October 17, 2025 • 38 mins
Jeff Perry and Russ Ball explore 7 ways to save Social Security as outlined in Jeff’s recent article linked below. While there is not a single solution that is likely to address Social Security’s funding challenges on its own, there are many potential approaches to the looming reduction in benefits. To gain the public and political support needed, a combination of strategies to both increase revenue and contain cost reductions will likely be needed. There is no doubt that implementing meaningful long-lasting changes to Social Security will require public support and political courage. Whether or not President Trump and Congress will touch the “third rail” of politics or “kick the can down the road” is anyone’s guess. For the survival of Social Security as we know it, let’s hope reform is sooner rather than later. While you might not prefer some of the options discussed, Jeff and Russ make a compelling case that doing nothing is not a good plan.
#FinancialPlanning #WealthManagement #SocialSecurity #JeffPerry #RussBall
#ChrisBoyd #WealthEnhancementGroup #Preparedness #FamilyFinance
Click the link below to review Jeff’s article on Saving Social Security:
https://www.wealthenhancement.com/node/139041
For more information or to reach TEAM AMR, click the following link:
https://www.wealthenhancement.com/s/advisor-teams/amr
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Something More with Chris Boyd.
Chris Boyd is a certified financial planner, practitioner,
and senior vice president and financial advisor at
Wealth Enhancement Group, one of the nation's largest
registered investment advisors.
We call it Something More because we'd like
to talk not only about those important dollar
and cents issues, but also the quality of
life issues that make the money matters matter.
(00:22):
Here he is, your fulfillment facilitator, your partner
in prosperity, advising clients on Cape Cod and
across the country.
Here's your host, Jay Christopher Boyd.
Welcome to another edition of Something More with
Chris Boyd.
I'm Jeff Perry.
I'm sitting in for Chris, who is in
Tennessee, the volunteer state at a conference for
(00:43):
Wealth Enhancement.
And I'm happy to have with me my
co-host today, Russ Ball, part of the
AMR team at Wealth Enhancement.
Thanks for joining us, Russ.
Of course.
Happy to be joining you, Jeff.
I am live from Florida.
I hope I'm alive in Florida.
And you are in?
Hyannis, Cape Cod.
So our team is spread out all over
(01:04):
the place.
Brian's up in Boston today.
And Chris and Kristen are in Tennessee.
So we are covering the East Coast.
Yeah.
We've got it locked down.
Anywhere you are along the East Coast, you
can find one of us.
Hopefully, they're having a good conference.
And I was glad to see that they
were able to fly down there.
There's so many things with this government shutdown
(01:26):
that are like, is that going to be
affected by the government shutdown?
I was watching CNBC this morning.
We're recording on the 16th of November here
and waiting for the CPI report to come
out this week.
And oh, yeah, we're not going to get
a report this week because the government is
(01:46):
shut down.
I saw on the news this morning, they
had a News Nation, which is a news
station that I prefer, had a town hall
meeting last night with Democrats and Republicans talking
about the shutdown, maybe how they can get
it resolved.
There was an air traffic controller who came
up to the podium and asked the question,
like, when do you think this will be
(02:07):
over?
I am not getting paid.
I have to work.
I'm not getting paid.
And I have to I'm doing DoorDash now
because my bills aren't waiting, right?
The grocery bill still needs to be paid.
The rent still needs to be paid.
And if it doesn't affect you, if you're
not a federal employee or you're not impacted
by a federal employee, which is, I would
(02:29):
say, a lot of most people like it
doesn't directly impact them every day.
But if you are somehow connected to a
federal employee, if your job's related to it
or your business is related to some approval
from the federal government, or, you know, we
even saw the stories earlier this week, which
appear to be resolved about the military not
(02:52):
getting paid.
There's so many tentacles to this.
And it's very frustrating.
And at some point, you know, it hasn't
affected the markets yet.
But at some point, you think it would.
Yeah, absolutely.
And the longer this stretches out, the more
people get nervous and the more, you know,
government workers aren't getting paid.
And it starts off as like, Oh, okay,
(03:14):
I have like, a, you know, a week
of downtime.
And then it starts stretching more and more.
I have friends who work in the government.
And, you know, they've been through it before
some of them.
But this one, it feels like it's no
real telling when it's going to be wrapping
up.
And there's seems to be a huge gap
there that needs to be reached.
So thought it would be a good time
(03:35):
to bring up an article that you wrote
recently, Jeff, talking a little bit about the
concerns with the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government
and a lot of frustration these days that
the government shut down, I thought it would
be timely to bring up this article you
wrote recently called touching the third rail of
politics.
I think most of our listeners know, because
we talk about social security frequently.
(03:55):
And even if we didn't, they get it
from all the various news sources that social
security as we know it, the benefits that
are being paid now are related to the
money that comes in from workers and the
money that goes out to retirees, there is
a demographic change, the country's getting older, we
have less people contributing than we used to,
(04:16):
we're living longer.
That's good.
That's the good news.
We're living longer.
So Social Security's paying out more than they,
you know, initially projected.
And so the Social Security Administration predicts that
it by 2023, I'm sorry, 2033 2034 ish,
(04:36):
it changes, you know, once in a while,
maybe 2032.
The funds available will not be enough to
pay the current benefit levels.
Sometimes the headlight headlines say Social Security is
going bankrupt in 2032.
That's not accurate.
The accurate threat is that benefits with if
(04:57):
there's no reforms, if there's nothing done by
the federal government to sure up or change
the structure of Social Security, benefits would reduce
be reduced to probably 70 to 76 somewhere
in that range percent it's it changes, you
know, with each report.
I think I noted 77% in my
(05:18):
article that is so if you get $100
from Social Security, you would only be getting
77.
Now, most people including myself don't think that'll
happen.
I mean, which political party wants to be
the party in power to reduce benefits on
Social Security?
Yeah, not a popular move.
We know that this is a big issue
(05:41):
for voting.
And we know that people who collect Social
Security, meaning older folks, not that far away,
so I should watch my terms, but people
available to collect Social Security vote in a
high percentage.
So I think it would be almost a
revolt at the ballot box if either party
was in office and didn't do something to
(06:02):
change this potential decline.
Yeah.
So I thought, well, yeah, before before President
Trump took office, I think my general feeling
was they'll fix it.
They'll fix it like three minutes after it
would happen, you know, just like the government
shutdown.
So I think your comparison is great.
(06:22):
You know, like the government shut down because
they can't agree.
Right.
So the same things I thought would happen,
the same thing would happen with Social Security.
They can't reform it because they can't agree
on what reforms.
Therefore, they won't fix it until they absolutely
have to.
Right.
But when President Trump and the Republicans were
(06:43):
able to pass the one big, beautiful bill
successfully and they did some very controversial things
in that bill, keeping the tax rates where
they were and now are wasn't the most
controversial thing by any means.
And now we're seeing some of the things
like the cuts to health care programs, the
cuts to Medicaid that were done in that
(07:05):
bill are part of the debate about the
government shutdown.
And so they passed this very substantial bill
that had a lot of new policies in
it and a big reform, good or bad,
you like it or don't.
There's some big things in there, big changes.
And they were able to get it done.
So that got me wondering, would President Trump
(07:28):
and this Congress have the political courage, I
guess we'll call it, to take on a
reform of Social Security eight years, nine years,
whatever it is, before they need to?
Because obviously, when you reform something, you know,
this is like a big ship sailing across
the ocean, right?
This Social Security thing.
And if you get to the shore and
(07:48):
you're about to crash, it takes a lot
of energy, a lot of change to maneuver
that ship so it doesn't crash if you're
about two minutes from the shore.
Yeah, that's a good analogy.
Yeah.
But we're eight or nine years away.
So wouldn't it be prudent to make some
of these reforms that we'll talk about now
and be able to take this issue off
the table and have those extra eight or
(08:11):
nine years to generate more income, reduce benefits,
whatever the agreed upon solution is, and so
that people don't have to worry about this
for the next eight or nine years?
Absolutely.
And you mentioned in the article, too, that
the longer period of time you have, the
more options you have available to you.
And as that window closes, the options become
fewer and fewer.
(08:32):
So the last thing we'd want is to
be at that final hour and really have
one or maybe two maximum of these options
that you laid out for us available.
But yeah.
It's like someone who's thinking about retirement.
Two people think about retirement.
One of them is a 35-year-old
couple and they come in and say, you
(08:52):
know, we'd like to retire in 30 years.
How can we get there?
And we've got a lot of solutions for
them, right?
We've got a great opportunity to have a
robust plan and make them, help them become
super wealthy and live the retirement that they
want.
Or you've got the 60-year-old couple
that comes in and say, yes, we think
we're retiring next year.
We don't have any money yet and we
(09:12):
have a lot of debt, but what do
you think we can do?
It's the options, just like with Social Security,
with eight years planning time and time to
raise additional revenue, cut benefits, things we'll talk
about.
It's just so much easier than facing that,
what do we do?
You can't make small changes if it's a
crisis.
(09:34):
Absolutely.
Maybe we can jump into some of these
solutions that you were thinking about, Jeff.
So I have seven.
I'm sure there's more, but I like the
number seven.
I have seven.
And so, you know, being a former political
figure, I have to put out a disclaimer.
I don't like all these ideas.
These are not all Jeff Perry endorsed ideas.
(09:56):
So don't tweet about it.
Don't say, Jeff Perry wants to reduce your
Social Security benefits.
That's how it works in politics.
You talk about something and then you get
a video clip of you.
I'll put the link to the article in
the show notes if people want to read.
And these are in no order of importance
to me.
Number one is something that George W.
(10:17):
Bush talked about when he was president.
And that was adding a bit of an
investment component, investment diversification into the funds that
Social Security holds.
Right now, all of the Social Security trust
fund, quote unquote, is held in U.S.
treasuries.
So super safe, right?
(10:38):
I mean, if somebody wants to lock some
money up, get maybe a rate of inflation,
maybe a little bit better, a point better,
guaranteed by the U.S. government, there you
go, right?
So locking in a 4% return for
10 years may be safe, but it may
not be the best use of that money
for 10 years, depending on if you're an
(11:00):
individual, lots of things that we talk about
with our clients.
But President Bush talked about and others have
talked about, and I'm including it here, why
not add an element of risk to it,
S&P 500 fund or whatever they could
agree upon, the whole market, maybe the whole
stock and bond market, maybe it's a 50
(11:20):
-50 mix of that 25%.
I don't know, it doesn't matter.
But we know from the last time we've
reviewed it, since the beginning of the stock
market, it's a roller coaster ride.
But over long periods of times, it is
the best place to get a return for
your money.
And this Social Security is obviously a long
term investment in the workers and citizens of
the United States.
(11:41):
So I'm suggesting, for example, but take 25
% of the new Social Security contributions that
are coming in and diversify them in a
super broad base index.
If it was up to me, I'd buy
an S&P fund.
Maybe that's too narrow, maybe it's not diversified
enough, but whatever, some type of equity exposure,
(12:03):
so that over time, getting a better return,
which leads to some additional funds to reduce
the Social Security deficit.
Yeah, I mean, I think that makes a
lot of sense.
And it's not saying we're taking the entire
pool of money and investing it.
We're just saying there's the 75% in
(12:25):
what we've been doing in the Treasury bonds
and Treasury notes.
And then the 25% could be, it
might not even be all stock, per se.
It might be a mix, but basically generating
a higher rate of return for that 25%.
I mean, yeah, I think doing the math,
(12:45):
I'm sure you could get the benefits up
to where you need them to be.
I don't know if within that timeframe, maybe.
But yeah, I think that's definitely, it would
have to take a lot of work, I
think, on the people agreeing to things in
Washington.
But I think that would definitely increase the
(13:06):
probability of the long term solvency of Social
Security.
Now, there's people a lot smarter than me
that could figure out what that number, I
said 25%, which should be.
For example, perhaps they would agree to hold
five years of money in Treasuries for the
(13:26):
next five years.
And funds above that five year lockbox, we'll
call it, could be invested.
So maybe it's higher or maybe it's lower.
I'm just saying, let's add some diversification with
the proven equity exposure that could boost up
this return rather than just thinking 4%
(13:47):
is the best that we can do.
It's not advice we'd give clients.
It's not advice.
I would suspect that the representatives and senators
don't have 100% in US Treasuries and
no investment to more equity exposed mutual funds,
ETFs, whatever they have.
(14:09):
Yeah.
It would be sort of like how we
would work with the client who's extremely conservative.
We'd want to preserve the capital that they've
built up, the wealth that they've created, but
get some level of return as well.
It's not crazy to think that way.
Pension funds do it.
(14:30):
It's not like it's unheard of.
And Social Security is not a pension.
I understand that.
But it's the same theory.
We're taking pools of money to pay out
the recipients over long periods of time.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Yeah.
Number two, that's number one.
Number two is probably my most dangerous one
to talk about because I'm a Republican and
(14:52):
I'm talking about raising taxes.
But to really reform Social Security, it's going
to have to be a combination of these
seven things, maybe others, and not just increasing
the return or reducing benefits.
There needs to be more money coming into
the system because of the change in our
demographics.
(15:13):
You have less people paying in.
And so, as I say, this is the
quickest and most direct, or probably the least
popular.
And that's the increase.
And they did this during the last period
of Social Security reform.
They raised the payroll tax.
I'm just talking about a small increase.
I'm not talking about a significant increase.
(15:35):
But I think as part of the solution,
the payroll tax rate is going to have
to go up a little bit to add
a little bit more revenue to this pool
of money.
Yeah.
I mean, you could definitely see that as
a likely outcome or likely possibility.
If there's not enough people working to cover
the people who are retiring, then something's got
to give there, right?
(15:55):
So, marginally increasing, no one's going to be
happy about it, but it is an option
that might make sense.
Especially, like you said, that would be the
option that becomes more and more, as the
window becomes more and more narrow, that's probably
going to be where most people are looking.
Right.
If we're up against this, if it's six
(16:17):
months out, you're not going to get extra
funds by diversification or reducing fraud or other
things we're going to talk about.
This is really the most easiest and direct
way to do it.
And I think it's going to have to
be part of the solution.
And maybe it's typically something the Democrats would
offer.
So, this is going to have to be
a compromise.
(16:37):
So, maybe this is one of the things
that the compromise can happen because of it.
And the other piece, I don't think you
mentioned in this article, but it's not just
Social Security, but it's also Medicare that's running
low on funding.
Around the same time, I think it's going
to be in trouble.
(16:57):
Yeah, it's a few years behind, but it's
coming.
And I hesitated.
I thought about writing it together, but I
didn't want to confuse the issues because some
of these solutions are not relevant to Medicare.
So, I made it separate.
The next one, number three, is raising or
eliminating the taxable earnings cap.
(17:19):
So, right now, you pay taxes, payroll taxes,
and the employee pays them, the employer pays
them.
If you're self-employed, the owner pays both
of them.
But your Social Security taxes only apply up
to $176,100.
So, you're paying your Social Security payroll tax
(17:39):
up to that when your earnings over it
are not taxed to Social Security.
Well, this is another non-popular option probably,
but it does add additional revenue if that
cap was raised a lot a bit or
(18:00):
eliminated altogether.
I mean, it's ripe for debate.
Certainly, we hear about it all the time,
the rich wealth gaps.
It's really ripe for debate of should there
be a limit on how much we pay
into Social Security.
Now, the argument from the conservative side of
the issue, I guess, would be, well, there's
(18:23):
a limit on what you can collect on
Social Security.
There's a maximum.
Yeah.
Right?
So, it's not like, oh, well, I'll contribute
more because I'm going to get more later,
which is kind of the promise of Social
Security to everyone.
But there is a max benefit, no matter
how much you pay into Social Security.
Yeah.
So, that would be the pushback.
But I think if we're looking for additional
(18:44):
revenue, in addition to savings that we're going
to talk about, this one is probably easier
or more likely to happen than just raising
the payroll tax on every American who works.
Right.
I mean, one way to think of it,
and I will touch on this later as
well, but if you're a high income earner,
(19:05):
there's a good chance if you're saving for
retirement and you're planning well, there's a good
chance you're not going to rely on that
Social Security later in life as much as
other people in lower tax brackets would.
So, yeah, definitely something to consider about raising
that limit or just eliminating it altogether, where
(19:27):
everyone, no matter the income, is contributing a
certain percentage to Social Security.
That's right.
You know, none of these seven, we've talked
about three, none of these seven is going
to get me elected, by the way, because
they're all, or get anyone elected.
That's why I call it the third rail
of politics.
None of these, you know, exception of maybe
(19:48):
the last two, but none of these, if
you're talking about them as a political candidate,
you're going to get a lot of applause.
You're going to get a lot of people
looking at you worried, right?
Yep.
And this is one that's probably the most
controversial.
Number four is reducing benefits for future retirees.
And so when I'm talking about reducing benefits,
I'm not per se suggesting by any means
(20:10):
that if grandma's getting $1,000 a month,
that she should get 900.
That's what's going to happen if they don't
do anything.
What I'm talking about is, you know, in
1935, when Social Security started, the life expectancy
was 61.
So all the math was done with very
few, not everyone getting Social Security because you
(20:32):
retired at 65, if you retired at 65.
Now, the average life expectancy is around 76,
77.
So the math is different.
And so maybe the retirement age should be
different.
Now, the last time they did Social Security
reform, they bumped up the full retirement age.
(20:55):
Now it's 66 or 67, depending when you
were born.
I suspect that that number is probably going
to move up again.
Right?
Because, you know, every year you delay paying
benefits, it's a little bit more that Social
Security gets to retain.
Maybe the 62 number disappears, you know, when
(21:18):
you're first eligible, maybe.
I was going to ask, yeah, if everything
gets pushed back, like, instead of it being
62, 70, we're talking about 63 to 71,
or something like that.
Something like that.
Yeah.
I could definitely see that happening.
And that's a significant, you know, not only
are you delaying, it's not just the delaying,
(21:38):
if someone was going to live between 65,
say 66, and they were going to pass
at 90, you take a year out, you're
saving that entire year of paying, right?
It's not just delaying, you're actually saving for
the total cost that you pay out.
So I think that, you know, that would
be probably one of the things they did
(21:59):
before, they'll probably do it again.
Raising that full retirement age number.
I think so.
And, you know, I'm not suggesting that anyone
in or near retirement is affected.
And that's typically the way they do it.
They're not going to say if somebody's, you
know, 65, when this bill passed, if it
(22:20):
passes, they're not going to say, well, the
new age is 67.
They're going to say, all right, anybody 50
and younger, here's the rules, right?
So this is one of those longer term
things that, in theory, could save Social Security
from having to reduce their benefits for everyone.
(22:40):
And those, you know, while those 50 year
olds might not be thrilled about it, they
have time to get used to it, as
you mentioned in the article.
And, you know, there might be initial frustration
and anger, but there's still a pretty big
window for them.
Yeah.
Nobody thinks about the last time they did
retirement reform, Social Security reform.
Nobody's saying, oh, man, I could have retired
(23:01):
now at 65, full retirement age.
It's 66 now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And in theory, if that person doesn't retire
for the next year, I don't think I
mentioned this yet.
If I did, I'll hear it again.
But not only do they not pay out,
Social Security doesn't pay out for that extra
year, that person likely contributes for that extra
(23:22):
year.
At least statistically, most people, right?
Yeah.
I think people will see this or hear
this and say, you know, I don't want
to be working at 71, 72.
That's crazy.
I don't want to be working all that
time.
I get it.
I get it.
At the same time, you know, people often
think, well, I can only take Social Security
(23:43):
when I retire.
Like, they put them together as one thing.
When I retire, I take Social Security, whether
that means 62 or 65 or 70.
That's not necessarily the case, you know, for
some people it is.
But for others, you know, you might retire
and then wait to take Social Security and
build that benefit up.
So, yeah, a lot of people do that.
And, you know, we have countless clients who
(24:07):
think they're retiring, they're retired and they go
like, I am going back to work.
Right.
So sometimes it's prudent if your cash flow
can handle it.
If you retire, stopping your full time job,
sometimes it's prudent not to take Social Security
until you're sure you're not going to go
back to work.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Another thing that's, you know, more coming from
(24:28):
the left than the right on Social Security
reform is doing some type of means testing.
And so they love to use Warren Buffett
and other, you know, super wealthy people.
But is there a, you know, is there
an appetite to say if you're making, you
know, if you have a certain level of
net worth, if you have a certain level
(24:48):
of income, pension income, whatever it is, should
you get your $3,000 a month of
Social Security?
Right.
Should you get a benefit?
Now, this is where the debate really gets,
really gets emotional and about what Social Security
is.
It's, if you use the word entitlement around
(25:10):
some seniors I know, they'll argue quite strongly
that it's not an entitlement.
They have paid for this.
It's not like a, it's not a handout,
right?
It's not something they paid in.
This is a contract, a social contract that
we paid in.
This is how much we get.
So this one, I think, is a lot
(25:32):
less likely, but it comes from the left
about why should Warren Buffett get Social Security,
right?
Why should, they like to say it about
President Trump or whoever the leader of a
party is, why should Donald Trump get Social
Security when he's ultra wealthy, right?
It's a legitimate question.
I don't favor this because I believe it
(25:53):
is a social contract.
I think if there was means testing, it
would change the whole way the country looks
at Social Security and feels about Social Security
that, you know, that we're all in this
together, you know, us and them would just
expand on this issue because then people would
be paying and never getting the benefit, even
if they don't need it financially.
(26:13):
But this is something, I think, that will
be part of the debate because it's something
the left, the ideological position of the left
is about us versus them, wealth versus non
-wealth.
And so people getting Social Security, taking the
benefit, who have, in some cases, hundreds of
(26:35):
millions of dollars is a part of the
debate that I think we'll see.
Yeah, I think basically what it would be
is, you know, you've paid into Social Security,
you've made your wealth in other ways, and
when you hit that age 70 or whatever
it is, instead of receiving the benefit, you're
essentially ceding it, giving it to those who
(26:59):
might need it more, right?
Because your funding, your payments have been funding
Social Security.
At the same time, I think, you know,
I listened to Howard Marks at Oaktree, he's
a, you know, economist and a commentator and
a longtime investor, and he had a recent,
(27:20):
you know, memo about this where he was
talking about Social Security, he's like, you know,
I've got millions and millions of dollars, like,
$4,000 a month from Social Security, like,
it's not like I could even opt to
not take it, but I don't really, like,
I think it's not something I need.
So I think there are arguments for, you
(27:42):
know, is that really even, like, is that
going to move the needle for people who
have a certain level of wealth?
It's not, you know, financially it's not.
But it's part of that.
But it's part of the social contract, right?
I see this issue, means testing, and the
raising or eliminating the taxable earnings gap of
(28:04):
coming together and that being the compromise.
Interesting, yeah.
And like, okay, we'll pay more in, but
we're still getting something, you know, everybody needs
to be in this pool, right?
You know, it's the same, which I agree,
I agree with this type of philosophy that
everyone should pay a minimum federal tax.
You know, like half the people in the
(28:25):
country don't pay any federal income taxes because
of their income.
And you say, well, you know, they can't
afford it.
But I think everyone, I'm not talking thousands
of dollars, I'm talking like a floor of
$500 or something like that.
I think everyone should be in the game,
everybody should contribute something to the operation of
the federal government.
I don't think there should be people who
pay no federal taxes.
(28:47):
You know, we can be de minimis and
say, people made $10,000 or less, whatever.
But you get my point, everybody should be
in this game, everybody should be contributing for
the greater good of the country.
Yeah, a buy-in to the bigger picture,
right?
That's right.
The last two, which are probably my favorite
(29:07):
two, are number six is reducing fraud and
improving government efficiency.
I got some statistics in the article about
overpayments and fraud involved in this.
The level of fraud in Social Security, especially
SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance, it's been pretty
well documented and discussed.
(29:29):
I think many of us know, I've heard
individual stories of SSDI and some of the
things that it covers and some of the
lack of follow-ups when people qualify for
SSDI.
And then there's just no real meaningful reevaluation
of it.
And, you know, the only time they get
caught is because they're working full time, you
know, breaking up rocks or something and they
(29:51):
get a bad back, you know.
So there's all these stories out there.
Some of them exaggerated, certainly.
But I think a real effort about Social
Security SSI and SSDI would certainly be well
worth it and should be included in any
type of reform so that we know that
we're using the dollars correctly and that people
(30:13):
aren't taking advantage of the system.
I don't know if there's however many thousands
or hundreds of thousands of people that President
Trump said are dead and still collecting Social
Security.
I don't know that.
But we're smart enough as a nation to
be able to have systems involved with this.
We see certainly with technology, AI and all
(30:33):
these ways to verify things today, we can
use this technology to do a better job
at improving efficiency, which is, you know, the
stewards of taxpayer dollars and contributors dollars in
the case of Social Security.
I think government has a responsibility to be
doing a better job with fraud, waste and
abuse.
(30:54):
So any bill, any compromise should definitely include
a real effort to tackle that.
And maybe, like you said, leaning into that
technology to increase capacity to verify and make
sure everything is working as it should.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think that's a, I don't know who
(31:14):
would disagree with that.
And the last one is maybe one we
didn't expect to see here, and that's immigration
reform.
So, you know, we're in the middle, so
we're November 16th here recording.
So we're in the middle of the summer
of President Trump sending National Guard troops in,
federal authorities into various cities for, I don't
(31:37):
know, I don't think this is a wrong
term, immigration sweeps, right, to try to root
out illegal immigration.
Certainly the goal of taking people who are
committing crimes, who are dangerous to the community,
who are here illegally is one that most
people agree on.
The polling is really strong.
You know, why should we have people who
(31:58):
are harming Americans taking advantage of us in
our country?
And certainly that's happening.
Along with this immigration sweep, we're starting to
see stories of farmers having trouble, certain industries
having trouble with getting workers and so forth.
(32:18):
So touching the third rail politics, right?
I think that it's appropriate for President Trump
and the administration to be talking about immigration
reform and not just kicking out the people
who shouldn't be here, which I support, but
also about developing a real, not a fake,
(32:39):
which we've done before in this country, a
real worker program, a real system that allows
people to work in the United States.
I mean, we have to be real about
this.
There are jobs that Americans just aren't going
to do anymore, either because they don't live
where those jobs are, you know, the middle
of the country, the breadbasket of the country,
(33:01):
a lot of farms.
And, you know, I don't know too many
people are willing to live on a farm
and work, right?
And, you know, some of the other jobs
that we have, it sounds terrible, but it's
truth.
Like a lot of the jobs that immigrants
are doing, just like, you know, throughout the
history of the country, immigrants came here to
work really hard to make a better life
(33:22):
for their family and have the opportunities of
being in the United States.
That's not different now.
In most cases, the gang stuff is separate,
right?
So it was really a real immigration reform
that would allow a path to legally work
in the United States, pay federal taxes, pay
(33:42):
into Social Security, some type of use tax.
They shouldn't be able to collect Social Security
unless they are later become a citizen, you
know, the permanent residency or some form.
But even I think anyone who is working
in that state should pay at least a
use tax because you are replacing a worker
that could be working.
(34:04):
So having an above board system of taking
some of this work that is underground, putting
it above ground, I think would add to
the strength of our tax system, our Social
Security system, and allow American companies who want
to follow the rules, who should follow the
rules, to be able to do so.
(34:26):
Yeah, I think it goes back to your
point about everyone working towards a common good
in a way, you know, and everyone chipping
into the future of themselves and others.
So definitely a lot of interesting ideas that
hopefully are being considered in Washington, hopefully are
(34:46):
being discussed.
As you said, it could be a combination
of one or more of these options.
And maybe there are things that you didn't
even include in here, Jeff, that might come
up in the future.
I'm sure they have some great ideas and
probably a lot of bad ideas too.
And like I said, I don't agree with
it.
If I was forming the solution, you know,
if you and I said we're given the
(35:07):
task of fixing Social Security, I think after
a day or two after going through these
and having the math worked out, we could
figure it out.
But it's, you know, you can be an
ideologue, you can be right or left, you
can be whatever you want to be.
But this is going to happen.
It's just math, people, like Christmas.
(35:27):
Christmas isn't math, but Christmas is coming in
December.
So be prepared.
This is coming in eight years or whatever
it is.
So we have the opportunity.
We have a bold president who seems to
be willing to take on tough things.
So let's hope that he decides to touch
this third rail politics and can have some
(35:50):
responsible members of Congress go along with it
from both parties.
And knowing that no single solution is going
to fix this and that it's going to
take some compromise.
And this isn't something they should kick down
the road, kick the can down the road,
because it's going to be a lot more
difficult and devastating if they decide to wait
until the next one's in office.
(36:11):
Absolutely.
I totally agree.
And if you'd like to check out Jeff's
article, we're going to put the link in
the show notes so you can read more
on these things that we discussed.
I thought it was a really insightful article.
And some of these things you mentioned weren't
really even on my radar.
So good to be able to talk about
it with you, Jeff.
Great.
Thanks for us for the conversation.
(36:32):
And thank you for listening.
We appreciate it.
Please follow us on your favorite podcast venue.
Subscribe to us, follow us, give us a
rating, comments.
Tell us what you'd like to hear in
a future episode.
And we're getting some traction on YouTube, too.
So I hope you might, if you want
to see us and not just listen to
us, you can follow us on YouTube as
(36:54):
well.
We have a playlist under Wealth Enhancement.
We appreciate you listening.
Until next time, keep striving for something more.
Thank you for listening to Something More with
Chris Boyd.
Call us for help, whether it's for financial
planning or portfolio management, insurance concerns, or those
quality of life issues that make the money
(37:14):
matters matter.
Whatever's on your mind, visit us at somethingmorewithchrisboyd
.com or call us toll free at 866
-771-8901.
Or send us your questions to amr-info
at wealthenhancement.com.
You're listening to Something More with Chris Boyd
Financial Talk Show.
(37:35):
Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services and Jay Christopher Boyd
provide investment advice on an individual basis to
clients only.
Proper advice depends on a complete analysis of
all facts and circumstances.
The information given on this program is general
financial comments and cannot be relied upon as
pertaining to your specific situation.
Wealth Enhancement Group cannot guarantee that using the
information from this show will generate profits or
ensure freedom from loss.
Listeners should consult their own financial advisors or
(37:57):
conduct their own due diligence before making any
financial decisions.
Welcome to Something More with Chris Boyd.
Chris Boyd is a certified financial planner, practitioner,
and senior vice president and financial advisor at
Wealth Enhancement Group, one of the nation's largest
registered investment advisors.
We call it Something More because we'd like
to talk not only about those important dollar
and cents issues, but also the quality of
life issues that make the money matters matter.
(00:22):
Here he is, your fulfillment facilitator, your partner
in prosperity, advising clients on Cape Cod and
across the country.
Here's your host, Jay Christopher Boyd.
Welcome to another edition of Something More with
Chris Boyd.
I'm Jeff Perry.
I'm sitting in for Chris, who is in
Tennessee, the volunteer state at a conference for
(00:43):
Wealth Enhancement.
And I'm happy to have with me my
co-host today, Russ Ball, part of the
AMR team at Wealth Enhancement.
Thanks for joining us, Russ.
Of course.
Happy to be joining you, Jeff.
I am live from Florida.
I hope I'm alive in Florida.
And you are in?
Hyannis, Cape Cod.
So our team is spread out all over
(01:04):
the place.
Brian's up in Boston today.
And Chris and Kristen are in Tennessee.
So we are covering the East Coast.
Yeah.
We've got it locked down.
Anywhere you are along the East Coast, you
can find one of us.
Hopefully, they're having a good conference.
And I was glad to see that they
were able to fly down there.
There's so many things with this government shutdown
(01:26):
that are like, is that going to be
affected by the government shutdown?
I was watching CNBC this morning.
We're recording on the 16th of November here
and waiting for the CPI report to come
out this week.
And oh, yeah, we're not going to get
a report this week because the government is
(01:46):
shut down.
I saw on the news this morning, they
had a News Nation, which is a news
station that I prefer, had a town hall
meeting last night with Democrats and Republicans talking
about the shutdown, maybe how they can get
it resolved.
There was an air traffic controller who came
up to the podium and asked the question,
like, when do you think this will be
(02:07):
over?
I am not getting paid.
I have to work.
I'm not getting paid.
And I have to I'm doing DoorDash now
because my bills aren't waiting, right?
The grocery bill still needs to be paid.
The rent still needs to be paid.
And if it doesn't affect you, if you're
not a federal employee or you're not impacted
by a federal employee, which is, I would
(02:29):
say, a lot of most people like it
doesn't directly impact them every day.
But if you are somehow connected to a
federal employee, if your job's related to it
or your business is related to some approval
from the federal government, or, you know, we
even saw the stories earlier this week, which
appear to be resolved about the military not
(02:52):
getting paid.
There's so many tentacles to this.
And it's very frustrating.
And at some point, you know, it hasn't
affected the markets yet.
But at some point, you think it would.
Yeah, absolutely.
And the longer this stretches out, the more
people get nervous and the more, you know,
government workers aren't getting paid.
And it starts off as like, Oh, okay,
(03:14):
I have like, a, you know, a week
of downtime.
And then it starts stretching more and more.
I have friends who work in the government.
And, you know, they've been through it before
some of them.
But this one, it feels like it's no
real telling when it's going to be wrapping
up.
And there's seems to be a huge gap
there that needs to be reached.
So thought it would be a good time
(03:35):
to bring up an article that you wrote
recently, Jeff, talking a little bit about the
concerns with the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of government
and a lot of frustration these days that
the government shut down, I thought it would
be timely to bring up this article you
wrote recently called touching the third rail of
politics.
I think most of our listeners know, because
we talk about social security frequently.
(03:55):
And even if we didn't, they get it
from all the various news sources that social
security as we know it, the benefits that
are being paid now are related to the
money that comes in from workers and the
money that goes out to retirees, there is
a demographic change, the country's getting older, we
have less people contributing than we used to,
(04:16):
we're living longer.
That's good.
That's the good news.
We're living longer.
So Social Security's paying out more than they,
you know, initially projected.
And so the Social Security Administration predicts that
it by 2023, I'm sorry, 2033 2034 ish,
(04:36):
it changes, you know, once in a while,
maybe 2032.
The funds available will not be enough to
pay the current benefit levels.
Sometimes the headlight headlines say Social Security is
going bankrupt in 2032.
That's not accurate.
The accurate threat is that benefits with if
(04:57):
there's no reforms, if there's nothing done by
the federal government to sure up or change
the structure of Social Security, benefits would reduce
be reduced to probably 70 to 76 somewhere
in that range percent it's it changes, you
know, with each report.
I think I noted 77% in my
(05:18):
article that is so if you get $100
from Social Security, you would only be getting
77.
Now, most people including myself don't think that'll
happen.
I mean, which political party wants to be
the party in power to reduce benefits on
Social Security?
Yeah, not a popular move.
We know that this is a big issue
(05:41):
for voting.
And we know that people who collect Social
Security, meaning older folks, not that far away,
so I should watch my terms, but people
available to collect Social Security vote in a
high percentage.
So I think it would be almost a
revolt at the ballot box if either party
was in office and didn't do something to
(06:02):
change this potential decline.
Yeah.
So I thought, well, yeah, before before President
Trump took office, I think my general feeling
was they'll fix it.
They'll fix it like three minutes after it
would happen, you know, just like the government
shutdown.
So I think your comparison is great.
(06:22):
You know, like the government shut down because
they can't agree.
Right.
So the same things I thought would happen,
the same thing would happen with Social Security.
They can't reform it because they can't agree
on what reforms.
Therefore, they won't fix it until they absolutely
have to.
Right.
But when President Trump and the Republicans were
(06:43):
able to pass the one big, beautiful bill
successfully and they did some very controversial things
in that bill, keeping the tax rates where
they were and now are wasn't the most
controversial thing by any means.
And now we're seeing some of the things
like the cuts to health care programs, the
cuts to Medicaid that were done in that
(07:05):
bill are part of the debate about the
government shutdown.
And so they passed this very substantial bill
that had a lot of new policies in
it and a big reform, good or bad,
you like it or don't.
There's some big things in there, big changes.
And they were able to get it done.
So that got me wondering, would President Trump
(07:28):
and this Congress have the political courage, I
guess we'll call it, to take on a
reform of Social Security eight years, nine years,
whatever it is, before they need to?
Because obviously, when you reform something, you know,
this is like a big ship sailing across
the ocean, right?
This Social Security thing.
And if you get to the shore and
(07:48):
you're about to crash, it takes a lot
of energy, a lot of change to maneuver
that ship so it doesn't crash if you're
about two minutes from the shore.
Yeah, that's a good analogy.
Yeah.
But we're eight or nine years away.
So wouldn't it be prudent to make some
of these reforms that we'll talk about now
and be able to take this issue off
the table and have those extra eight or
(08:11):
nine years to generate more income, reduce benefits,
whatever the agreed upon solution is, and so
that people don't have to worry about this
for the next eight or nine years?
Absolutely.
And you mentioned in the article, too, that
the longer period of time you have, the
more options you have available to you.
And as that window closes, the options become
fewer and fewer.
(08:32):
So the last thing we'd want is to
be at that final hour and really have
one or maybe two maximum of these options
that you laid out for us available.
But yeah.
It's like someone who's thinking about retirement.
Two people think about retirement.
One of them is a 35-year-old
couple and they come in and say, you
(08:52):
know, we'd like to retire in 30 years.
How can we get there?
And we've got a lot of solutions for
them, right?
We've got a great opportunity to have a
robust plan and make them, help them become
super wealthy and live the retirement that they
want.
Or you've got the 60-year-old couple
that comes in and say, yes, we think
we're retiring next year.
We don't have any money yet and we
(09:12):
have a lot of debt, but what do
you think we can do?
It's the options, just like with Social Security,
with eight years planning time and time to
raise additional revenue, cut benefits, things we'll talk
about.
It's just so much easier than facing that,
what do we do?
You can't make small changes if it's a
crisis.
(09:34):
Absolutely.
Maybe we can jump into some of these
solutions that you were thinking about, Jeff.
So I have seven.
I'm sure there's more, but I like the
number seven.
I have seven.
And so, you know, being a former political
figure, I have to put out a disclaimer.
I don't like all these ideas.
These are not all Jeff Perry endorsed ideas.
(09:56):
So don't tweet about it.
Don't say, Jeff Perry wants to reduce your
Social Security benefits.
That's how it works in politics.
You talk about something and then you get
a video clip of you.
I'll put the link to the article in
the show notes if people want to read.
And these are in no order of importance
to me.
Number one is something that George W.
(10:17):
Bush talked about when he was president.
And that was adding a bit of an
investment component, investment diversification into the funds that
Social Security holds.
Right now, all of the Social Security trust
fund, quote unquote, is held in U.S.
treasuries.
So super safe, right?
(10:38):
I mean, if somebody wants to lock some
money up, get maybe a rate of inflation,
maybe a little bit better, a point better,
guaranteed by the U.S. government, there you
go, right?
So locking in a 4% return for
10 years may be safe, but it may
not be the best use of that money
for 10 years, depending on if you're an
(11:00):
individual, lots of things that we talk about
with our clients.
But President Bush talked about and others have
talked about, and I'm including it here, why
not add an element of risk to it,
S&P 500 fund or whatever they could
agree upon, the whole market, maybe the whole
stock and bond market, maybe it's a 50
(11:20):
-50 mix of that 25%.
I don't know, it doesn't matter.
But we know from the last time we've
reviewed it, since the beginning of the stock
market, it's a roller coaster ride.
But over long periods of times, it is
the best place to get a return for
your money.
And this Social Security is obviously a long
term investment in the workers and citizens of
the United States.
(11:41):
So I'm suggesting, for example, but take 25
% of the new Social Security contributions that
are coming in and diversify them in a
super broad base index.
If it was up to me, I'd buy
an S&P fund.
Maybe that's too narrow, maybe it's not diversified
enough, but whatever, some type of equity exposure,
(12:03):
so that over time, getting a better return,
which leads to some additional funds to reduce
the Social Security deficit.
Yeah, I mean, I think that makes a
lot of sense.
And it's not saying we're taking the entire
pool of money and investing it.
We're just saying there's the 75% in
(12:25):
what we've been doing in the Treasury bonds
and Treasury notes.
And then the 25% could be, it
might not even be all stock, per se.
It might be a mix, but basically generating
a higher rate of return for that 25%.
I mean, yeah, I think doing the math,
(12:45):
I'm sure you could get the benefits up
to where you need them to be.
I don't know if within that timeframe, maybe.
But yeah, I think that's definitely, it would
have to take a lot of work, I
think, on the people agreeing to things in
Washington.
But I think that would definitely increase the
(13:06):
probability of the long term solvency of Social
Security.
Now, there's people a lot smarter than me
that could figure out what that number, I
said 25%, which should be.
For example, perhaps they would agree to hold
five years of money in Treasuries for the
(13:26):
next five years.
And funds above that five year lockbox, we'll
call it, could be invested.
So maybe it's higher or maybe it's lower.
I'm just saying, let's add some diversification with
the proven equity exposure that could boost up
this return rather than just thinking 4%
(13:47):
is the best that we can do.
It's not advice we'd give clients.
It's not advice.
I would suspect that the representatives and senators
don't have 100% in US Treasuries and
no investment to more equity exposed mutual funds,
ETFs, whatever they have.
(14:09):
Yeah.
It would be sort of like how we
would work with the client who's extremely conservative.
We'd want to preserve the capital that they've
built up, the wealth that they've created, but
get some level of return as well.
It's not crazy to think that way.
Pension funds do it.
(14:30):
It's not like it's unheard of.
And Social Security is not a pension.
I understand that.
But it's the same theory.
We're taking pools of money to pay out
the recipients over long periods of time.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Yeah.
Number two, that's number one.
Number two is probably my most dangerous one
to talk about because I'm a Republican and
(14:52):
I'm talking about raising taxes.
But to really reform Social Security, it's going
to have to be a combination of these
seven things, maybe others, and not just increasing
the return or reducing benefits.
There needs to be more money coming into
the system because of the change in our
demographics.
(15:13):
You have less people paying in.
And so, as I say, this is the
quickest and most direct, or probably the least
popular.
And that's the increase.
And they did this during the last period
of Social Security reform.
They raised the payroll tax.
I'm just talking about a small increase.
I'm not talking about a significant increase.
(15:35):
But I think as part of the solution,
the payroll tax rate is going to have
to go up a little bit to add
a little bit more revenue to this pool
of money.
Yeah.
I mean, you could definitely see that as
a likely outcome or likely possibility.
If there's not enough people working to cover
the people who are retiring, then something's got
to give there, right?
(15:55):
So, marginally increasing, no one's going to be
happy about it, but it is an option
that might make sense.
Especially, like you said, that would be the
option that becomes more and more, as the
window becomes more and more narrow, that's probably
going to be where most people are looking.
Right.
If we're up against this, if it's six
(16:17):
months out, you're not going to get extra
funds by diversification or reducing fraud or other
things we're going to talk about.
This is really the most easiest and direct
way to do it.
And I think it's going to have to
be part of the solution.
And maybe it's typically something the Democrats would
offer.
So, this is going to have to be
a compromise.
(16:37):
So, maybe this is one of the things
that the compromise can happen because of it.
And the other piece, I don't think you
mentioned in this article, but it's not just
Social Security, but it's also Medicare that's running
low on funding.
Around the same time, I think it's going
to be in trouble.
(16:57):
Yeah, it's a few years behind, but it's
coming.
And I hesitated.
I thought about writing it together, but I
didn't want to confuse the issues because some
of these solutions are not relevant to Medicare.
So, I made it separate.
The next one, number three, is raising or
eliminating the taxable earnings cap.
(17:19):
So, right now, you pay taxes, payroll taxes,
and the employee pays them, the employer pays
them.
If you're self-employed, the owner pays both
of them.
But your Social Security taxes only apply up
to $176,100.
So, you're paying your Social Security payroll tax
(17:39):
up to that when your earnings over it
are not taxed to Social Security.
Well, this is another non-popular option probably,
but it does add additional revenue if that
cap was raised a lot a bit or
(18:00):
eliminated altogether.
I mean, it's ripe for debate.
Certainly, we hear about it all the time,
the rich wealth gaps.
It's really ripe for debate of should there
be a limit on how much we pay
into Social Security.
Now, the argument from the conservative side of
the issue, I guess, would be, well, there's
(18:23):
a limit on what you can collect on
Social Security.
There's a maximum.
Yeah.
Right?
So, it's not like, oh, well, I'll contribute
more because I'm going to get more later,
which is kind of the promise of Social
Security to everyone.
But there is a max benefit, no matter
how much you pay into Social Security.
Yeah.
So, that would be the pushback.
But I think if we're looking for additional
(18:44):
revenue, in addition to savings that we're going
to talk about, this one is probably easier
or more likely to happen than just raising
the payroll tax on every American who works.
Right.
I mean, one way to think of it,
and I will touch on this later as
well, but if you're a high income earner,
(19:05):
there's a good chance if you're saving for
retirement and you're planning well, there's a good
chance you're not going to rely on that
Social Security later in life as much as
other people in lower tax brackets would.
So, yeah, definitely something to consider about raising
that limit or just eliminating it altogether, where
(19:27):
everyone, no matter the income, is contributing a
certain percentage to Social Security.
That's right.
You know, none of these seven, we've talked
about three, none of these seven is going
to get me elected, by the way, because
they're all, or get anyone elected.
That's why I call it the third rail
of politics.
None of these, you know, exception of maybe
(19:48):
the last two, but none of these, if
you're talking about them as a political candidate,
you're going to get a lot of applause.
You're going to get a lot of people
looking at you worried, right?
Yep.
And this is one that's probably the most
controversial.
Number four is reducing benefits for future retirees.
And so when I'm talking about reducing benefits,
I'm not per se suggesting by any means
(20:10):
that if grandma's getting $1,000 a month,
that she should get 900.
That's what's going to happen if they don't
do anything.
What I'm talking about is, you know, in
1935, when Social Security started, the life expectancy
was 61.
So all the math was done with very
few, not everyone getting Social Security because you
(20:32):
retired at 65, if you retired at 65.
Now, the average life expectancy is around 76,
77.
So the math is different.
And so maybe the retirement age should be
different.
Now, the last time they did Social Security
reform, they bumped up the full retirement age.
(20:55):
Now it's 66 or 67, depending when you
were born.
I suspect that that number is probably going
to move up again.
Right?
Because, you know, every year you delay paying
benefits, it's a little bit more that Social
Security gets to retain.
Maybe the 62 number disappears, you know, when
(21:18):
you're first eligible, maybe.
I was going to ask, yeah, if everything
gets pushed back, like, instead of it being
62, 70, we're talking about 63 to 71,
or something like that.
Something like that.
Yeah.
I could definitely see that happening.
And that's a significant, you know, not only
are you delaying, it's not just the delaying,
(21:38):
if someone was going to live between 65,
say 66, and they were going to pass
at 90, you take a year out, you're
saving that entire year of paying, right?
It's not just delaying, you're actually saving for
the total cost that you pay out.
So I think that, you know, that would
be probably one of the things they did
(21:59):
before, they'll probably do it again.
Raising that full retirement age number.
I think so.
And, you know, I'm not suggesting that anyone
in or near retirement is affected.
And that's typically the way they do it.
They're not going to say if somebody's, you
know, 65, when this bill passed, if it
(22:20):
passes, they're not going to say, well, the
new age is 67.
They're going to say, all right, anybody 50
and younger, here's the rules, right?
So this is one of those longer term
things that, in theory, could save Social Security
from having to reduce their benefits for everyone.
(22:40):
And those, you know, while those 50 year
olds might not be thrilled about it, they
have time to get used to it, as
you mentioned in the article.
And, you know, there might be initial frustration
and anger, but there's still a pretty big
window for them.
Yeah.
Nobody thinks about the last time they did
retirement reform, Social Security reform.
Nobody's saying, oh, man, I could have retired
(23:01):
now at 65, full retirement age.
It's 66 now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And in theory, if that person doesn't retire
for the next year, I don't think I
mentioned this yet.
If I did, I'll hear it again.
But not only do they not pay out,
Social Security doesn't pay out for that extra
year, that person likely contributes for that extra
(23:22):
year.
At least statistically, most people, right?
Yeah.
I think people will see this or hear
this and say, you know, I don't want
to be working at 71, 72.
That's crazy.
I don't want to be working all that
time.
I get it.
I get it.
At the same time, you know, people often
think, well, I can only take Social Security
(23:43):
when I retire.
Like, they put them together as one thing.
When I retire, I take Social Security, whether
that means 62 or 65 or 70.
That's not necessarily the case, you know, for
some people it is.
But for others, you know, you might retire
and then wait to take Social Security and
build that benefit up.
So, yeah, a lot of people do that.
And, you know, we have countless clients who
(24:07):
think they're retiring, they're retired and they go
like, I am going back to work.
Right.
So sometimes it's prudent if your cash flow
can handle it.
If you retire, stopping your full time job,
sometimes it's prudent not to take Social Security
until you're sure you're not going to go
back to work.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Another thing that's, you know, more coming from
(24:28):
the left than the right on Social Security
reform is doing some type of means testing.
And so they love to use Warren Buffett
and other, you know, super wealthy people.
But is there a, you know, is there
an appetite to say if you're making, you
know, if you have a certain level of
net worth, if you have a certain level
(24:48):
of income, pension income, whatever it is, should
you get your $3,000 a month of
Social Security?
Right.
Should you get a benefit?
Now, this is where the debate really gets,
really gets emotional and about what Social Security
is.
It's, if you use the word entitlement around
(25:10):
some seniors I know, they'll argue quite strongly
that it's not an entitlement.
They have paid for this.
It's not like a, it's not a handout,
right?
It's not something they paid in.
This is a contract, a social contract that
we paid in.
This is how much we get.
So this one, I think, is a lot
(25:32):
less likely, but it comes from the left
about why should Warren Buffett get Social Security,
right?
Why should, they like to say it about
President Trump or whoever the leader of a
party is, why should Donald Trump get Social
Security when he's ultra wealthy, right?
It's a legitimate question.
I don't favor this because I believe it
(25:53):
is a social contract.
I think if there was means testing, it
would change the whole way the country looks
at Social Security and feels about Social Security
that, you know, that we're all in this
together, you know, us and them would just
expand on this issue because then people would
be paying and never getting the benefit, even
if they don't need it financially.
(26:13):
But this is something, I think, that will
be part of the debate because it's something
the left, the ideological position of the left
is about us versus them, wealth versus non
-wealth.
And so people getting Social Security, taking the
benefit, who have, in some cases, hundreds of
(26:35):
millions of dollars is a part of the
debate that I think we'll see.
Yeah, I think basically what it would be
is, you know, you've paid into Social Security,
you've made your wealth in other ways, and
when you hit that age 70 or whatever
it is, instead of receiving the benefit, you're
essentially ceding it, giving it to those who
(26:59):
might need it more, right?
Because your funding, your payments have been funding
Social Security.
At the same time, I think, you know,
I listened to Howard Marks at Oaktree, he's
a, you know, economist and a commentator and
a longtime investor, and he had a recent,
(27:20):
you know, memo about this where he was
talking about Social Security, he's like, you know,
I've got millions and millions of dollars, like,
$4,000 a month from Social Security, like,
it's not like I could even opt to
not take it, but I don't really, like,
I think it's not something I need.
So I think there are arguments for, you
(27:42):
know, is that really even, like, is that
going to move the needle for people who
have a certain level of wealth?
It's not, you know, financially it's not.
But it's part of that.
But it's part of the social contract, right?
I see this issue, means testing, and the
raising or eliminating the taxable earnings gap of
(28:04):
coming together and that being the compromise.
Interesting, yeah.
And like, okay, we'll pay more in, but
we're still getting something, you know, everybody needs
to be in this pool, right?
You know, it's the same, which I agree,
I agree with this type of philosophy that
everyone should pay a minimum federal tax.
You know, like half the people in the
(28:25):
country don't pay any federal income taxes because
of their income.
And you say, well, you know, they can't
afford it.
But I think everyone, I'm not talking thousands
of dollars, I'm talking like a floor of
$500 or something like that.
I think everyone should be in the game,
everybody should contribute something to the operation of
the federal government.
I don't think there should be people who
pay no federal taxes.
(28:47):
You know, we can be de minimis and
say, people made $10,000 or less, whatever.
But you get my point, everybody should be
in this game, everybody should be contributing for
the greater good of the country.
Yeah, a buy-in to the bigger picture,
right?
That's right.
The last two, which are probably my favorite
(29:07):
two, are number six is reducing fraud and
improving government efficiency.
I got some statistics in the article about
overpayments and fraud involved in this.
The level of fraud in Social Security, especially
SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance, it's been pretty
well documented and discussed.
(29:29):
I think many of us know, I've heard
individual stories of SSDI and some of the
things that it covers and some of the
lack of follow-ups when people qualify for
SSDI.
And then there's just no real meaningful reevaluation
of it.
And, you know, the only time they get
caught is because they're working full time, you
know, breaking up rocks or something and they
(29:51):
get a bad back, you know.
So there's all these stories out there.
Some of them exaggerated, certainly.
But I think a real effort about Social
Security SSI and SSDI would certainly be well
worth it and should be included in any
type of reform so that we know that
we're using the dollars correctly and that people
(30:13):
aren't taking advantage of the system.
I don't know if there's however many thousands
or hundreds of thousands of people that President
Trump said are dead and still collecting Social
Security.
I don't know that.
But we're smart enough as a nation to
be able to have systems involved with this.
We see certainly with technology, AI and all
(30:33):
these ways to verify things today, we can
use this technology to do a better job
at improving efficiency, which is, you know, the
stewards of taxpayer dollars and contributors dollars in
the case of Social Security.
I think government has a responsibility to be
doing a better job with fraud, waste and
abuse.
(30:54):
So any bill, any compromise should definitely include
a real effort to tackle that.
And maybe, like you said, leaning into that
technology to increase capacity to verify and make
sure everything is working as it should.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think that's a, I don't know who
(31:14):
would disagree with that.
And the last one is maybe one we
didn't expect to see here, and that's immigration
reform.
So, you know, we're in the middle, so
we're November 16th here recording.
So we're in the middle of the summer
of President Trump sending National Guard troops in,
federal authorities into various cities for, I don't
(31:37):
know, I don't think this is a wrong
term, immigration sweeps, right, to try to root
out illegal immigration.
Certainly the goal of taking people who are
committing crimes, who are dangerous to the community,
who are here illegally is one that most
people agree on.
The polling is really strong.
You know, why should we have people who
(31:58):
are harming Americans taking advantage of us in
our country?
And certainly that's happening.
Along with this immigration sweep, we're starting to
see stories of farmers having trouble, certain industries
having trouble with getting workers and so forth.
(32:18):
So touching the third rail politics, right?
I think that it's appropriate for President Trump
and the administration to be talking about immigration
reform and not just kicking out the people
who shouldn't be here, which I support, but
also about developing a real, not a fake,
(32:39):
which we've done before in this country, a
real worker program, a real system that allows
people to work in the United States.
I mean, we have to be real about
this.
There are jobs that Americans just aren't going
to do anymore, either because they don't live
where those jobs are, you know, the middle
of the country, the breadbasket of the country,
(33:01):
a lot of farms.
And, you know, I don't know too many
people are willing to live on a farm
and work, right?
And, you know, some of the other jobs
that we have, it sounds terrible, but it's
truth.
Like a lot of the jobs that immigrants
are doing, just like, you know, throughout the
history of the country, immigrants came here to
work really hard to make a better life
(33:22):
for their family and have the opportunities of
being in the United States.
That's not different now.
In most cases, the gang stuff is separate,
right?
So it was really a real immigration reform
that would allow a path to legally work
in the United States, pay federal taxes, pay
(33:42):
into Social Security, some type of use tax.
They shouldn't be able to collect Social Security
unless they are later become a citizen, you
know, the permanent residency or some form.
But even I think anyone who is working
in that state should pay at least a
use tax because you are replacing a worker
that could be working.
(34:04):
So having an above board system of taking
some of this work that is underground, putting
it above ground, I think would add to
the strength of our tax system, our Social
Security system, and allow American companies who want
to follow the rules, who should follow the
rules, to be able to do so.
(34:26):
Yeah, I think it goes back to your
point about everyone working towards a common good
in a way, you know, and everyone chipping
into the future of themselves and others.
So definitely a lot of interesting ideas that
hopefully are being considered in Washington, hopefully are
(34:46):
being discussed.
As you said, it could be a combination
of one or more of these options.
And maybe there are things that you didn't
even include in here, Jeff, that might come
up in the future.
I'm sure they have some great ideas and
probably a lot of bad ideas too.
And like I said, I don't agree with
it.
If I was forming the solution, you know,
if you and I said we're given the
(35:07):
task of fixing Social Security, I think after
a day or two after going through these
and having the math worked out, we could
figure it out.
But it's, you know, you can be an
ideologue, you can be right or left, you
can be whatever you want to be.
But this is going to happen.
It's just math, people, like Christmas.
(35:27):
Christmas isn't math, but Christmas is coming in
December.
So be prepared.
This is coming in eight years or whatever
it is.
So we have the opportunity.
We have a bold president who seems to
be willing to take on tough things.
So let's hope that he decides to touch
this third rail politics and can have some
(35:50):
responsible members of Congress go along with it
from both parties.
And knowing that no single solution is going
to fix this and that it's going to
take some compromise.
And this isn't something they should kick down
the road, kick the can down the road,
because it's going to be a lot more
difficult and devastating if they decide to wait
until the next one's in office.
(36:11):
Absolutely.
I totally agree.
And if you'd like to check out Jeff's
article, we're going to put the link in
the show notes so you can read more
on these things that we discussed.
I thought it was a really insightful article.
And some of these things you mentioned weren't
really even on my radar.
So good to be able to talk about
it with you, Jeff.
Great.
Thanks for us for the conversation.
(36:32):
And thank you for listening.
We appreciate it.
Please follow us on your favorite podcast venue.
Subscribe to us, follow us, give us a
rating, comments.
Tell us what you'd like to hear in
a future episode.
And we're getting some traction on YouTube, too.
So I hope you might, if you want
to see us and not just listen to
us, you can follow us on YouTube as
(36:54):
well.
We have a playlist under Wealth Enhancement.
We appreciate you listening.
Until next time, keep striving for something more.
Thank you for listening to Something More with
Chris Boyd.
Call us for help, whether it's for financial
planning or portfolio management, insurance concerns, or those
quality of life issues that make the money
(37:14):
matters matter.
Whatever's on your mind, visit us at somethingmorewithchrisboyd
.com or call us toll free at 866
-771-8901.
Or send us your questions to amr-info
at wealthenhancement.com.
You're listening to Something More with Chris Boyd
Financial Talk Show.
(37:35):
Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services and Jay Christopher Boyd
provide investment advice on an individual basis to
clients only.
Proper advice depends on a complete analysis of
all facts and circumstances.
The information given on this program is general
financial comments and cannot be relied upon as
pertaining to your specific situation.
Wealth Enhancement Group cannot guarantee that using the
information from this show will generate profits or
ensure freedom from loss.
Listeners should consult their own financial advisors or
(37:57):
conduct their own due diligence before making any
financial decisions.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.