Locals in Tallahassee voice concerns over future of social security
Dozens gathered at The Moon for a town hall hosted by the Leon County Democrats to discuss the protection and future of social security. The event opened with a moment of silence in memory of Adner Marcelin, the late president of the Tallahassee NAACP.
Former Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O'Malley led the discussion on the future of social security, asserting that the Trump administration is spreading misinformation about the agency.
"They are gutting its ability to deliver customer service at the level that you deserve since you paid for that your whole life. The other thing that they started doing very, very quickly is trying to wreck the reputation of the agency in the eyes of the people" he said. The former governor of Maryland continued with a presentation entitled "Win Back Our Country."
Several local leaders joined the town hall including Leon County Commissioner Rick Minor, Leon County Democratic Party Chair Ryan Ray, Former Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho and Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Rep. Florida District 2 Yen Bailey.
The evening concluded with a Q&A session with community members voicing their concerns. One of the questions asked was "If I retire one day and I don't want or need my Social Security, can I cancel it or just let it go back in the pool?"
When asked how the younger generation can get more involved , O'Malley responded that they should take action, wait and realize that nothing is permanent.
The town hall concluded with attendees hugs and attendees shaking hands with O'Malley.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Locals in Tallahassee voice concerns over future of social security
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts
Social Security privatization would shift retirement funding from the government to individual Americans. Proponents of privatization believe it can lead to higher investment returns, thus providing retirees with more money in retirement. For some, the focus on personal responsibility is key. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade
Social Security is a lifeline for millions of Americans, but experts warn that the program faces serious financial challenges in the years ahead. Lawmakers are under growing pressure to act as the trust fund's reserves are projected to run short in the early 2030s, per Social Security trustees report. For You: Read Next: 'The most significant reforms that have been discussed for years include raising the full retirement age, modifying the payroll tax cap, adjusting the benefit formula, and revising the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA),' said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League. Below we dive into some of these possible social security changes. One of the most likely Social Security changes is raising the full retirement age, which is the age when Americans can claim full benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full retirement age is already set to rise to 67 for workers born after 1959, and several proposals would gradually increase it to 68, 69 or even 70 for future retirees. This move is seen as a way to account for longer life spans and to help shore up Social Security's finances. Check Out: However, raising the FRA would mean that many future retirees would have to wait longer to receive full benefits. 'Delaying full benefits would effectively reduce lifetime benefits for many retirees who claim benefits early, particularly those unable to continue working into their late 60s,' Benton explained. Another major reform under discussion is modifying or eliminating the payroll tax cap, which limits the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. According to Benton, only earnings up to $168,600 are currently taxed for Social Security, leaving higher earners' additional income untaxed. Proposals like Congressman John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act would apply payroll taxes to wages above $400,000, creating what's known as a 'donut hole.' This means income between the current taxable cap and $400,000 wouldn't be taxed for Social Security, but income above that threshold would. Over time, as the cap rises, this gap would close and all high earnings would be subject to Social Security taxes. Adjusting the Social Security benefit formula is another reform that could be enacted to improve the program's solvency and equity. The current formula is progressive, replacing a higher percentage of income for lower earners and less for higher earners. 'Some plans propose reducing benefits for higher earners while modestly boosting them for lower-income beneficiaries,' Benton said. For example, the Bowles-Simpson plan would cut benefits for high earners and boost them for low earners, according to the Tax Foundation. These changes aim to provide greater income security for the most vulnerable retirees while reducing costs for the system as a whole. The way Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation could also see significant changes in the next decade. 'One recurring proposal is to adopt the Chained CPI, which tends to produce lower inflation estimates than the current CPI-W used for COLAs,' Benton explained. Critics argue this would erode retirees' purchasing power over time, especially for those who live longer. Alternatively, Benton and The Senior Citizens League support using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which better reflects seniors' spending patterns and would likely result in higher COLAs. The debate centers on balancing the need for program solvency with protecting retirees' standard of living. A gradual increase in the payroll tax rate is another option experts believe could help close Social Security's funding gap. According to the Social Security Administration, the current rate is 6.2% for employees and 12.4% for the self-employed, split between workers and employers. 'Even a small increase, phased in over time, could significantly improve solvency,' Benton said. This solution spreads the cost across all workers and helps ensure Social Security's future without drastic benefit cuts. Benton predicts that changes to how Social Security benefits are taxed could be on the horizon, particularly for higher-income retirees. The Concord Coalition reported that up to 85% of benefits can be taxed depending on income. However, the income thresholds are not indexed to inflation, so more beneficiaries are taxed each year. Proposals include lowering the income thresholds or increasing the share of benefits subject to taxation for higher earners. This would raise additional revenue for the trust fund and target those most able to afford it. However, such changes could be unpopular among middle- and upper-income retirees, making them politically sensitive. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on 6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Growing deficit, budget cuts yet still no mention of raising taxes on wealthy
Sen. Ron Johnson, speaking from his background, insists that the budget deficit will mortgage our children's futures. I'm not an accountant, but I do agree. I'm old enough to remember when corporations and the wealthy were not so wealthy yet were taxed at a much higher rate. The American dream was real, and America's debt was not a problem. Today, Congress struggles to fund innovations like Social Security, public healthcare and clean energy. Johnson warns that cuts outlined in the 'big beautiful' budget bill will not reduce the repercussions of our growing deficit. More and deeper cuts are needed, he says. This would disproportionately affect middle- and lower-income families, I must add. If I remember my Econ 101, rising prices from tariffs, and with that a likely recession, would deal an even heavier blow to families already hard hit. And still no mention of raising taxes on the wealthy. Suzanne Powell, Milwaukee Letters: House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders Letters: Wake-enhanced boating produces same dynamic as smoking in public places Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Please include your name, street address and daytime phone. Generally, we limit letters to 200 words. Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter. Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing. Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person. We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions. We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters. Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months. All letters are subject to editing. Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: I agree with Ron Johnson that budget bill mortgages future | Letters
