Is the retirement age going to get raised?

[elvis]

I've said that the retirement age must be raised for years now, should have started when life expectancies hit the 70's in 1970 at least. Actually the retirement age then was likely above 65. No one is going to force you to work, never has, it is when you may receive SSI and Medicare.

Both of which cannot be 'saved' with this change alone. Indeed I've said and still do that we should be able to receive back the money with interest that have been confiscated over X number of years, beginning at retirement age. Once that amount is returned, there should be means testing of some sort for X number of years, while SSI is phased out totally or made optional.

The SSI was not set up like a 401K. It's more like an annuity. That's the contract.

That said, in 1935, life expectancy for all races, both genders was under 60 on average. Now, in spite of the FACT that the USA has the absolutely worst medical care in the history of the Universe, life expectancy is just under 78 years for all. This is probably the greatest reason why the cost have risen so dramatically.

Taking th letter of the "contract", we should expect to have the same age benefit sunrise. Using the "spirit" of the law, we should begin to enjoy benefits if we outlive the average.

One last "however": While medicine has advanced to keep us from dying, we are still prone to things like joints locking up and brains, too. Being capable of producing while in a spirit is willing, but the flesh is worn out state is the reality.

Means testing? From each according to his needs or whatever? You plays the game and you takes your chances. If you die before 65, you get nada. If you survive to the finish line, you get the cash. Play by the rules.

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2005 — Infoplease.com

Dropped on your head as a child?

 

[The Rabbi]

Code1211, you are an idiot of the highest order.

On topic, age 65 for retirement was instituted by Bismark in Imperial Germany. The reason was that most people died in their mid 50s, so someone who reached 65 is about like someone reaching 85 today. We absolutely need to raise the retirement age otherwise the system will go bankrupt. I would gladly give up 2 years of benefits to insure many more.

What office did Bismark hold in the government of the United States?

By the way, thank you for the award. I thought I was just a regular, run of the mill idiot like everyone else. What order in the idiocracy do you occupy that allows you to confer that honor?

None, actually. But what does that have to do with anything? US. policy copied Bismark's program, including vesting age for benefits. But if you've ever wondered why 65 is the magic number rather than 60, 62 or 70, that's the reason.
Of course you've wondered that because your powers of introspection are nil.
No, don't be hard on yourself. You are not a regular run of the mill idiot. All of us can be that at times. No, you have a special talent in that regard.

 

[boedicca]

WASHINGTON — Young Americans might not get full Social Security retirement benefits until they reach age 70 if some trial balloons that prominent lawmakers of both parties are floating become law.

No one who's slated to receive benefits in the next decade or two is likely to be affected, but there's a gentle, growing and unusually bipartisan push to raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits for people born in the 1960s and after.

The suggestions are being taken seriously after decades when they were politically impossible because officials — and, increasingly, their constituents — are confronting the inescapable challenge of the nation's enormous debt.

Social Security was created in 1935 with a retirement age of 65, but since then life expectancy at that age has increased by about six years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Today the full Social Security benefit retirement age is 66 for people born from 1943 to 1954. It then increases by two months for each birth year (66 years and two months for those born in 1955, 66 and four months for those born in 1956 and so forth), until those born in 1960 or later get full benefits at age 67.

Raising the age eventually to 70 could prove to be politically acceptable because it wouldn't have an immediate social impact, but it would demonstrate that politicians are resolute enough to mend one of the government's most popular social programs and to tackle the national debt.

More ...

I think this is inevitable, really.

People are living longer so expecting the working people to support more and more and more retirees is a formula for disaster.

This is a compromise that is necessary.

And yet Federal employees can retire at age 56 with nearly 100% of their annual salary if they have worked for 30 years and racked up a bunch of unused sick pay - and unlike SS, they can double dip.

# Federal Employees Retirement System. Federal employees are automatically covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), which includes both a defined-benefit and a defined-contribution pension plan.[15] Employees in the defined-benefit pension with 30 years of experience may retire at the age of 56 with a full pension. Employees with less tenure may retire with full benefits at 60 or at 62.[16] They receive annual benefits of 1 percent of their average pay in their three highest earning years multiplied by their number of years of service.[17] Any federal employee willing to accept reduced pension benefits may retire at age 56.[18] Unlike Social Security, federal employees may collect their pensions while working in a non-federal job. This allows federal employees to retire in their late 50s and take a job in the private sector while collecting pension benefits from the government.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ns-Are-Overtaxed-to-Overpay-the-Civil-Service

 

[Political Junky]

Raise the ceiling income for those who pay into Social Security, and the problem will be solved. Now, one pays only on the first $92,000. income.

 

[Article 15]

More ...

I think this is inevitable, really.

People are living longer so expecting the working people to support more and more and more retirees is a formula for disaster.

This is a compromise that is necessary.

And yet Federal employees can retire at age 56 with nearly 100% of their annual salary if they have worked for 30 years and racked up a bunch of unused sick pay - and unlike SS, they can double dip.

# Federal Employees Retirement System. Federal employees are automatically covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), which includes both a defined-benefit and a defined-contribution pension plan.[15] Employees in the defined-benefit pension with 30 years of experience may retire at the age of 56 with a full pension. Employees with less tenure may retire with full benefits at 60 or at 62.[16] They receive annual benefits of 1 percent of their average pay in their three highest earning years multiplied by their number of years of service.[17] Any federal employee willing to accept reduced pension benefits may retire at age 56.[18] Unlike Social Security, federal employees may collect their pensions while working in a non-federal job. This allows federal employees to retire in their late 50s and take a job in the private sector while collecting pension benefits from the government.

How Americans Are Overtaxed to Overpay the Civil Service | The Heritage Foundation

The military gets a pretty similar deal, I believe.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why exactly do we have a retirement age?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Means testing? From each according to his needs or whatever? You plays the game and you takes your chances. If you die before 65, you get nada. If you survive to the finish line, you get the cash. Play by the rules.

The objective of a means test would be preservation of the system, not a form of punishment. And the means test would not impinge on the financial comfort of those extra-fortunates who simply have no need for the relatively small Social Security allotment. By extra-fortunates I'm referring to those with more accumulated assets than necessary to lead a secure and luxurious life.

To each according to his needs? Not exactly, but something like that.

 

[boedicca]

Raise the ceiling income for those who pay into Social Security, and the problem will be solved. Now, one pays only on the first $92,000. income.

As it is retirement income insurance, are you willing to raise the amount of eventual payments for those who pay more?

 

[code1211]

That's good but now you need comparable numbers from the 1930s or '40s or '50s so we have a little context.

Does your computer have a search engine?

 

[code1211]

Code1211, you are an idiot of the highest order.

On topic, age 65 for retirement was instituted by Bismark in Imperial Germany. The reason was that most people died in their mid 50s, so someone who reached 65 is about like someone reaching 85 today. We absolutely need to raise the retirement age otherwise the system will go bankrupt. I would gladly give up 2 years of benefits to insure many more.

What office did Bismark hold in the government of the United States?

By the way, thank you for the award. I thought I was just a regular, run of the mill idiot like everyone else. What order in the idiocracy do you occupy that allows you to confer that honor?

None, actually. But what does that have to do with anything? US. policy copied Bismark's program, including vesting age for benefits. But if you've ever wondered why 65 is the magic number rather than 60, 62 or 70, that's the reason.
Of course you've wondered that because your powers of introspection are nil.
No, don't be hard on yourself. You are not a regular run of the mill idiot. All of us can be that at times. No, you have a special talent in that regard.

Enlighten me. What in my post caused you to say this.

 

[Care4all]

I think this is inevitable, really.

People are living longer so expecting the working people to support more and more and more retirees is a formula for disaster.

This is a compromise that is necessary.

And yet Federal employees can retire at age 56 with nearly 100% of their annual salary if they have worked for 30 years and racked up a bunch of unused sick pay - and unlike SS, they can double dip.

# Federal Employees Retirement System. Federal employees are automatically covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), which includes both a defined-benefit and a defined-contribution pension plan.[15] Employees in the defined-benefit pension with 30 years of experience may retire at the age of 56 with a full pension. Employees with less tenure may retire with full benefits at 60 or at 62.[16] They receive annual benefits of 1 percent of their average pay in their three highest earning years multiplied by their number of years of service.[17] Any federal employee willing to accept reduced pension benefits may retire at age 56.[18] Unlike Social Security, federal employees may collect their pensions while working in a non-federal job. This allows federal employees to retire in their late 50s and take a job in the private sector while collecting pension benefits from the government.

How Americans Are Overtaxed to Overpay the Civil Service | The Heritage Foundation

The military gets a pretty similar deal, I believe.

yep, only with 20 years service. My father has been collecting his military retirement since he was 39 years old....he is now in his 70's....he worked another 20 years for the FAA, before retiring from them....BUT he had to pick which retirement he wanted, the one from the Air Force or the one from the Federal FAA....he COULD NOT double dip and receive both retirements, even though he DID WORK 20 plus years for both.

 

[Zander]

They need to raise the age to 72 - just add 2 months per year to the retirement age until you get there.

Here's an example:

If you are 47 years old you can expect to collect full benefits at age 67 - that is 20 years until retirement . Simply take 20 years and multiply it by two = 40 months - you can collect full benefits at age 70 and 4 months. Voila! Social Security is solvent for another 100 years.

 

[code1211]

[...]

Means testing? From each according to his needs or whatever? You plays the game and you takes your chances. If you die before 65, you get nada. If you survive to the finish line, you get the cash. Play by the rules.

The objective of a means test would be preservation of the system, not a form of punishment. And the means test would not impinge on the financial comfort of those extra-fortunates who simply have no need for the relatively small Social Security allotment. By extra-fortunates I'm referring to those with more accumulated assets than necessary to lead a secure and luxurious life.

To each according to his needs? Not exactly, but something like that.

I chafe a little at those kinds of things because there is the inevitable "Bracket Creep" like the not raised taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 which immediately was thrown away with the increase in the Cigarette tax.

Stay tuned as the rest of the taxes are increased on the rest of us who don't make a quarter mil a year.

 

[Care4all]

there are incentives for my age group, to retire at 70...when you get your statement, it gives an estimate of what your benefit would pay at 62, at +/-67 and then how much it would be if you put it off until 70....at 70 it is a little more than double the money you would collect if retired at 62 and about 50% more than if you retired at 67.

 

[boedicca]

They need to raise the age to 72 - just add 2 months per year to the retirement age until you get there.

Here's an example:

If you are 47 years old you can expect to collect full benefits at age 67 - that is 20 years until retirement . Simply take 20 years and multiply it by two = 40 months - you can collect full benefits at age 70 and 4 months. Voila! Social Security is solvent for another 100 years.

That's fine - as long as we move public employees to the same type of system. Why should they retire with large pensions in their 50s when the rest of us who are footing the bill delay retirement into our 70s?

(I'm excluding the military from this - they are not highly paid and actually risk their lives - unlike the vast hordes of unproductive bureaucrats.)

 

[Zander]

They need to raise the age to 72 - just add 2 months per year to the retirement age until you get there.

Here's an example:

If you are 47 years old you can expect to collect full benefits at age 67 - that is 20 years until retirement . Simply take 20 years and multiply it by two = 40 months - you can collect full benefits at age 70 and 4 months. Voila! Social Security is solvent for another 100 years.

That's fine - as long as we move public employees to the same type of system. Why should they retire with large pensions in their 50s when the rest of us who are footing the bill delay retirement into our 70s?

(I'm excluding the military from this - they are not highly paid and actually risk their lives - unlike the vast hordes of unproductive bureaucrats.)

I agree. Their needs to be massive reform of government employee benefits.

 

[Article 15]

there are incentives for my age group, to retire at 70...when you get your statement, it gives an estimate of what your benefit would pay at 62, at +/-67 and then how much it would be if you put it off until 70....at 70 it is a little more than double the money you would collect if retired at 62 and about 50% more than if you retired at 67.

Yes, those last extra couple of years makes a big difference on the other end.

 

[Gadawg73]

Eventually it will have to be linked to life expectancy. That can be expected to keep going up to 100-120 years further down the road.

Exactly, it should be at 72 now.