Sanders Introduces "Pensions for All Act" to Ensure Workers Can Retire
Only 9 percent of Americans have pensions today, compared to 44 percent in 1975.
Andrew Harnik / Getty Images
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is taking on the retirement crisis in the U.S. with a new bill aimed at guaranteeing pensions or solid retirement plans for every worker in America.
On Thursday, Sanders introduced the Pensions for All Act, which would require corporations to provide a retirement plan equivalent to or better than the pensions plan offered to members of Congress.
If we are serious about addressing the retirement crisis in America, corporations must be required to offer all of their workers a traditional pension plan that guarantees a monthly income in retirement, Sanders said in a statement. And if corporations refuse to offer a decent retirement plan, their workers must be allowed to receive the same type of pension that every member of Congress receives.
(snip)
Weve gone from being a country that promised security and dignity in old age to being a country that forces people to work until theyre in the grave, said United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain in a statement in support of the legislation. Pensions have long been the bedrock of retirement for working-class people, but corporate greed has eroded that foundation. The billionaire class gutted pensions in pursuit of profit, and Washington let it happen.
(snip)
https://truthout.org/articles/sanders-introduces-pensions-for-all-act-to-ensure-workers-can-retire/

Ken Dayenu
(98 posts)We have pensions for all. It is called Social Security. Fix that, don't create something else.
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)Ken Dayenu
(98 posts)It is going to hit people who work for a living that have good salaries (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) more than Billionaires. Capital gains taxes are ridiculously low and have tons of loop holes that need to be closed. The ACA tax tried to address this by leaning more on investment income than wages.
"The ACA introduced an additional Medicare tax of 0.9% for high earners. This tax applies to individuals earning more than $200,000, or married couples earning more than $250,000. Employers are required to withhold this tax from wages above these thresholds.
The ACA also introduced the Net Investment Income Tax, a 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals with an AGI over $200,000 and married couples with an AGI over $250,000. This tax applies to income from interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income, and other investment sources."
https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/tax-help/tax-tips-topics/health-medical/what-is-the-affordable-care-act/
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)Ken Dayenu
(98 posts)The video says essentially what I said, but doesn't make the distinction between taxing wages and investment income, which I think is an important distinction. That CEO making $20M is already paying a 38% marginal tax rate. The billionaire that owns the company is paying 24% if anything at all. The employee of the company that is making $200K is paying 33% and rises to 35% at $250K.
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)The Tax on Wall Street Speculation Act of 2021
The Tax on Wall Street Speculation Act would impose a tax of a fraction of a percent on trades
of stocks, bonds, and derivatives. This Wall Street speculation tax, also known as a financial
transaction tax, will raise up to $2.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade from wealthy
investors that can be used to make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free. It
will also reduce speculation and high-frequency trading that is destabilizing financial markets.
During the financial crisis, Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the
world. Over the past year, Wall Street has seen its wealth skyrocket during the pandemic,
even as millions of Americans lost their jobs and struggle to put food on the table. Now it is Wall
Streets turn to rebuild the disappearing middle class and support the economic recovery.
This bill targets Wall Street investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators. For the rare
household of modest means that trades directly or through a broker, this legislation would
provide an income tax credit to fully offset the speculation fee.
(snip)
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/The-Tax-on-Wall-Street-Speculation-2021-Summary-v12.pdf
Ken Dayenu
(98 posts)I don't have a problem with that. My issue is raising taxes on people making $200K and legislation for corporate pension plans instead of just using social security as the pension plan. The distance between our fundamental views is probably about the thickness of a hair.
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)I'm all for an income or transitional doughnut insofar as social security is concerned.
valleyrogue
(2,217 posts)Big, big, big difference.
MichMan
(15,493 posts)Would all employers be required to provide it at their expense? Or would it be a government funded program on top of SS, as a default?
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)Introduced legislation: On July 17, 2025, Sanders introduced the "Pensions for All Act" to address the retirement crisis in the U.S..
Aims to guarantee retirement benefits: The bill aims to guarantee retirement benefits to millions of Americans who currently lack workplace retirement plans.
Requires corporate action or federal system contribution: The Act would require corporations to either provide a traditional pension plan similar to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or contribute to a federal retirement system to ensure comparable benefits.
Builds on Social Security Expansion Act: This bill complements Sanders' existing Social Security Expansion Act, which seeks to increase Social Security benefits and ensure the program's long-term solvency.
MichMan
(15,493 posts)If a corporation is required to either fund and manage it themselves, or pay the tax and let the government do it, seems like most would just pay the tax instead. Wouldn't it be easier to just raise the current SS taxes instead of creating a parallel system?
Uncle Joe
(62,363 posts)or infirm to work, etc. etc.
As for what corporations do, I imagine that will depend on how tax law is drawn up over the issue?