Merely “moderating benefit growth” to be based on CPI rather than average wage growth would, according to Cato and the 2023 SS trustees, alone solve close to 80% of the problem, yes?
If not, what percentage of the gap would this address?
Of all the changes, this seems the most straightforward and obvious.
"namely, maintain a benefit schedule that aligns with what worker contributions can actually fund. "
Or maintain a funding schedule to what workers were promised. Granted this is more difficult becasue lawmakers have retined the original structure of funding benefits from a wage tax which has numerous disadvantages starting with it not being a tax ON consumption to finance what IS consumption.
But both benefit and tax formulae are just that, formulae that can be changed. Althuugh it seems more reasonable to change taxes to account for demographic changes than changing benefits, neither should be sacrosanct.
The unwillingness to consider changes in funding levels or sources (wage vs VAT) renders the whole exercise of designing reform nonsensical.
I cannot tell for sure, but the very fact that you write about two-earner couples implies that you are suggesting that there should be a marriage penalty for higher income two-earner married couples.
What is the logic or morality behind having a marriage penalty on Social Security benefits?
Is that in fact what you are suggesting? If not, can you explain why the reference to two-earner couples at all?
Merely “moderating benefit growth” to be based on CPI rather than average wage growth would, according to Cato and the 2023 SS trustees, alone solve close to 80% of the problem, yes?
If not, what percentage of the gap would this address?
Of all the changes, this seems the most straightforward and obvious.
https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-benefits-are-growing-too-fast
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions_tr2022/summary.pdf
Of course, Democrat partisan demagogues would claim it is a cut in benefits, when it is just a sane reduction in the rate of growth of benefits.
"namely, maintain a benefit schedule that aligns with what worker contributions can actually fund. "
Or maintain a funding schedule to what workers were promised. Granted this is more difficult becasue lawmakers have retined the original structure of funding benefits from a wage tax which has numerous disadvantages starting with it not being a tax ON consumption to finance what IS consumption.
But both benefit and tax formulae are just that, formulae that can be changed. Althuugh it seems more reasonable to change taxes to account for demographic changes than changing benefits, neither should be sacrosanct.
The unwillingness to consider changes in funding levels or sources (wage vs VAT) renders the whole exercise of designing reform nonsensical.
I cannot tell for sure, but the very fact that you write about two-earner couples implies that you are suggesting that there should be a marriage penalty for higher income two-earner married couples.
What is the logic or morality behind having a marriage penalty on Social Security benefits?
Is that in fact what you are suggesting? If not, can you explain why the reference to two-earner couples at all?