|
|
Welcome
|
|
Congressman Charlie Rangel (NY-15)
|
Good afternoon, and welcome to my first e-Town Hall meeting. I have been looking forward to discussing the important issue of Social Security with my constituents, and I am excited to take advantage of this unique opportunity and format to answer your questions and respond to your concerns. Social Security has dominated the airwaves and newspapers since the President first announced his proposal early this year to privatize the program. Social Security helps millions of seniors to live independent lives. In fact, Social Security is the single largest source of retirement income in the U.S. For almost two-thirds of seniors, Social Security provides the majority of their income. Currently, nearly 12 million seniors – almost half of all retirees – would be living in poverty were it not for Social Security. And Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits. The President’s proposals to privatize Social Security threaten the very fabric of this program that is so important to millions of Americans. Myself and other Democrats in Congress are fighting to protect your Social Security benefits from being subject to the risks of the stock market or from being dramatically slashed under the presidents sliding-scale benefit cut proposal. It is important for American workers to know what these proposals could do to the insurance that Social Security provides, and I thank you for participating in this e-Town Hall meeting. With that, let’s get to our first question.
|
|
Most organizations operate more efficiently when profit is the motive; wouldn't a privatized form of social security behave the same way?
Why are illegal aliens given access to social security numbers? I know of a real estate broker who stole a social security number to become a real estate broker and who has taken clients social security numbers and passed them to other illegal aliens. I have approached federal and state agencies to no avail. How long before these stolen identities fall into America's enemies hands?
Cong.Rangel, I would like to know why the govt. takes money from social security to pay for partB for medicare receivers. In addition, they also must pay a 110 dollar deductible before medicare pays for anything. Then most must have a secondary insurance to pay for what medicare doesn't pay. This is an awful lot of money to pay for people on fixed incomes. This may be partly the reason senior citizens are forced to not eat or eat cat or dog food. In a civilized country like America, we are doing a very poor job providing health care for our seniors. Any help you can give concerning this terrible situation, will be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in advance.
Wouldn't it be easier on the people if the administration just taxed all income instead of income up to $90,000 for Social Security instead of privatizing social security? It makes no sense to me that income over $90,000 does not apply for Social Security taxes. It seems to me that it would most likely fix the problem or at the very least the majority of the problem.
Do you think that all of this talk about Social Security is really a diversion from Medicare, which really is a much bigger issue as far as funding goes? PS I'm always really glad that you are my congressman.
I will be 50 at the end of the year and plan to retire at 55, will my Social Security be affected by then?
Why can't we just invest the trust fund a little more aggressively by experts so as to increase the return? Look at Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Yeshiva to see what can be done. T bills are safe but a poor investment.
I currently work for an airline. My pension was divided in two because I was under 50 years old. Now, I will only receive $62.00 a month from my pension in addition to what I receive from social security. The US government should not underfund pension funds. Why doesn't the government bill ex CEO's of corporations instead?
To me, the worst-case scenario of being able to invest part of your SS yourself is, of course, that you would make bad choices and come up at retirement time with far less than under the present system. What would the government's responsibility be, then, for those who had hurt themselves via their unfortunate investments but still needed money to live? For this reason I'm opposed to any change that would allow this to happen.
Why is there a cap on the amount of income that is taxed for Social Security? It seems that the quickest, easiest, and most fair solution to Social Security's future solvency problem is to remove the cap. Why do those who make the most pay less (as a percentage of total income) into the system if they benefit from it equally?
Tengo 25 anos y suponiendo que yo gane $50,000 al ano, ?Cual sera mi beneficio mensaul si el program que propone el presidente entra en effecto y cual sera el estimado de mi inversion cuando me retire a los 68 anos de edad?
I am a 25 years old and earn $ 50,000 a year. What will my monthly benefit be if the President's Social Security proposal is approved? What would my benefit be when I retire at the age of 68?
I am a retired Federal government employee. When reach 62, I can start receiving at a reduced amount social security payments. Because of changes in the law, my wife will not receive basically nothing. We were not high wage recipients. Will there be any prospective changes that will restore benefits to my wife? Our health care cost is eroding our retirement benefits. Will there be any kind of cap that would consider benefits being received by low income annuitants?
Please don't let them get away with this.
The primary purpose of Social Security as I see it, is to protect those who are most at risk of being paupers in their old age from the vagueries and personal disasters which strike individuals in a capitalist market economy such as the one which exists today in America. If the system of social security were left up to market forces and up to individual investors, this would defeat its real purpose, and in fact defeat social security itself. We should not wish, as a society, to leave our most needy citizens in the hands of the roulette table that is the financial market. This is no form of security as I understand the word. Instead, we should limit the benefits of social security only to those who require it. If those who have the means refuse to aid those who don't, then our society is indeed one of selfishness, conceit, and disdain for our fellow man. We cannot accept the pauperization of our elderly citizens and still claim to be a moral country.
Would you consider a separate private account in addition to Social Security for retirement purposes?
I am 62 and I want to assume that my SS is protected but how about my 17 year old daughter?
Please explain the ''Locked Box'' that Vice President Gore talked about in 2000. How does it relate to the Soc Sec reserved funds? Has the Bush adm. used these funds?
Why haven't I heard anything about breaking the intergenerational transfers responsible for Social Security financing? Republicans want ALL transfers ended; Democrats seem to want to keep the system as it is. But in my opinion, each birth-year cohort should pre-fund the SS system with its own payments - we can avoid the intergenerational transfers which are threatening the current system and we can avoid the risks associated with individualized accounts.
Why cant social security be tied in with Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the other real estate lending programs. Most poor people cannot afford a down payment on private housing. They should be able to borrow against social security to purchase their own home. The cost of real estate traditionally goes up. The social security will be propped by the value of the real estate. If the property is sold social security is the first to get paid of with interest.The home owner would get the balance. Just an idea for you to discuss. Thanks
Will the President's proposed changes affect those that are already receiving soc.security pensions or only future recipients? I do not agree with his proposals in any case.
Many opponents to Bush's SS reform believe that the proposed plan will be like investing in the stock market - with no guarantees. But, will there ever be a time when the federal government will collect less than it pays out in social security benefits?
Many opponents to Bush's SS reform believe that the proposed plan will be like investing in the stock market - with no guarantees. But, will there ever be a time when the federal government will collect less than it pays out in social security benefits?
Will the Presidents proposal of allowing for private investment of a portion of ones S.S. account be taxable in the form of Capital Gains income? If so is that a benefit or a liabilty?
I have been unable to work since 1998 due to multiple health issues. I paid into social security for 35 years but my claim for social security was denied. I now have an attorney representing me for an appeal. He tells me that it takes a year for the social security dept. to schedule an appeal. Since I have had no income since 1998, waiting a year for the appeal seems a bit extreme and cruel. Social Security should be reserved for those who have paid into it instead of dishing it out to many who have not. Any help you can give me to receive a quicker appeal date would be very much appreciated. It is very disturbing to have believed in and to have paid into the system for 35 years to then have the Social Security Dept. treat me as though I am a crook and a cheat. I am disabled, 56 years old, and in danger of losing my healthcare coverage.
Thank you
|
Most organizations operate more efficiently when profit is the motive; wouldn't a privatized form of social security behave the same way?
I agree that the profit motive generally works pretty well for organizations. But I'm worried that privatization puts the burden on individuals, whether or not they want or are able to take the time to become investment experts. Social Security has very low overhead – less than one cent of every dollar goes to overhead, the rest goes out in benefit checks.
|
Why are illegal aliens given access to social security numbers? I know of a real estate broker who stole a social security number to become a real estate broker and who has taken clients social security numbers and passed them to other illegal aliens. I have approached federal and state agencies to no avail. How long before these stolen identities fall into America's enemies hands?
Valid Social Security numbers are only issued to people who are legally in this country, and someone with a stolen Social Security number is in possession of just that: stolen property. Privacy and identity theft using Social Security numbers are one of the issues my Committee has examined, and will continue to monitor.
|
Cong.Rangel, I would like to know why the govt. takes money from social security to pay for partB for medicare receivers. In addition, they also must pay a 110 dollar deductible before medicare pays for anything. Then most must have a secondary insurance to pay for what medicare doesn't pay. This is an awful lot of money to pay for people on fixed incomes. This may be partly the reason senior citizens are forced to not eat or eat cat or dog food. In a civilized country like America, we are doing a very poor job providing health care for our seniors. Any help you can give concerning this terrible situation, will be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in advance.
These are real problems. And they show why it is all the more important to preserve Social Security benefits - the one thing that seniors can really count on. We must not privatize the system and leave seniors at the mercy of financial markets.
|
Wouldn't it be easier on the people if the administration just taxed all income instead of income up to $90,000 for Social Security instead of privatizing social security? It makes no sense to me that income over $90,000 does not apply for Social Security taxes. It seems to me that it would most likely fix the problem or at the very least the majority of the problem.
That's definitely something that a lot of people are talking about. And that limit doesn't apply to the Medicare portion of payroll taxes. But I doubt the President would accept it.
|
Do you think that all of this talk about Social Security is really a diversion from Medicare, which really is a much bigger issue as far as funding goes? PS I'm always really glad that you are my congressman.
Thanks, I appreciate your support. Yes, Medicare does have a bigger shortfall. And probably harder to fix without addressing the broader issue of rising health care costs in general. Some argue that Social Security is a first step to get some progress made before tackling Medicare. But I believe that Medicare is a greater priority.
|
I will be 50 at the end of the year and plan to retire at 55, will my Social Security be affected by then?
Well, you can't take Social Security until you're 62, even if you retire younger. If the President gets his way, you might be affected since he promises to protect only those who are 55 or older this year.
|
Why can't we just invest the trust fund a little more aggressively by experts so as to increase the return? Look at Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Yeshiva to see what can be done. T bills are safe but a poor investment.
That's an idea President Clinton proposed a few years ago. Republicans hated it then and still do. But it could really make a difference and a lot of people still recommend it.
|
I currently work for an airline. My pension was divided in two because I was under 50 years old. Now, I will only receive $62.00 a month from my pension in addition to what I receive from social security. The US government should not underfund pension funds. Why doesn't the government bill ex CEO's of corporations instead?
I'm sorry to hear about your pension. It's a shame when you work for decades and lose much of your pension while top executives lose little. That's one reason we have to keep fighting to protect Social Security. It's one pension that everyone can still count on.
|
To me, the worst-case scenario of being able to invest part of your SS yourself is, of course, that you would make bad choices and come up at retirement time with far less than under the present system. What would the government's responsibility be, then, for those who had hurt themselves via their unfortunate investments but still needed money to live? For this reason I'm opposed to any change that would allow this to happen.
You've hit on one of the real problems with privatization. I don't think the American people will put up with a big increase in senior poverty. If privatization doesn't work, we'll have to pay for it one way or another.
|
Why is there a cap on the amount of income that is taxed for Social Security? It seems that the quickest, easiest, and most fair solution to Social Security's future solvency problem is to remove the cap. Why do those who make the most pay less (as a percentage of total income) into the system if they benefit from it equally?
Again, changing the way income is taxed has been one of the many ideas that is floating around on both sides of the aisle to help future solvency problems. But, from what he has said in the past, I still doubt the President would accept it.
|
Tengo 25 anos y suponiendo que yo gane $50,000 al ano, ?Cual sera mi beneficio mensaul si el program que propone el presidente entra en effecto y cual sera el estimado de mi inversion cuando me retire a los 68 anos de edad?
Favor de visitar la página de Internet de la Congresista Nancy Pelosi, la Líder Demócrata en la Cámara de Representantes federal. En esta página ella ha creado una calculadora que computa el promedio de sus beneficios actuales del Seguro Social y cuánto su beneficios serán reducidos si la propuesta del Presidente Bush es implementada. Usted puede visitar esta calculadora en la siguiente dirección: http://democraticleader.house.gov/SScalc/indexsp.htm
|
I am a 25 years old and earn $ 50,000 a year. What will my monthly benefit be if the President's Social Security proposal is approved? What would my benefit be when I retire at the age of 68?
I urge you to visit the Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s website, where she has created a calculator that computes your average benefit under the Social Security program today, and how much your benefit would be reduced under President Bush’s plan. You can visit this calculator at http://democraticleader.house.gov/SScalc/index.html
|
I am a retired Federal government employee. When reach 62, I can start receiving at a reduced amount social security payments. Because of changes in the law, my wife will not receive basically nothing. We were not high wage recipients. Will there be any prospective changes that will restore benefits to my wife? Our health care cost is eroding our retirement benefits. Will there be any kind of cap that would consider benefits being received by low income annuitants?
The Government Pension Offset that affects spouses of government workers is one of the things Democrats will be looking at when we consider reform. Republicans have been pretty quiet about it though.
|
Please don't let them get away with this.
I'm going to keep trying hard to make sure they don't privatize Social Security. And if they do it anyway, we'll keep up the fight afterwards to make sure that Government is ultimately responsible for retirement security.
|
The primary purpose of Social Security as I see it, is to protect those who are most at risk of being paupers in their old age from the vagueries and personal disasters which strike individuals in a capitalist market economy such as the one which exists today in America. If the system of social security were left up to market forces and up to individual investors, this would defeat its real purpose, and in fact defeat social security itself. We should not wish, as a society, to leave our most needy citizens in the hands of the roulette table that is the financial market. This is no form of security as I understand the word. Instead, we should limit the benefits of social security only to those who require it. If those who have the means refuse to aid those who don't, then our society is indeed one of selfishness, conceit, and disdain for our fellow man. We cannot accept the pauperization of our elderly citizens and still claim to be a moral country.
Social Security is not, and should not become, an investment program to be dropped in the stock market as a group of investors may see fit; it is an insurance program that was created to protect working people in our society, and who earned that protection by contributing to the program through their working lives. That is one of the reasons why Social Security works so well, everyone who contributes gets that insurance. We are working hard to make sure Social Security stays strong to insure future workers as well. And thank you for joining me all the way from Japan.
|
Would you consider a separate private account in addition to Social Security for retirement purposes?
I think we already have accounts like that - IRAs, 401k's, etc. I do think we need to make it easier for more people to use them. That is definitely on the table in Congress.
|
I am 62 and I want to assume that my SS is protected but how about my 17 year old daughter?
I think your Social Security is fine. Even if we do nothing, Social Security will be able to pay nearly 80 percent of benefits your daughter has earned when she retires. That's probably better than what would happen under the President's plan. But I'm going to keep working to find a way to make sure we are able to pay all of her benefits.
|
Please explain the ''Locked Box'' that Vice President Gore talked about in 2000. How does it relate to the Soc Sec reserved funds? Has the Bush adm. used these funds?
The "lockbox" would have kept the government from spending each year's Social Security trust fund surplus. President Clinton was saving every penny of that surplus. President Bush said he would too, but then turned around and instead he has spent every penny for four years in a row.
|
Why haven't I heard anything about breaking the intergenerational transfers responsible for Social Security financing? Republicans want ALL transfers ended; Democrats seem to want to keep the system as it is. But in my opinion, each birth-year cohort should pre-fund the SS system with its own payments - we can avoid the intergenerational transfers which are threatening the current system and we can avoid the risks associated with individualized accounts.
We've been trying a version of pre-funding. We've been building up a Social Security surplus since 1983. It took a while to start saving all of that surplus. And once we got there, President Bush started spending it again. One problem with fully breaking the intergenerational link is that one generation winds up having to pay twice, for its parents retirement and its own.
|
Why cant social security be tied in with Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the other real estate lending programs. Most poor people cannot afford a down payment on private housing. They should be able to borrow against social security to purchase their own home. The cost of real estate traditionally goes up. The social security will be propped by the value of the real estate. If the property is sold social security is the first to get paid of with interest.The home owner would get the balance. Just an idea for you to discuss. Thanks
I think all Americans should have the opportunity to afford a home for themselves and their families, and I think we ought to strengthen Social Security – but we need to be careful to not mix them up too much. The last thing we would want is for someone to have to sell their home when they retire and need their Social Security money.
|
Will the President's proposed changes affect those that are already receiving soc.security pensions or only future recipients? I do not agree with his proposals in any case.
The President has promised that his proposal will only affect future benefits. I intend to hold him to that promise.
|
Many opponents to Bush's SS reform believe that the proposed plan will be like investing in the stock market - with no guarantees. But, will there ever be a time when the federal government will collect less than it pays out in social security benefits?
Yes, right now it looks like we'll collect less in taxes than we'll pay in benefits in about 15 years, with the trust fund reserves able to make up the difference for another 25-30 years after that. That's why Congress is looking at various ideas to strengthen the program and its funding.
|
Many opponents to Bush's SS reform believe that the proposed plan will be like investing in the stock market - with no guarantees. But, will there ever be a time when the federal government will collect less than it pays out in social security benefits?
Yes, right now it looks like we'll collect less in taxes than we'll pay in benefits in about 15 years, with the trust fund reserves able to make up the difference for another 25-30 years after that. That's why Congress is looking at various ideas to strengthen the program and its funding.
|
Will the Presidents proposal of allowing for private investment of a portion of ones S.S. account be taxable in the form of Capital Gains income? If so is that a benefit or a liabilty?
White House staff have said that they'll be taxable just like Social Security benefits. So it would be income tax rates rather than capital gains rates, so not everyone would have to pay, depending on their income. But who knows what Congress would wind up doing. Some plans propose tax-free accounts.
|
I have been unable to work since 1998 due to multiple health issues. I paid into social security for 35 years but my claim for social security was denied. I now have an attorney representing me for an appeal. He tells me that it takes a year for the social security dept. to schedule an appeal. Since I have had no income since 1998, waiting a year for the appeal seems a bit extreme and cruel. Social Security should be reserved for those who have paid into it instead of dishing it out to many who have not. Any help you can give me to receive a quicker appeal date would be very much appreciated. It is very disturbing to have believed in and to have paid into the system for 35 years to then have the Social Security Dept. treat me as though I am a crook and a cheat. I am disabled, 56 years old, and in danger of losing my healthcare coverage.
I understand your frustration with the disability claims process. It is notorious for its backlogs. Social Security is working on new computer systems to speed it up. But that doesn’t help people caught up in it now. The good news for you is many appeals do succeed and if you do, you will get retroactive benefits. My staff looked up your zip code and it looks like your Congresswoman is Barbara Lee. It’s usually better to work with your own Member of Congress, and I’ll let her know about your problem to see if she can help.
|
Thank you
Unfortunately, we have run out of time, so that’s the last question we can take during today’s e-Town Hall meeting. I hope you found this as informative as I did, and that you’ve taken away some important information about Social Security and how changes to the system could affect you. I am on my way to testify before the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, and I am excited to take your concerns about this issue with me. Thank you for participating, and I look forward to having you join me again at my next e-town hall. Have a great day.
|
|
|
