Article Directory
Okay, so we're supposed to believe that Social Security's full retirement age hitting 67 in 2026 is the "final" change? Yeah, right. Like anything the government promises is set in stone. Give me a break.
The Goalposts Always Move
The article says this FRA change is the last one "unless lawmakers make changes." Well, duh. That's like saying the sun will rise tomorrow unless, you know, it doesn't. They always make changes. It's what they do. They tinker, they "reform," they screw things up for future generations while patting themselves on the back.
And let's be real, this whole "phased in gradually" thing is just a way to make it seem less painful. Like ripping off a band-aid super slow. Oh, you only have to wait two extra months this year? How generous of them. Meanwhile, you're bleeding out your savings waiting to hit that magic number.
The article even admits it: "each time FRA has moved later, retirees have faced a de facto benefit cut." De facto? That's putting it mildly. It is a benefit cut. They're just too chickenshit to call it what it is.
The COLA Conundrum
And then there's the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). Oh boy, another reason to feel warm and fuzzy inside. Except... now they're talking about capping it for "high earners." Excuse me while I choke on my coffee. Social Security COLAs To Be Capped for High Earners Under New Proposal
So, if you actually managed to save and invest responsibly, you get penalized? That's the message I'm getting. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget – who elected them, by the way? – wants to limit your COLA to a set dollar amount. So, inflation goes up, but your increase doesn't keep pace? Sounds about right.
They claim it "would save money right away and help strengthen Social Security in the long run." But at whose expense? The people who planned ahead and busted their asses?
I mean, offcourse, if you're raking in $50,000 a year from Social Security (which, let's be honest, is a pipe dream for most), maybe you can afford to take a little hit. But it's the principle of the thing. It’s like they are trying to find new and creative ways to screw us over.
The "Fair" Share Act? Don't Make Me Laugh
And don't even get me started on the "Fair Share Act." More taxes on "top earners"? Because that's never backfired before. Punishing success is a surefire way to boost the economy, right? I mean, maybe I'm the crazy one here. Maybe I'm missing something. But it just feels like a constant barrage of bad ideas disguised as "solutions."
And this bipartisan proposal to invest Social Security funds in the stock market? Are you kidding me? Have they not learned anything from the last few market crashes? Putting our retirement savings at the mercy of Wall Street gamblers? This is a bad idea. No, "bad" doesn't cover it—this is a five-alarm dumpster fire.
So, What's the Real Story?
It's simple: they're going to keep moving the goalposts. They'll tweak the rules, raise the retirement age, cap the COLAs, and find new and inventive ways to squeeze every last drop out of us until we're six feet under. And they'll call it "fiscal responsibility" or some other meaningless buzzword. The only thing that's certain is that the system is rigged, and we're all getting screwed.