Opinion | Nikki Haley Is Coming for Your Retirement - The New York Times
By: Paul Krugman (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nov. 27, 2023Credit...Brian Snyder/Reuters
Opinion Columnist
It feels like years ago, but actually only a few months have passed since many big Republican donors seemed to believe that Ron DeSantis could effectively challenge Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. It has been an edifying spectacle — an object lesson in the reality that great wealth need not be associated with good judgment, about politics or anything else.
At this point, both conventional wisdom and prediction markets say that Trump has a virtual lock on the nomination. But Wall Street isn't completely resigned to Trump's inevitability; there has been a late surge in big-money support for Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina. And there is, to be fair, still a chance that Trump — who is facing many criminal charges and whose public rants have become utterly unhinged — will manage to crash and burn before securing the nomination.
So it seems worth looking at what Haley stands for.
From a political point of view, one answer might be: nothing. A recent Times profile described her as having "an ability to calibrate her message to the moment." A less euphemistic way to put this is that she seems willing to say whatever might work to her political advantage. "Flip-flopping" doesn't really convey the sheer cynicism with which she has shifted her rhetoric and changed her positions on everything from abortion rights to immigration to whether it's OK to try overturning a national election.
And anyone hoping that she would govern as a moderate if she should somehow make it to the White House is surely delusional. Haley has never really shown a willingness to stand up to Republican extremists — and at this point the whole G.O.P. has been taken over by extremists.
That said, Haley has shown some consistency on issues of economic and fiscal policy. And what you should know is that her positions on these issues are pretty far to the right. In particular, she seems exceptionally explicit, even among would-be Republican nominees, in calling for an increase in the age at which Americans become eligible for Social Security — a bad idea that seems to be experiencing a revival.
So let's talk about Social Security.
The first thing you should know about Social Security is that the actual numbers don't justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears, not just from the right but from self-proclaimed centrists who want to sound serious. No, the exhaustion of the system's trust fund, currently projected to occur in roughly a decade, wouldn't mean that benefits disappear.
It would mean that the system would need additional revenue to continue paying scheduled benefits in full. But the extra revenue required would be smaller than you probably think. The most recent long-term projections from the Congressional Budget Office show Social Security outlays rising to 6.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2053 from 5.1 percent this year, not exactly an earth-shattering increase.
It's true that the budget office projects a much bigger rise in spending on Medicare and other major health programs. But much of this projected rise reflects the assumption that medical costs will rise much faster than economic growth, which has been true in the past but need not be true in the future. Indeed, since 2010, Medicare spending has been far less than expected. And there is every reason to believe that smart policies could further curb health care costs, given how much more America spends than other wealthy nations.
Still, Social Security does face a funding gap. How should it be closed?
Anyone who says, as Haley does, that the retirement age should rise in line with increasing life expectancy is being oblivious, perhaps willfully, to the grim inequality of modern America. Until Covid struck, average life expectancy at 65, the relevant number, was indeed rising. But these gains were concentrated among Americans with relatively high incomes. Less affluent Americans — those who depend most on Social Security — have seen little rise in life expectancy, and in some cases actual declines.
So anyone invoking rising life expectancy as a reason to delay Social Security benefits is, in effect, saying that aging janitors must keep working (or be cast into extreme poverty) because bankers are living longer.
How, then, should the Social Security gap be closed? The obvious answer — which happens to be favored by a majority of voters — is to raise more revenue. Remember, America collects less revenue as a percentage of G.D.P. than almost any other advanced economy.
But Haley, of course, wants to cut income taxes.
My guess is that none of this will be relevant, that Trump will be the nominee. But if he stumbles, I would beg political reporters not to focus on Haley's personal affect, which can seem moderate, but rather on her policies. On social issues and the fate of democracy, she appears to be a pure weather vane, turning with the political winds. On fiscal and economic policy, she's a hard-right advocate of tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the working class. If calling someone a "populist" has any meaning these days, she's the exact opposite.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
To be blunt, Republicans like Nikki Haley want social security benefits delayed until an older age so that SS taxes dont have to be raised on high earners.
Excuse me but I don't think you quite understand the structure of SS taxes. There is a cap on what earnings are subject to SS taxation. Presently, it is $160,200.00. Expected to go to $168,000.00 in '24.
So it wouldn't help out high earners at all. They are only taxed on the first $160,200.00 in earnings.
The cap needs to be eliminated
Thank you for explaining reality to him.
Don't know that I disagree but I guess the rationale is that if people make more than the cap, they most likely won't use the benefit anyway. So again, it is the rich paying for the non rich when they themselves will never use it. Socialism.
They'll use it. I once argued with an old man on another forum. He thought SS should be done away with, he hated having to pay into it. But he admitted that when it came his time to collect he sure was by god gonna collect.
Trust me...those people paying more, they'll take it.
The wealthy collect Social Security, a lot more than most...
Link?
He paid into it. He objected to paying in and admitted that it should be eliminated but had he not paid in, he wouldn't have said "by God gonna collect". It wouldn't have been there.
Sure it would have! Because people like you and me paid into it
umm, no. I made more than the cap for many years, those paycheck raises in November and December were nice when I had maxed out the cap for SS and they stopped withholding. But even though I set myself up nicely for retirement I do definitely draw on my social security, why would I not.
Bingo that is kind of the point later in the conversation. You paid in, why not pull out but it sounds like you really didn't/don't have to. I was trying to figure out the rationale of the cap
I never understood the rationale for the cap except it was a nice gift for those who made more than the cap. A gift for the few, similar to that SALT tax that some stated had.
I find it hard to trust any republicon nowadays, gop or gqp. I don't see myself ever voting for one, EVER.
They don't give a shit about the 'little people' who have to work until they're 70. I'm certainly not going to wait until I'm 70. I'll have to probably wait at least two or three more years to be comfortable with the amount I'll be getting, but that will put me closer to 63 or 64.
One way to increase SS revenue is rarely, if ever, discussed by anyone in government.
Just for one minute, forget about raising or eliminating the cap on SS taxes and consider a different scenario.
How about increasing the minimum wage to $20 an hour (or more to keep up with inflation)?
The workers would benefit by having a better lifestyle now and building a retirement income should they survive long enough to draw on it.
Society would benefit from having more people not living desperate lives in poverty.
The SS revenue would be raised by lifting lives out of poverty.
The other benefits - less people needing welfare benefits - more people paying taxes because they have enough income to be taxed.
The losers? Maybe some CEOs who make over 1000 times the wage slaves.
IMO Paul Krugman is an idiot. He's been wrong more times than not. The average life expectancy in the USA is 77.2 years with the life expectancy for males is 72. So his numbers are just way off and I haven't trusted him to say anything smart for many years.
There are many fixes for Social Security and Medicare, but all of them are unpopular as too many people think they are losing out. When Social Security was first established, they picked the age for full benefits at 65 because the average live expectancy in the USA at the time was 64. With the number increasing I believe it's time to once again raise the age for full benefits to 70. Eliminate the cap and pay the SS taxes & Medicare taxes on all income. Raise the Medicare age from 65 to 68. Raise the full retirement age from 67 to 70, and raise the minimum retirement age from 62 to 65. And just like the last time, anybody within 20 years of retirement based on their current age would not be impacted, they would still qualify under the current age restrictions.
But nobody will go for this as too many people will think they are getting screwed. There are a few on this board who would fit into the grandfather range yet they will bitch about these suggestions as if they would be impacted.
But if nothing is done, we are all looking at a 22% cut in Social Security payments in just a few years. There are a lot of people in this country who rely on SS for the majority of their retirement money and a 22% cut would devastate them.
I think you are misunderstanding what he said. He's not saying that US life expectancy is 65, he is saying that more people are making it to 65 than ever before. But that those gains went mostly to higher income people.
Nope, didn't misunderstand him. He states that pre Covid, the average life expectancy at 65 (which it wasn't, the average life expectancy back in 1999 (which was pre-Covid) was 76.5. I know many people of all income groups who lived well into their late 70's and 80's. Higher income has always related generally to longer life but that is not a guarantee. Longer life expectancy is more correctly related to health behaviors. Perhaps those who make more money just naturally lead more healthy lives and make fewer stupid mistakes with their health.
Nope, you are misunderstanding him.
He's not saying the life expectancy was 65, he is talking about how much longer after the age 65 people might live.
The life expectancy, at age 65, was rising. He referred to 65 not because he thought that was the life expectancy, but because that is the start of social security benefits for most people.
You are correct, John.
As per the actuarial life expectancy table currently in use by the Social Security Administration, the average life expectancy for a male at age 65 is an additional 16.94 years, which means a life expectancy for a males who reaches the age of 65 is 82, and the average life expectancy for a female at age 65 is an additional 19.66 years, which means that the average life expectancy for a female who reaches the age of 65 is 84 years.
I'll give you that much, it could be read that way. It could also be read the way I read it. Still doesn't change that he's a partisan shill who is bitching about the rich. If Congress doesn't do something everybody who is drawing SS now will see a 22% cut in their benefits in less than 10 years. We need partisan assholes to stop playing their games and do some actual good, but I don't expect to see any changes, Partisan bullshit is too strongly engrained in our lives.