about raising women of retirement age out of poverty with SS.

[FogerRox]

31. "This figure is based on earnings" from the link you provided.

Yes, the maximum payout is $30,156/year, but that is strictly based on earnings, which are capped @ 110k for 2012.

The formula for computing the benefit, is based on the AIME, as previously described.

Here is a description of how to compute benefits
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html

There is no cap on benefits, there is a cap on earnings, which are used to compute benefits. Since the cap on earnings was 106,800k last year and is 110k this year, that extra 2.8k will be plugged into the formula to compute benefits- as described in this announcement

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/2012cola-pr.html

[eridani]

33. The cap on earnings leads to a de facto cap on benefits

The way to deal with no cap on earnings is to impose a slope with a very small value at the top leves of income, so that initial benefits calculations grow more slowly at the higher levels.

[FogerRox]

38. The cap on earnings leads to a de facto max benefit

There we go.

Legally there is no cap on benefits, though capped earnings/income in effect create a max benefit.


And I like your slope idea better that a real benefit cap, it appears to avoid the dreaded means test. But for now, it would be good to see the income cap raised from the current 83%, to the historical normal 90%, this would amount to about a 5k increase in benefits.

[eridani]

49. That would certainly be a good first step n/t

[FogerRox]

56. I should say a 5k increase for those who get the max benefit,

& just a rough guess, the 5k. Based on this years COLA increase of 3.6% about a grand.

[Mariana]

28. So write the legislation to include a maximum monthly benefit.

It's not that complicated.

[FogerRox]

40. If we cap benefits, we introduce a means test, administratively making SS welfare

Eliminating one of the political strengths of the original 1935 law.

[eridani]

46. It's only welfare if you refuse any payouts to those at the top

Initial benefits calculation is skewed to faver lower incomes now, and there is noting wrong with skewing it further. However, how could we dare tell anyone who pays in that they get NOTHING out?

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Raising survivor benefits has to be balanced out by cutting elsewhere.

In this case, by cutting benefits to the worker who earned them.

[eridani]

34. Not if you Scrap the Cap n/t

[FogerRox]

39. Absolutely untrue

Job creation, GDP growth of 2.8% or more, and wage growth are cited in the Trustees low cost scenario, where SS is good thru 2090. The current income cap is 110k, about the 83rd percentile, historically that cap has been at 90%. If we adjusted the cap to 90% that would be in effect a COLA benefit increase of about $5,000 per year .

There is a chart I used that is from the CBO SS projections of 2011 that shows different ways we can pay for increased benefits.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/53

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Nothing you said negated anything I said.

Increasing the survivors benefit decreases the money available for retirees, regardless of where the cap is set.

Ideas #2 and #3 are good. Ideas #1 and #4 are not.

[FogerRox]

45. Since benefits are computed by an earnings formula (AIME)

If we raise the cap like we did last year, from 106,800 to 110k, that automatically increases the max benefit by 3.6%.

The way the benefits are raised is to raise the earnings/income cap.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. the max benefit is immaterial to this topic.

Raising the survivors benefit would be paid for by short changing the retiree.

[eridani]

48. You don't have to cut if you increase or scrap the cap

That would raise more money than the survivors benefit would cost.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Why not give that money to retirees?

Increase workers benefits with it.

[eridani]

52. You mean raising kids and taking care of sick elders is not work?

I don't think so!

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. It's not employment, no.

I don't get SS credit for mowing the lawn either.

[eridani]

54. That is utterly trivial compared to the actual work of raising kids

Post #42. Good provision. Especially the care providers issue. I took care of my daughter for 45 years saving the government a great deal of money. Today I get $265 social security. It was not just that I did not have good pay though - most of that time I worked low income jobs part time while she was in day care or school and for some reason it did not count toward ss. I think it was because it never added up to enough.

Today I live in poverty because I did the right thing then. I do not want to see future care providers end up the same way.

Explain why jwirr deserves to be treated like disposable human garbage, if you can.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. You're confused.

"Care provider" in this context are people reimbursed by the state to care for the disabled. The care they provided precluded them from working in a 9-5 sense. Providing improved funding for care providers is a good idea.

It doesn't mean raising kids, and like Ann Romney, kids shouldn't be a "get out of work card" in perpetuity. If you choose to not work, then you choose to forgo most Social Security benefits. The reward for outliving someone who actually did pay into the system is currently adequate.

Unlike my kids, my lawn never grows up and moves away.

[eridani]

57. $265/month is not adequate, and puts you into the disposable human garbage category

There are 999 people like jwirr for every Ann Romney. People like her rarely apply for Social Security anyway, because you have to do it yourself. You can't send a maid to pick a number and sit in the waiting room. At a certain level of wealth, it's more trouble than it's worth.

Raising kids is work--which Rmoney farmed out to maids and nannies. Most mothers can't do that, and many would wind up in the hole after child care costs and work-related expenses. The kids they take care of grow up to pay into the system themselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. It is certainly not enough for the work jwirr did.

The SS benefit for those who worked as care providers should be raised.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who, by conscious choice, didn't work.

How much benefit should go to those who paid nothing into the system - the survivor's benefit? If the family made so much income during the husbands working career that she didn't need to work, then they should have adequate resources for her to live on now that he's dead.

Please stop conflating the two issues.

[eridani]

59. Look--most women who take time out for kids are not Ann Romney

For those who are more affluent, their benefit should tail off at higher income levels.

Lower income women are almost always in the work force before and after the times of most intense effort in child-rearing, and their choice not to work outside the home when the kids need the most care is almost always a matter of not being able to earn enough to cover child care and work expenses. Since when is work supposed to result in negative earnings?

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Women who worked have their own SS earnings history.

They don't need to rely upon survivors benefit.

Look, if you mean to say that women workers should get more money than men workers, just say it.

[eridani]

65. What I mean is that caring for kids and managing households is WORK

Work that women are supposed to do for free. Work that men would have to pay someone to do if their wives didn't do it. Work that Ann Rmoney and her ilk pay other people to do. Taking time out of the paid labor force to do this work has a big negative impact on their SS earnings history, and that needs to be corrected.

[CreekDog]

62. it's always a zero sum game for you Jeff

always thinking that if something looks like it will help a woman, that it will hurt a man.

that's not a progressive way to think.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Inventing money isn't a very rational way to think.

The pie is finite. Increasing benefits to people with no work history must come at the expense of short changing those who worked. Math isn't that hard.

I think that the lions share of retirement benefits should go to retirees.

[CreekDog]

64. inventing money is what capitalism is all about

i mean why don't we have the same amount of money as we did in 1776?



when your belief in men's rights ends up getting you to want to charge women more for health insurance than men, then you aren't subscribing to liberal politics, you're helping a hate group.

[annabanana]

37. These very good ideas will NOT be broadcast. So we must

pass the words along.

kick/rec/tweet/face

[jwirr]

42. Good provision. Especially the care providers issue. I took care of my daughter for 45 years saving

the government a great deal of money. Today I get $265 social security. It was not just that I did not have good pay though - most of that time I worked low income jobs part time while she was in day care or school and for some reason it did not count toward ss. I think it was because it never added up to enough.

Today I live in poverty because I did the right thing then. I do not want to see future care providers end up the same way.

[librechik]

50. Excellent--all good ideas