Posts Tagged ‘Social Security’
In the News
February 24, 2010Obama’s Health Plan Has Dangerous New Taxes
The health care plan President Obama recently released is mostly a combination of the different plans passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. But in one major way it breaks with long-standing precedent, proposing a fundamental wrong-headed change to both entitlement policy and tax policy. He proposes for the first time to tax capital income to support entitlement programs.
Payroll taxes have always applied just to wages and salaries and the revenue those taxes raise has gone solely to pay for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The deal has always been that we pay payroll taxes during our working years and receive the benefits they fund after we retire. President Obama’s health care plan would shatter this compact forever.
The Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax is 2.9 percent on all wages and salary that is paid half (1.45 percent) by workers and half (the remaining 1.45 percent) by employers. It is supposed to pay only for the hospital insurance portion of Medicare benefits that retirees receive. President Obama’s plan adopts this break with long-held policy and doubles down by further severing the link between HI and Medicare benefits. Obama’s plan not only increases the HI tax on wages and salaries for high-income earners similar to the Senate bill, it also applies the HI tax to investment income for the first time. Obama’s unprecedented plan would levy the current 2.9 percent HI tax on what the administration obnoxiously refers to as “unearned” income, which includes capital gains, interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers). (more…)
Tags: entitlements, Hospital Insurance, Medicare, Medicare payroll tax, President's proposal, Social Security
Latest Research
September 21, 2009Congress Should Fix the Current Health Care Deficit
The President and his administration keep saying we cannot afford not to push through a major overhaul to the health care system, one-sixth of the U.S. economy. They’re partially right in that we do have a massive problem we can’t afford not to fix. But the focus is all wrong. Instead of creating a new federal health program, Congress needs to address the spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — programs that have existed for decades — that is set to explode.
Long-term excess costs for Social Security and Medicare alone are $43 trillion. When added to the national debt, that is about $184,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. America’s seniors are going to have to make some tough sacrifices so younger generations like their children and grandchildren aren’t saddled with massive debt to pay for these programs. But forcing them to make these sacrifices in order to create massive new benefits for others is not the way to go about it. (more…)
Tags: entitlements, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama Health Care Plan, Social Security
Latest Research
September 20, 2009Fiscal Wake Up Tour
Sometime next month the Senate will be forced to raise the federal debt limit beyond a record $12.1 trillion. While the current recession has exacerbated the problem, our rising national deficits are actually a structural problem a long time in the making. In the coming decades, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits will leap from 8.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) to 18.6% of GDP—an increase of 10.2% of GDP. To educate Americans about our nation’s large and growing fiscal imbalance The Heritage Foundation has, since 2005, teamed up with the The Concord Coalition, The Brookings Institution, and former U. S. Comptroller General David Walker to encourage Americans to demand action through a Fiscal Wake Up Tour.
Today The Concord Coalition released four video briefings from top national experts on the fiscal challenges facing the country, including the one on the right side of the screen, under “Featured Videos,” from Heritage Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy Studies Stuart Butler.
You can find many of the charts used in Butler’s presentation in the 2009 Federal Revenue and Spending Book of Charts.
Last year 16 federal budget experts from seven think tanks (including: American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, Concord Coalition, Heritage Foundation, New America Foundation, Progressive Policy Institute, and Urban Institute) issued a paper concluding:
- Congress should enact a real long-term budget for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that would limit their growth, take them off auto-pilot, and curb their current ability in the budget process to pre-empt funds from other types of programs, such as defense.
- Congress and the President should enact long-term budgets for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and be required to review them every five years. The rules for the five-year review must include a trigger or action-forcing device that automatically make changes when projected spending exceeds budgeted amounts.
- The long-run costs of these three programs should be made visible in the budget at all times and considered when decisions are made.
The Heritage Foundation further recommends:
- Income-adjusting Social Security benefits to target needy seniors more effectively. This could be accomplished through “progressive indexing,” which would index initial benefit levels for middle-income and upper-income families to price inflation rather than wage growth, eliminating much of the increased Social Security costs driven by higher benefits. This would also target more benefit growth to lower-income retirees. If accompanied by an increase in the retirement age, progressive indexing could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.
- Reducing the massive Medicare Part B and Part D subsidies for upper-income families. These programs are not social insurance: Enrollees did not earn their benefits with payroll taxes. Rather, they are large subsidies from taxpayers. Part B recently began modest income-relating. Long-term fundamental reform will likely involve bringing more choice and competition into health care, such as moving Medicare from a defined-benefit system to a defined-contribution system.
- Converting Medicaid into a block grant to states would eliminate state incentives to overspend on Medicaid. Additionally, giving states more flexibility to craft different Medicaid packages for different individuals based on their unique personal circumstances could save money while improving service delivery. State incentives to help individuals purchase long-term care insurance could also substantially reduce Medicaid’s burden insofar as these expenses are concerned.
Tags: Brookings Institution, Concord Coalition, entitlements, Fiscal Wake-Up Tour, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security
In the News
July 13, 2009How Big of a Government Do We Want?
That’s what a Washington Post editorial says we should all be asking ourselves in the current health care reform debate. Congress is considering a new federal health program on top of others (along with Social Security) that could have long-term implications on our nation’s budget. “This expansion may not be good for us, but we are not contemplating the adverse consequences or how we might minimize them,” the editorial says.
The article notes “in 2000, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the main programs providing income and health care for those 65 and over — totaled nearly 8 percent of GDP. In 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projects that will reach almost 12 percent of GDP.”
“Obama would make matters worse. He talks about controlling ‘entitlement’ spending (mainly Social Security and Medicare) but hasn’t done so. He’s proposing just the opposite. His health-care proposal would increase federal spending,” the op-ed notes.
Tags: entitlement, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security






