Mac1958
Diamond Member
.
I'm a financial advisor and I do pro bono SS presentations and counseling for low-income residents locally. Social Security can be tweaked relatively easily...
... Increase the retirement age a bit (remember that life expectancy when Social Security was 63 when SS came into law, it's now 78, see a problem there?). Currently non-disabled people can begin receiving their Social Security benefits at 62. Demographics are rapidly changing. Do a bit of research. Do the math.
... Increase the Social Security payroll cap ($110,000 for 2012) - that would make a significant difference by itself
... Do a bit of both, this ain't freakin' rocket science
Social Security is not the problem. Medicare is. Anyone who doesn't see what's coming down the road with the Baby Boomer population aging into Medicare as we speak either isn't paying attention or is too busy playing silly partisan games to care.
.
If I may.
Life expectancy is rising due to children surviving at birth, not because people are suddenly living 2 decades longer. You need to look at life expectancy of people at age 65. When you look at that, you see that in 1900, men lived on average 11.5 years after the age of 65. Today, they live about 16 years past 65, or about 4.5 years longer. Big deal. If you raise the retirement age even a couple years, you will wipe out any and all gains that medical advances have given us. Are you really suggesting you want workers to have the same retirement length as those in 1900?
Life Expectancy
As to raising the cap, the problem with that is that the payments are fixed and based on what you pay in. If you raise the cap, yes, you will get more money, but then people will be paying in and getting less back than what they paid in. How is that fair? It isn't. However, companies never draw from SS, so you can raise THEIR cap, while leaving the employer portion in place. This would maintain the fairness of workers paying in, while fully funding the program.
Interesting, thanks for posting that link. I may steal it. Aw hell, I'm sure I'll steal it.
Regarding raising the age, that would be my less favored approach, definitely. I think of the many people I've met who simply don't have the capacity (financially, intellectually, emotionally and some combination therein) to make it past 62 or 65 without receiving benefits. I don't like the idea of leaving future people like that out in the cold.
Raising the cap makes more sense to me. I get the "fairness" argument, but I think like anything else, fairness can only work in moderation when you have two opposing views to consider. I'd put it in the same category as means testing, such as with Medicare Part B. Is it 100% fair to make wealthier people pay more for Part B? Officially no, but fairness has to work across the board. In other words, I get both sides, but I'm just not willing to leave people in the streets for principle.
My guess is that the first thing we'll see is a rise in the cap, just a guess.
.