Trump Pick May Take these 3 Painful Steps to ‘Fix’ Social Security

Trump cabinet pick planning radical steps to fix Social Security… Future benefits possibly at risk… Here’s what every American should know…


Peter Reagan, February 9, 2017

You probably already know it: Social Security is in dire straits. Currently, the program at risk of facing a major shortfall as soon as 2034, which means that receiving benefits in the future is far from a sure thing – even for today’s middle-age workers.

To fix the program, dramatic changes must happen now.

It’s with this urgency that President Trump has nominated Mick Mulvaney to run the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). While we don’t know for sure what fixes Mulvaney will apply, most would burden all taxpayers and beneficiaries.

Here are three discussed changes that could affect all Americans:

Option #1: Cut Social Security benefits.

Previously, Trump has said that cuts to payouts are off the table. But in a Senate confirmation hearing, Mulvaney indicated otherwise.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Mulvaney told the Senate that he would advocate for cuts to benefits, adding…

“I have to imagine that the president knew what he was getting when he asked me to fill this role.”

It isn’t hard to read between the lines. In 2009, Mulvaney called Social Security a ‘ponzi scheme’ and insisted the program as we know it should be brought to an end. Chances are slim his views are drastically different today.

Option #2: Increase Social Security taxes.

In 2016, every American paid 12.4% of their income under $118,500 to Social Security. Now, Mulvaney has the power to adjust that cap.

Already, the SSA announced the cap would increase by 7% in 2017. But Mulvaney is willing to push the cap higher. During his confirmation hearings, he declared that his pledge as a congressman to oppose tax increases would not extend to his service in the OMB.

Option #3: Raise the retirement age.

Today, the age at which Americans can receive full benefits for Social Security is set to increase to 67 for anyone born after 1960. But further increases aren’t out of the question.

So even if Social Security stays solvent, the length of time Americans can draw off the program during retirement could shrink significantly.

Asked if he believed that the age limit should be further adjusted, Mulvaney replied with a simple, “I do, yes sir.”

If Not Social Security, What CAN You Count On?

Regardless of what happens over the next decade, the long-term prognosis for Social Security doesn’t inspire confidence. And counting on the program for a comfortable retirement is a gamble, to say the least.

That’s why thousands of Americans have been moving their retirement savings into gold, an asset that will ALWAYS have value, and which the government can’t simply change the rules on.

While you still can: Get a FREE Info Kit on Gold, and the IRS Tax Law to legally move your IRA or 401(k) to precious metals.

Get your no-cost info kit on gold here. There is ZERO cost and ZERO obligation to you – we’ll even pay for shipping.

This comprehensive, 16-page “insider’s” Kit on gold reveals precisely how this IRS Tax Law works, and how you can start moving your IRA or 401(k) as soon as today… without paying any taxes on the transfer. It’s all explained in this free info kit on gold.

Remember, no matter what happens to Social Security, gold is a time-tested and proven way to protect your savings through good times and bad. To get started, click here to get this free info to protect your savings.


RELATED CONTENT

Trump Just Shared These 11 Words of Warning for the USD and Gold

Trump Just Shared These 11 Words of Warning for the USD and Gold

Barack Just Lost It Over Alan Greenspan's Warning for Owning Gold

Millions to be Hit Hard by this U.S. Scheme to Confiscate Your Savings

Move Your IRA or 401k to Gold

IRS Tax “Loophole”: Move Your IRA or 401(k) to Gold
Get this No-Cost Info Kit

  • Fran

    Why can’t SS be taken out of every paycheck regardless of how much you make. Personally, I don’t now anyone that makes $118,500 a year.It seems like the burden is more on the Middle Class and Lower Wage Earners. If we (Middle Class & Lower Wage Earners) have to pay all year long, Why can’t the Upper Class do the same

    • D Gray

      I definitely wouldn’t consider myself upper class (more like lower middle class) but I do make more than $118,500 and SS is taken out of every check all year long. It didn’t used to be many years ago. I used to get a break the last couple of months of each calendar year. That said I can also say that I’ve paid the so called “maximum” into SS for 40+ years and have accepted the fact that I will “never” get anything back out of the system. My wife is now disabled and we don’t get a dime for her even though we’ve been paying foreeeeevvvvvveeeeerrrrr. With my retirement decimated and my wife needing constant expensive medical care that leaves us broke, I’m pretty sure I’ll be working until the day I drop dead. Thank you sooooooo much Obummer. Grrrrrrrr. 🙁

      • Dan

        Socialism always ends in epic failure. When left to the states and the people, we are the most efficient in finding a working system. The federal government is only good for two things, taxing citizens and spending taxes.

        • D Gray

          The federal government, with a socialist administration and congress is also good for (bad for?) screwing over the nations working class citizens. The last 8 years of this last administration’s stupidity and tyranny has systematically destroyed everything my wife and I busted our butts to build over a life time. And now in our twilight years we get to watch our kids struggle against a wave of debt that is crushing this nation.
          The $17 Trillion dollar national debt figure we keep hearing about doesn’t come close to the real figure of about $240 Trillion when you calculate how much Social Security and Medicare are in the red. When you add the fact that fewer people are working, paying taxes and spending money, causing a stagnant economy, it becomes obvious what is about to happen. Bailing out SS is probably not possible. There simply aren’t enough new workers entering into the system to keep up with the 10,000 a day that are leaving the work force. That’s 160 Million workers gone in 43 years. There are only about 160 Million in the work force at any time out of our national population of 340+ Million which includes children and non-working spouses. I wish our new president all the best and pray he and the new congress can turn it around but at this point it just doesn’t seem likely or even possible.

          • Dan

            I am sorry for your artificially induced financial difficulties. My parents are going through the same problems.

          • larry harvey

            D-Gray-The employment rate now is as low as its been in years. . During Obama’s tenure, it was reduced by two thirds. It some sections of the country there is actually a labor shortage. As older people, do you and your wife want Social security and Medicare eroded away? The Republicans want to do this by pretending they are insolvent when they are NOT.. The federal deficit has nothing to do with S.S. or Medicare. It is this deficit by pumping more money into the economy than it took out, which pulled the country out of the Great Recession. Jobs are lost because of change of tastes, technology and automation. Trump is too stupid to see this. His “cures” which would punish international trade would only make matters worse.

        • larry harvey

          We need Social Security and affordable health insurance, without it millions would suffer.. Right wing ideologues using meaningless labels such as “socialism” must not be allowed to destroy it.

          • Dan

            If people were responsible with their earnings in free market capitalism and planned ahead with their investments there would be no need for either. “We are from the government and we are here to help” has to be one of the most comical and ironic statements that Reagan had made popular. There is no responsibility or accountability when it comes to the federal government. Only waste, squander and mismanagement of the taxes from the people. I wish that more people could understand that. There will be nothing left for me in SS by the time I am eligible, after all of the money they have taken from me over the years. The only thing I can do is prepare for my retirement on my own terms.

          • larry harvey

            Dan–Capitalism is a game of musical chairs. There are winners and there are losers. People invest in businesses, the stock market, bonds, commodities etc. Some do well, most do not. To put it another way, human resources (goods and services) are limited. There are never enough for all nor are there enough jobs to go around. Some are left out. Should we let people starve? Should we ignore people who cannot afford basic health insurance? if a person with a large family and limited means works all his life, should he not have some security in retirement? Dan In spite of the claims made by those who would do away with S.S, there will be enough money in S.S. when you retire (assuming the Republicans don’t destroy it by then). The word “welfare’ is an anathema to conservatives. Yet the Preamble to the Constitution includes promoting the general welfare as one of the purposes of government. The new president was elected because of his promises which include using his office to help the unemployed and to improve health insurance. We need government with all its faults. Without it we have anarchy. A government which ignores the needs of its people is a failed government.

          • Dan

            That is where you get it confused. “General Welfare” through the private sector, not the state. Most of the framers were wary of the power of the state, for the exact reasons that we are witnessing today. I don’t want to see any in destitution, but things weren’t always the way they are now, for the worst. Every time the state steps in to regulate or legislate, it never ends up being better than the former result. Ultimately, it ends up being nothing more than another bureaucratic power grab and with each power grab, the people end up losing more of their civil liberties. Government can not fix everything, as long as there is demand and necessity, free market capitalism equals out the balance.

          • larry harvey

            Dan–I can only summarize what I have already said. The state has basic functions to perform. These are enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution. Without the state there is anarchy and chaos. Governments, like all human institutions, are as good or bad as those who lead it.

          • Dan

            It is all too simple. Legislative makes the law, executive signs and judicial enforces it. The government has no place telling us what goods or services we must purchase or punishing many to prop up the few. Without massive regulation and taxation fair market capitalism has the room to maneuver and gives so many the prosperity to be charitable. The problem is, we are still trying to find our way back to fair market from crony-capitalism.

          • larry harvey

            Dan–Congress makes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts act as umpire. The government does not tell you what goods to buy but it does try to keep fake and harmful products off the market. Pure capitalism is a poor system because greed is its lifeblood but pure socialism and communism are worse, so a society must accept capitalism but it must also harness and regulate it to protect the public from its excesses.

          • Dan

            I agree with that statement. Until we get back to actual fair market it is necessary to rein in big corporations and international banks. They really aren’t subjected to the same level of regulation/taxation as the average Joe.

          • larry harvey

            Dan-I agree with you it is necessary to rein in big corporations and banks. It was wild speculation and government under Bush looking the other way which directly led to the Great Recession of 2007. Unhappily we never learn from history. Now Trump wants to due away with regulations and laws which are designed to protect the consumer and to prevent another wild speculation surge.

          • Dan

            With derivatives at the highest level in the history of modern civilization (1.2 quadrillion dollars), I am beginning to believe that we will probably fall off of the cliff before we bring ourselves back. With that being said, I think that regulation and legislation is insignificant to safeguard the American people. That ship has already sailed and we have missed our chance.

          • larry harvey

            Dan–The U.S. will survive. The economy will continue to have its ups and downs. Right now it is on the ups with labor shortages beginning in key industries and stocks hitting new highs. When assets become sufficiently inflated, a new recession will set in. My guess is this will happen in 3 to 5 years. However if Trump protectionism destroys world trade, it could happen much sooner.

          • Dan

            When I speak of the cliff, I don’t mean it in a doom and gloom way. Sometimes it takes a crisis to balance out the pendulum. The stock market is artificially inflated right now and with the low interest in the Fed, these are both signs of imminent fluctuation. As long as people prepare themselves now and do not panic when it comes, we will come out of it better than the past 150 years.

          • larry harvey

            The stock market is like a roller coaster. Right now it is on its way up and it will be a while before it goes back down. Most money is made when you buy at the trough of a recession when everything is dirt cheap. Historically this comes about once a decade. Although the Great Recession was deep, it was relatively short as were the earlier 3 or 4 ones.. This was because the huge federal deficits resulting from the recessions acted as Adrenalin in restarting the economy. The deficit spending pumped in more money than taxes took out.

    • Ah nutz

      YESSSS.

  • Marshall Sattler

    Why should I have to pay into a socialist program when I could take my money and it be added to my retirement investment account with betterment holding vanguard ETF’s

    • Dan

      My thoughts exactly.

  • Ah nutz

    Trump promised to protect soc. sec. & medicare…..I fully expect to see it done….raising the age does make sense , since we are all living much longer……I do not understand why my soc. sec. checks are taxable tho……WHY THE HELL IS THAT????

  • Jon Exner

    Well, once again people are so eager to do away with social security and Medicare without looking at other possible solutions.
    *
    First, why are we bringing in so many foreign workers and not putting our own citizens back to work. If we have American workers unemployed who are either on welfare, unemployment or just early retirement wouldn’t it be logical to put them to work contributing to the coffers rather then taking from them?
    *
    For every foreigner who is brought into our sovereign nation to work one American is not working not contributing.
    *
    We need to stop the nonsense and put Americans first/

  • larry harvey

    Republicans hate Social Security and will do anything to weaken it. To achieve this they negate its finance condition. For the time being and in the near future, the system is healthy. When the time comes Congress could easily appropriate money to fill any gap.

Fromtheright.com - 2015 | Privacy Policy