I do not think he really means it. It is part of his political web of deceit.
I am going to take him at his word. I just looked at the numbers. That is a $700,000 tax increase for my wife and me.
That is my estimated present value of SS with two percent inflation.
I will check and see what the present value is with 3 percent inflation.
OkâŠmy present value of SS is $900,000âŠwith 3 percent inflation.
What an @@@@@@@.
I am going to give him two fingers. 
Iâd give him a few also. Just because.
Itâs all rhetoric anyways, everyone just wants to appeal to the massive middle class. Why is everyone concerned only with the middle class, not the wealthy or the poor? Because thatâs where the bulk of the votes are, the wealthy already know who theyâre voting for, and the poor are not a large voting block. Hey, weâre going to fix all our problems by taxing the other guy, not YOU.
I think we should hold people responsible for their rhetoric.
Sometimes rhetoric becomes policy.
Sometimes policy affects retirement. 
I am not interested in who said it or why he said it. As far as I am concerned this is one proposal to a problem that needs fixing. We shouldnât burden younger generation to support us in the old age. Using SS to provide everyone with basics seems reasonable whether it came from an overweight person who gets on an helicopter or not.
âWhy is everyone concerned only with the middle class, not the wealthy or the poor?â
Theyâre not, Busdriver, thatâs just talk. The actual tax code used to favor the middle class, but for quite a few years now, it only benefits the wealthy. Thatâs why we have things like passive earnings for millionaires that are taxed so lightly, while Congress fights tooth and nail to keep the middle menâs cut in the government educational loans that help the middle class go to college.
I am not sure it applies in this case. Christieâs proposal would affect everyone earning $80k and up thatâs just about everyone who is not starving.
I canât quickly find any numbers, but Iâd guess that $80k in retirement income puts you in the top 10-15%. $200k probably puts you in the top 2% or so. Not even close to everyone.
This idea is really designed to appeal to the poor, who wonât see their benefits cut, and the rich, who would save far more by avoiding an increase in income tax rates or estate taxes than they would from losing $30K or so per year from SS.
Is a cut in a government welfare benefit the same as a tax increase? You wonât pay one nickel more in taxes under this proposal. In fact you will probably pay less taxes.
I wonder if Roth distributions would count as âincomeâ for calculating the phaseout. If not, you will see a lot of people taking the hit to convert. I would.
This will never pass though. Too many people feel like SS is actually a pension theyâve invested in with their tax dollars, and to deny the payout will be considered outright theft.
Oh, I know theyâre not concerned in particular with the actual middle class, Hayden. Itâs just rhetoric to appeal to the largest number of voters, as almost everyone thinks they are middle class.
Notrichenough, I use after tax dollars in my calculations.
@dstark, what did you use for the inflation rate? Thereâs a reason that COLA annuities are somewhere between expensive and impossible to get. SS, and the rare legacy pension, are the only COLAed annuities around, which isnât too worrying right now, but all it would take is a few years of high inflation to decimate nominal annuities.
@IxnayBob, I use a 2 percent cola rate for SS while using a 3 percent inflation rate overall. I do this because it is conservative and there is talk of adjusting the cola for SS. At least I thought it was conservative. Lol.
I can run calculators without any SS. I donât like those results as much.
You are correct in post 5950.
If Christieâs proposal is per person and not per joint tax return, then almost no one will get hit by the phaseout.
The more important part is pushing back the retirement ages, especially the age 62 early benefit age. Many people start collecting at 62 because they have no choice; pushing that to 64 could really hurt people.
The estimate of $1trillion in savings seems to have been pulled out of thin air, with no numbers behind it. So itâs basically just noise at this point.
I canât comment on anymore on Christie. I am going to get in trouble.
If thatâs the case, adjusting SS benefits for higher income would make a better approach, wouldnât it? At what income phasing out starts can be adjusted.
Igloo, you got away with a little politics. LolâŠ
We are supposed to be discussing retirementâŠand not political approaches to problems.
I am still waiting for the calamity of doctors not being paid.
While people here are calling it an empty rhetoric, others are calling it a fast way to lose election,
It must be a good idea since no one likes it.
Just wait til you try to find a Medicare provider.
I donât know where the magic $80,000 comes from. Also, that would be where benefits start to phase out, not where they stop entirely. At todayâs rates you need around $2mm (earning 4% dividends or interest) to make $80,000 per year. Similarly, an IRA of just over $2mm would have an initial RMD of around $80k. I guess itâs just a trial balloon rather than a serious proposal. I mean, why is $80k the magic number? Is it per person or $80k for a couple? How would it phase in? It will probably get shot down so quickly we wonât get a chance to even answer those simple questions, or explore the parts of the proposal that might actually make a little bit of sense, or might be reasonable if phased in over a number of years.
In 10 years, how much will health insurance premiums cost for 68 year olds without medicare?