RESPID. Respondent ID.
Congressional District
STATUS. Status
Respondent ID
National Weight
State Weight for all 8 states
State Weight for CA
State Weight for FL
State Weight for MD
State Weight for MI
State Weight for NY
State weight for NC
State Weight for OH
State Weight for PA
State Weight for TX
9 digit zip -- State
Level of education
Household income (HHLD)
Age of respondent
FipsCode
Q1. Overall, would you say your view of Social Security is:
Q2. Does the monthly benefit seem:
Q3. How much have heard or read about the Social Security shortfall?
Q4. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: LOWERING MONTHLY BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD HIGHER EARNINGS: 1: Arguments in Favor of Policy Option.
Q5. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: LOWERING MONTHLY BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD HIGHER EARNINGS: 2: Arguments in Favor of Policy Option.
Q6. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: LOWERING MONTHLY BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD HIGHER EARNINGS: 1: Arguments Against Policy Option.
Q7. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: LOWERING MONTHLY BENEFITS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD HIGHER EARNINGS: 2: Arguments Against Policy Option.
Q8A. Assessing Proposals: The first proposal is to reduce the monthly benefits for the top 25 percent of earners. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 7%.
Q8B. Assessing Proposals: A second proposal is to reduce the monthly benefits for the top 40 percent of earners. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 25%.
Q8C. Assessing Proposals: A third proposal is to reduce the monthly benefits for the top 50 percent of earners. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 34%.
Q9. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE FULL RETIREMENT AGE: 1: Arguments in Favor of Policy Option.
Q10. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE FULL RETIREMENT AGE: 2: Arguments in Favor of Policy Option.
Q11. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE FULL RETIREMENT AGE: 1: Arguments Against Policy Option.
Q12. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE FULL RETIREMENT AGE: 2: Arguments Against Policy Option.
Q13A. Assessing Proposals: Proposal 1: Gradually raising the retirement age to 68 by 2034. This step would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 15%.
Q13B. Assessing Proposals: Proposal 2: Gradually raising the retirement age to 69 by 2041. This step would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 21%.
Q13C. Assessing Proposals: Proposal 3: Gradually raising the retirement age to 70 by 2064. This step would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 29%.
Q14. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE CAP ON TAXABLE EARNINGS: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q15. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE CAP ON TAXABLE EARNINGS: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q16. Assessing the Proposal: Gradually, over a period of 10 years, raise the limit on salary and wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax from the current $117,000 per year to $215,000. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 27%.
Q17. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: ELIMINATING THE CAP ON TAXABLE EARNINGS: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q18. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: ELIMINATING THE CAP ON TAXABLE EARNINGS: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q19. Assessing the Proposal: Eliminate the cap so that ALL salary and wages are subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 66%.
Q20. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: INCREASING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX RATE: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q21. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: INCREASING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAX RATE: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q22A. Assessing the Proposals: Proposal 1: The first proposal raises the payroll tax rate 0.05% a year for 8 years so that it would ultimately rise to 6.6%. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 17%.
Q22B. Assessing the Proposals: Proposal 2: A second proposal raises the payroll tax rate 0.05% a year for 14 years so that it would ultimately rise to 6.9%. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 33%.
Q22C. Assessing the Proposals: Proposal 3: A third proposal raises the payroll tax rate 0.05% a year for 20 years so that it would ultimately rise to 7.2%. This would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 49%.
Q23. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE MINIMUM BENEFIT: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q24. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: RAISING THE MINIMUM BENEFIT: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q25. Assessing the Proposal: Raise the minimum Social Security benefit to $1,216 a month for those with 30 years of work history. This would increase the Social Security shortfall by 7%.
Q26. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: SUPPLEMENTING BENEFITS FOR THE OLDEST: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q27. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: SUPPLEMENTING BENEFITS FOR THE OLDEST: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q28. Assessing the Proposal: Benefits would begin to gradually increase at age 81 and by age 85 the increase would be an extra $61.50 a month. This proposal would increase the Social Security shortfall by 5%.
Q29. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: COLA BASED ON CONSUMERS' BUYING BEHAVIOR (THE CHAINED CPI): Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q30. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: COLA BASED ON CONSUMERS' BUYING BEHAVIOR (THE CHAINED CPI): Argument Against Policy Option.
Q31. Assessing the Proposal: Basing the annual cost of living increases for benefits (COLAs) on the inflation rate for a changing set of goods that reflects what people buy, rather than a fixed set of goods, -a method known as the chained CPI.
Q32. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: COLA BASED ON GOODS THE ELDERLY TEND TO BUY: Argument in Favor of Policy Option.
Q33. Very convincing/Very unconvincing: COLA BASED ON GOODS THE ELDERLY TEND TO BUY: Argument Against Policy Option.
Q34. Assessing the Proposal: Basing the annual cost of living increases for benefits (COLAs) on the inflation rate for a set of goods that reflect what elderly people tend to buy. This proposal would increase the Social Security shortfall by 13%.
Q35. Lower Monthly Benefits of Those with Higher Lifetime Earnings:
Q36. Raise the Full Retirement Age:
Q37. Raise the Cap on Taxable Earnings:
Q38. Increase Payroll Tax Rate:
Q39a. Raise minimum monthly benefit for those who have worked 30 years or more from $800 to $1,216:
Q39b. Supplementing benefits of those 85 and over by $61.50 a month:
Q41. Recalculating Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLAs):
Shortfall
Shortfall, with min beneftis included
Q42. At this point would you like to:
Borrow the funds
Reduce defense spending
Reduce non-defense spending
Raise other taxes, such as income and corporate taxes
Let Social Security benefits decrease when the trust fund can no longer pay them in full
Chose to go back
DK
O_Q45A. While you were going through this process did you have any other thoughts about Social Security that you would like to share with us now? (OPEN END)
O_Q45B. If you have any comments about the policymaking simulation itself-such as ideas about how it might be improved-we would like to hear those as well. (OPEN END)
QD1. Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a:
QD1A. Do you think of yourself as closer to the:
QD2A. How often would you say you vote in the primary elections-that is, the elections in which a party selects their nominee to run in a general election?
QD2B. How often would you say you vote in the general election-that is, the election for President every four years, or in off-years for just members of Congress?
QD3A. Which one of the following candidates would you most prefer for President?
QD3B. Which one of the following candidates would you most prefer for President?
QD3OTHER. Other: Which one of the following candidates would you most prefer for President?
O_QD3OTHER. Other: Which one of the following candidates would you most prefer for President? (OPEN END)
QD4. What is your religion?
QD4A. Would you describe yourself as a born-again Christian?
QD4B. Would you describe yourself as an evangelical Christian?
County size
DMA Code
DMA for Ohio
DMA for Texas
DMA for New York
DMA for California
State
Oversample States
States
Geographic division
Party id -- 3way
Sex of respondent
Income
Education
Age -- 6 cats