Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does this really need to be explained on a liberal dem discussion site? yep. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)107. Carter was the last Democratic President to lower Social Security benefits.
<...>
The Solution: Wage Indexing
By 1976, the need for substantial revisions in the Social Security program and its financing was overwhelmingly clear.(19) In June, the Ford Administration submitted to Congress a proposal to create a new method for determining initial benefits(20) based on an approach called "wage indexing," a method which adjusts a worker's wages to reflect economy-wide changes in wages over his or her lifetime.'' Hearings were held on this proposal, but Congress adjourned for the upcoming Presidential elections before completing a full review.
The new administration of President Carter sent its proposals to Congress in May 1977. Its package included the same "wage indexing" solution proposed by the Ford Administration as well as many new tax and financing proposals.
Despite the two Administrations' support for wage indexing, Congress examined numerous alternative proposals!! in a lengthy series of hearings. Ultimately, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation replacing the flawed 1972 method with a wage indexing method, and President Carter signed these new Social Security amendments into law on December 20, 1977.
These new amendments preserved the way that benefits were adjusted for inflation for those already on the rollsCin other words, existing beneficiaries continued to receive annual increases (COLAs) based on the percentage increase in the CPI. The way initial benefits were calculated. however, was completely revised.
Under the old law, a person's initial benefit was determined by averaging the actual wages he or she earned (in "covered" jobs) over a period roughly equivalent to a working lifetime. A benefit table was then used to determine the basic amount payable.
But since earnings levels in the economy tend to increase each year, initial benefits tended to creep up as the worker's average earnings rose. In addition, these benefits were also "price-indexed" -adjusted for inflation - since the figures in the table rose by the percentage increase in the CPI.
Fixed Formula Introduces Wage Indexing
Thus the old law generated, under some economic conditions, inflated initial benefits by linking, or "coupling," the effect of both wage and price increases. The 1977 legislation "de-coupled"
23) those two elements, substituting a fixed formula for determining initial benefits: (24)
to reflect the growth of wages in the economy Cin other words, past wages would be translated into their equivalent in current wage levels.(25)
By adopting this new method, Congress purposely lowered initial benefits to offset the unintended increases that would have occurred as a result of the flawed 1972 method. However, it protected anyone who reached eligibility age prior to 1979Cthat is, anyone born before January 2, 1917 Cby "grandfathering" them under the old law. This protected people already on the benefit rolls as well as those who could have retired in 1978 or earlier but continued working. For those who continued working, the initial benefit calculations resulting from this grandfathering proved especially generous.
Thus a worker retiring under the new law would generally receive lower benefits than a worker I retiring under the old law, which was the intent of Congress. To minimize the abruptness of this change, however, Congress created a special five-year "transitional method" for people who would become eligible for benefits beginning in 1979.(26) In other words, those born between 1917-21 would I be the first to have their benefits calculated under the new law. This "transitional method" was designed to ease their transition to the new, lower level of benefits.
The transitional method was identical to the old method except (1) earnings after age 61 could not be used in figuring benefits, and (2) after 1978, no inflation adjustments would be made until age 62.(27) Individuals eligible for the transitional method would have their benefits computed under the new law method if it produced higher benefits.
The transitional method did not alterCnor was it intended to alterCthe fact that people born after January 1, 1917 would receive, with few exceptions, lower benefits than those born prior to that year. That was the purpose of the 1977 law.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html
The Solution: Wage Indexing
By 1976, the need for substantial revisions in the Social Security program and its financing was overwhelmingly clear.(19) In June, the Ford Administration submitted to Congress a proposal to create a new method for determining initial benefits(20) based on an approach called "wage indexing," a method which adjusts a worker's wages to reflect economy-wide changes in wages over his or her lifetime.'' Hearings were held on this proposal, but Congress adjourned for the upcoming Presidential elections before completing a full review.
The new administration of President Carter sent its proposals to Congress in May 1977. Its package included the same "wage indexing" solution proposed by the Ford Administration as well as many new tax and financing proposals.
Despite the two Administrations' support for wage indexing, Congress examined numerous alternative proposals!! in a lengthy series of hearings. Ultimately, both the House and the Senate adopted legislation replacing the flawed 1972 method with a wage indexing method, and President Carter signed these new Social Security amendments into law on December 20, 1977.
These new amendments preserved the way that benefits were adjusted for inflation for those already on the rollsCin other words, existing beneficiaries continued to receive annual increases (COLAs) based on the percentage increase in the CPI. The way initial benefits were calculated. however, was completely revised.
Under the old law, a person's initial benefit was determined by averaging the actual wages he or she earned (in "covered" jobs) over a period roughly equivalent to a working lifetime. A benefit table was then used to determine the basic amount payable.
But since earnings levels in the economy tend to increase each year, initial benefits tended to creep up as the worker's average earnings rose. In addition, these benefits were also "price-indexed" -adjusted for inflation - since the figures in the table rose by the percentage increase in the CPI.
Fixed Formula Introduces Wage Indexing
Thus the old law generated, under some economic conditions, inflated initial benefits by linking, or "coupling," the effect of both wage and price increases. The 1977 legislation "de-coupled"
- 90 percent of the lowest range of average indexed monthly earnings, plus
- 32 percent of the mid range of such earnings, plus
- 15 percent of the highest range of such earnings (up to a maximum based on amount of earnings on which taxes are paid).
By adopting this new method, Congress purposely lowered initial benefits to offset the unintended increases that would have occurred as a result of the flawed 1972 method. However, it protected anyone who reached eligibility age prior to 1979Cthat is, anyone born before January 2, 1917 Cby "grandfathering" them under the old law. This protected people already on the benefit rolls as well as those who could have retired in 1978 or earlier but continued working. For those who continued working, the initial benefit calculations resulting from this grandfathering proved especially generous.
Thus a worker retiring under the new law would generally receive lower benefits than a worker I retiring under the old law, which was the intent of Congress. To minimize the abruptness of this change, however, Congress created a special five-year "transitional method" for people who would become eligible for benefits beginning in 1979.(26) In other words, those born between 1917-21 would I be the first to have their benefits calculated under the new law. This "transitional method" was designed to ease their transition to the new, lower level of benefits.
The transitional method was identical to the old method except (1) earnings after age 61 could not be used in figuring benefits, and (2) after 1978, no inflation adjustments would be made until age 62.(27) Individuals eligible for the transitional method would have their benefits computed under the new law method if it produced higher benefits.
The transitional method did not alterCnor was it intended to alterCthe fact that people born after January 1, 1917 would receive, with few exceptions, lower benefits than those born prior to that year. That was the purpose of the 1977 law.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html
Reagan's legacy was a tax on Social Security Benefits, which Clinton expanded.
<...>
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
316 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Does this really need to be explained on a liberal dem discussion site? yep. [View all]
cali
Feb 2014
OP
Horseshit. No one has said Obama has cut SS. Plenty of people have said he has offered it up
Autumn
Feb 2014
#12
My Husband gets his just like clockwork. Never fails, it just shows up like magic.
Autumn
Feb 2014
#134
I bet Cali_Democrat is confusing SSI disability checks with Social Security retirement checks.
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#142
But those checks could be stopped if the SSI people decided the disability no longer applied,
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#167
I think it was an honest mistake, since both payments are made by the Social Security administration
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#170
Are you confusing SSI disability payments --which can be stopped if someone's disability improves --
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#141
Obama can't unilaterally increase the COLA adjustment, which was set by Congress.
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#238
When they become absurd, I smell desperation. They have no rational arguments so they
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#85
I'm beginning to observe a certain level of irrational thought processeses in play..
2banon
Feb 2014
#272
I didnt get it to mean that SS was dead, but that having a Democratic president offer it up
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#291
And a hearty good morning to yourself. I have no delusion that we will defeat the giant, but
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#303
Do you have a link for that? I'm not aware of any Obama-decreed cuts to Social Security. nt
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#138
There isn't a cut on the list and all the figures are the result of laws passed by Congress.
pnwmom
Feb 2014
#237
You do know he never offered it right? I can't see why the White House says it's off the table now.
Autumn
Feb 2014
#74
no kidding why do u think he did it. it's for that reason, pave the way,make it easier for the
leftyohiolib
Feb 2014
#10
It was annoying when Kucinich would play politics, too. It lends these charlatans
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2014
#18
+10000 Not only that, the threats were used to implement real austerity.
woo me with science
Feb 2014
#19
thank you so much for that post- though of course it will be ignored by the adoring fans
cali
Feb 2014
#21
You clearly misunderstand. Looks like she likes Democrats just fine. But conservatives, not so much.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#83
Conservatives want to privatize Social Security. You call yourself a conservative, does
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#296
If this were the "President's plan"... he wouldn't have withdrawn it
ConservativeDemocrat
Feb 2014
#309
And once again you use insults to try to hide that you are not committing yourself.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#310
Every Democrat, every American, should be sick of the constant Third Way implication
KoKo
Feb 2014
#87
You're kidding yourself if you think this OP and their dwindling fans will stop
Number23
Feb 2014
#293
IMHO, the disconnect comes from President Obama being exactly what he is cali.
fleabiscuit
Feb 2014
#66
Even if he did withdraw the proposal, it should never have been on the table in the first place
eridani
Feb 2014
#219
Social Security is too critical to EVER be used that way by a Democrat, period. n/t
eridani
Feb 2014
#297
You must lack reading comprehension skills. Chained CPI is STILL on the table.
djean111
Feb 2014
#55
No offense, but unless you are actually OBAMA, you are in no position to say definitively
djean111
Feb 2014
#65
it's still on the table. he didn't foreswear future cuts and sign in blood
Pretzel_Warrior
Feb 2014
#149
And your outrage lands on what others have to say. How easy to never commit oneself.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#304
You have a lot of fucking nerve calling someone a liar. Get the fuck over yourself. n/t
ProSense
Feb 2014
#254
Yep. Kinda like being grateful that your spouse didn't poison your coffee after all.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2014
#69
Yep. Kinda like being grateful that your spouse didn't poison your coffee after all.
djean111
Feb 2014
#71
I'm glad the President has decided not to put chained CPI in his budget this year.
stage left
Feb 2014
#73
Right! Now it will always be on the table. The pukes will always be shooting for it. It used to
Ed Suspicious
Feb 2014
#80
thanks for an excellent post…one of the ones that help make sense of
BlancheSplanchnik
Feb 2014
#202
Once a dem put it on the table, it will be put on the table again until they take the cleaver to it.
CrispyQ
Feb 2014
#122
they couldn't describe any detail while they were having a case of the vapors
Skittles
Feb 2014
#186
LOL, so when Obama does something right we should praise him, but when he does something wrong....
Logical
Feb 2014
#185
+1,000. BHO legitimized hacking away at Social Security and the Safety Net, DEM & GOP alike.
blkmusclmachine
Feb 2014
#177
Now, now Cali, if you aren't grateful the budget doesn't include the misguided and stupid policy
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#195
thank you for explaining this. As preposterous as it may seem - some people here genuinely
Douglas Carpenter
Feb 2014
#206
Repetition is key. It makes the idea mainstream and makes eventual cuts inevitable.
jsr
Feb 2014
#211
"EXACTLY" The mainstream media and the pundits of the "sensible center" have been pushing
Douglas Carpenter
Feb 2014
#213
then he shouldn't have proposed cuts to Social Security benefits in next years budget and
Douglas Carpenter
Feb 2014
#222
I would only qualify that by specifying on economic issues the right-wing has achieved total victory
Douglas Carpenter
Feb 2014
#229
Thank you. It's unbelievable that anyone would even TRY to 'explain' why he has 'taken it off the
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#241
Are you saying Obama was lying?? Are you stating we should not believe him when he
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#243
Great post from Bvar as usual. I remember the last convoluted chess story re CPI
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#288
And don't forget that before we were presented with the latest explanation as to why
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#286