Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Schatz promotes Social Security legislation

By Audrey McAvoy

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 01:55 p.m. HST, Aug 08, 2013

Sen. Brian Schatz is promoting legislation he's co-sponsoring with fellow Democratic Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Mark Begich of Alaska.

Schatz told reporters today the bill would keep Social Security solvent through 2049 and increase benefits by about $65 a month.

He says it would also change the way cost of living adjustments are calculated to more accurately reflect the costs seniors face.

Schatz says the bill would tax all wages, instead of just capping the income taxed for Social Security at nearly $114,000.

Harkin introduced the bill in March. Schatz signed on as a co-sponsor on July 15, Begich on July 22.

Schatz says the legislation would help people like his father-in-law, who depends on Social Security for his basic needs.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
jekat2003 wrote:
Hooray for Brian Schatz with his innovative new ideas!!!! .....oh wait it still the same old solution to all problems....raise taxes. How about adjusting the starting age to reflect the longer lifespan than it was 50 years ago.
on August 8,2013 | 02:27PM
bsdetection wrote:
Since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but only 1.3 years in the bottom half (and the Social Security retirement age has risen by 8 months). "Adjusting the starting age," as you suggest, would benefit the wealthy, who are least dependent on the safety net, and take benefits away from those who need them the most. Income growth has been concentrated in the upper half of the income scale (greater income inequality). Not raising the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax will increasingly benefit the wealthy.
on August 8,2013 | 05:38PM
DAGR81 wrote:
Where did you get your stats from. It appears to be contrary to all the articles a nd studies that I have read.
on August 8,2013 | 10:23PM
jekat2003 wrote:
I don't know where you are getting your statistics from but here are some ACTUAL VERIFIABLE FACTS. According to the National Center for Health Statistics the average US life expectancy for males of all races was 69.5 years of age in 1977 (your random date chosen). As of 2010 the average age of US life expectancy for males of all races was up to 76.2. That's nearly 7 more years on average of benefits. In 1940 when the first Social Security payments were made the average age was 60.8 years old. To think that it isn't necessary to adjust the starting age more than a few months when the life expectancy has gone up almost 16 years from when the program started is ridiculous.
on August 9,2013 | 02:59PM
palani wrote:
Eliminating the current limit on taxable wages makes sense, as long as the benefits due to those paying more increase proportionately. Tweaking the cost-of-living adjustment also is reasonable, because the current CPI does not accurately reflect everyday inflation. Good for Schatz!
on August 8,2013 | 02:36PM
HealthyandHappy wrote:
No matter how you " improve" a Ponzi scheme it is still a Ponzi Scheme. I can't wait untill the next weak and meek Schatz presser.
on August 8,2013 | 02:54PM
HD36 wrote:
Social Security was a bad idea from the start. If I had all the money stolen from my paychecks I'd be retired be now.
on August 8,2013 | 02:57PM
noheawilli wrote:
Exactly, now they just want to take more an dmore and delay my retirement
on August 8,2013 | 05:07PM
entrkn wrote:
Thank you Senator Schatz...
on August 8,2013 | 03:18PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Why do Democrats live in a world of Fantasy when it comes to Social Security?

Do Democrats not know that the number of people paying into SS is decreasing while the number of people dipping into SS is increasing.

on August 8,2013 | 03:44PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
It is amazing that it is capped at $114,000. This is one of the reasons why Social Security is in the situation it is in. It protects the rich.
on August 8,2013 | 03:48PM
DAGR81 wrote:
Another person that feeds off of entitlements
on August 8,2013 | 09:56PM
walrus808 wrote:
There are several areas of the country that opted out of social security. Retirees in that private system get about twice as much per month that they would on social security. It's amazing to me that it's all the same old fixes for this program, taxes. Maybe the federal government should be taxed to pay back what they stole from the trust fund. As a business I dare you to try and get away with not paying the withholding on employee checks to what the IRS refers to as your trust fund account. You'll go to jail if you don't comply. On the other had we have the slickest crooks in the world stealing from the people's trust fund and what do they get? Big fat paychecks to work half the year and mess with our lives. I really don't care if they keep social security, but I would like the opportunity to opt out for a private investment. Don't even care if it's still mandatory, just would like to get some return on my investment and not have it stolen from me by the proletariat.
on August 8,2013 | 03:53PM
whatzupwitdat wrote:
Thank you Senator Schatz! I'm a retiree and I know how every penny counts!
on August 8,2013 | 06:11PM
HD36 wrote:
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Your best move if your under 32 is to move out of the country.
on August 8,2013 | 08:31PM
DAGR81 wrote:
This is a very bad approach to fix the system. Increase the cap, yes, eliminate the cap, absolutely not. We need to start raising the retirement age. Schat'z's lack of experience and naïveté is clearly evident.
on August 8,2013 | 09:20PM
Maipono wrote:
Unemployment is high, this has been the slowest recovery in American history and Schatz has an idea, "I'll pander to the retired voters with more tax and spend!" What a loser, this bill will not pass because if it did, Schatz will spread Detroit throughout the country. An embarrassment, of the tallest order, please send this clown back home where he belongs, unemployed.
on August 8,2013 | 09:38PM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout