Thoughts on “The Social Security 2100 Act (H.R. 1902)”
Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), in a post on www.thehill.com, presents a series of insights on the recent launching of the “Expand Social Security Caucus” and last year’s introduction of H.R. 1902, The Social Security 2100 Act. In his comments, Rep. Larson stresses the point that Social Security benefits are not entitlements, as many pundits and government officials have claimed, but rather “insurance every working American has paid for.”
Rep. Larson goes on to explain the intent of H.R. 1902 and its objective to “strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.” His remarks also point out that Social Security’s self-financing design is not a contributor to the federal deficit, as claimed in recent headline articles, and present the view that Social Security is insurance that Americans pay for through payroll taxes throughout their work life. The unfortunate use of the term “entitlement” to describe Social Security has the effect of denigrating these insurance contributions, says Larson.
For the full content of Rep. Larson’s post on thehill.com, click here. Then, for another viewpoint on “fixing” Social Security for future generations, check out the The Combined Social Security Guarantee and Social Security Plus Initiative, a legislative framework proposed by the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC). The AMAC proposal differs in some fundamental ways from H.R. 1902, but retains the same basic premise…to strengthen and improve Social Security for current and future generations.
This posting is presented for informational purposes only and does not represent legal or financial guidance. Any opinions or interpretations presented are either those of the original author or, in the case of articles authored by the AMAC Foundation, are the opinions of AMAC Foundation staff, originally trained and accredited by the National Social Security Association (NSSA) and certified via the AMAC Foundation. Any links included in the article are valid on the posted date; socialsecurityreport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the links’ validity. NSSA and the AMAC Foundation and its staff are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Social Security Administration or any other governmental entity. To submit a question, visit our website (https://amacfoundation.org/services/) or email us at ssadvisor@amacfoundation.org. Because we are a non-profit organization, there is no charge for these services.
Like what the bill does for me, however I feel the is too much in the bill that helps me a senior that is collecting benefits. Liked the increase in the base amounts from 25,000 and 32,000 up to 50,000 and 100,000. This will be a huge tax savings for me. Seniors do not need a special COLA that gives us supersized increases over the years. Use this money to give future SS recipients a larger benefit. Pensions will be gone in the future so social security needs to be more robust. Less emphasis has to be given to minimum benefits although I am nor sure I understand the calculation. Education needs to be a large part of this process. Young people just do not have a clue as to how progress SS is and sadly many of them erroneously think it will not be there for them. Our generation totally messed up the messaging on Social Security deficit.