Raise the Retirement Age?

[potter 58]

oh when and if it starts you will never go hungry because you will either blow or screw your way into a free meal, but only in a conservative way don't you know, Perfect LOL

 

[Cold Fusion38]

never fear willow, with your proven skills, you will never go hungry, right slut?

what has my being a slut have to do with revolution?? dingdong?

A revolution without sluts is not a revolution worth having.

 

[Kex]

After reading through this nuttiness. I'd actually want to see any of your representatives try and raise the retirement age requirement. So we can see all the fiscal conservatives and the idiots who are about to lose their seat.

 

[WillowTree]

oh when and if it starts you will never go hungry because you will either blow or screw your way into a free meal, but only in a conservative way don't you know, Perfect LOL

yep! too bad you can't sell what you got. that's why you have to whine and beg and snivel your whole life long,, democwat! "somebawdy pleeeeeeeeze come take care of poooor little ole pitypotterme."

 

[xotoxi]

I am one of the fortunate ones, in that I am 66 and can still work at a strenous job in a steel mill.

I am one of the unfortunate ones, as I do not have a steel mill in my town in which to work.

 

[potter 58]

Kex, bingo - especially now- the baby boomers who are retiring or about to retire would be on them like stink on shit

 

[froggy]

I am one of the fortunate ones, in that I am 66 and can still work at a strenous job in a steel mill.

I am one of the unfortunate ones, as I do not have a steel mill in my town in which to work.

Been there done that. Trust me you wouldn't want to.

 

[Xenophon]

Kex, bingo - especially now- the baby boomers who are retiring or about to retire would be on them like stink on shit

And rightfully so, as they were robbed their entire working life of that money.

 

[ihopehefails]

It would save a lot of money out of the social security system but I fear that most voters are older people who are about to retire. It will take a massive political effort to do that.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes, absolutely. No question about it.

The age should be raised to 72 or 75. Maybe not this year, but gradually over the next 10 years.

This has to happen. The country has literally tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities for government programs, including social security. Eventually, social security will go bankrupt if it isn't dramatically reformed. And the easiest way to reform it is to raise the retirement age.

Toro, do you have any estimates for how much raising the retirement age would save the budget?

Sorry to burst the bubble...but it wouldn't save the budget a damn dime...in fact it would cause more deficits. The EXCESS money collected by Social Security is "borrowed" from the SSA and placed in the general fund to be spent as Congress sees fit.....which means more of the same ol' stuff we see happening today.

and in case anyone's wondering the full retirement age HAS been raised already on people born in 1961 and above, incrementally like the posters here suggested. At 62 people born after 1960 collect REDUCED benefits. It's no longer 62/65 for them.

 

[Ravi]

Would you support raising the retirement age to collect social security benefits?

If so, to what age?

Yes. It would be a good idea for two reason. One, it would save money. Two, it would keep people in the job force...and since we as a country are upside down in terms of population age (more old than young) in the long run this would be helpful.

I'd also like to see people that work full time being unable to collect until they cut back their hours to part time or actually retire (example: John McCain).

 

[Harry Dresden]

what if your job is a physical one that tears your ankles and knees and back down.....and doing that job when you are 70 is kinda unrealistic?.....

Its unrealistic at 60 too, isn't it?


EDIT - I get it. I know that physical labor is hard. But the current system simply is not sustainable. It must be reformed.

not mine...you dont see many 65 and over,not many at all,usually between 60-65 they retire,some earlier....

 

[Toro]

You see Toro what you don't understand is that Americans BELIEVE in the "Get Rich QUICK scheme" They always have and they ALWAYS WILL. For FAR TOO MANY 8% won't be enough they will WANT and will be PROMISED 12% and you KNOW what will happen to those people. They will hit 75 and find out they have NOTHING and you will have LOTS of old people DYING in the streets! Knowing this do you think privatizing is such a good idea?

But you don't give them the option to get rich quick. If the social security trust invests like a regular pension plan, then it is run by professional management, like most of the state plans, and as other national plans such as Canada's or Norway's. If people want to have the option themselves, you give them a series of options in which to invest, i.e. a stock index fund, like many 401ks.

 

[Toro]

No, do not raise the retirement age.

Make all income liable to the 6.2% Social Security tax that comes out of my paycheck. Then you do not need to raise the retirement age.

I am one of the fortunate ones, in that I am 66 and can still work at a strenous job in a steel mill. Most of my peers cannot do that because of the natural aging process.

The very wealthy gained that wealth on the backs of the men that actually man the factory floor. They will not miss a single meal for having to pay the same tax that I do. And they insure their own security. One might remember that this is a rather well armed nation on an individual basis, and if the people see the very wealthy still living high on the hog when the rest are fighting for food and a roof over their head, there will be some "up against the wall" actions. Review the reasons behind the French and Bolshevik Revolutions.

The idea of social security is not meant to be a tax that transfers wealth from one group of people to another - in this case, social security is being transferred from the younger generations to the older generations. Social security is supposed to be a retirement fund, but it is not operated that way. That 6.2% is not supposed to be a "tax" but a savings mechanism which forces you to put away part of your paycheck into savings.

I definitely think we should have social security but it cannot continue to operate in the current manner, otherwise in a few generations, no one is going to get it.

 

[rightwinger]

Raise it slowly for those entering the workforce today. 70 is not that old today

 

[Toro]

After reading through this nuttiness. I'd actually want to see any of your representatives try and raise the retirement age requirement. So we can see all the fiscal conservatives and the idiots who are about to lose their seat.

It won't happen now because people have come to see it as part of the social contract. But there isn't going to be a social contract in the future because the math simply does not work.

That is why attitudes have got to start changing. It won't exist in the future if it does not change, at least not in its current form.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, absolutely. No question about it.

The age should be raised to 72 or 75. Maybe not this year, but gradually over the next 10 years.

This has to happen. The country has literally tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities for government programs, including social security. Eventually, social security will go bankrupt if it isn't dramatically reformed. And the easiest way to reform it is to raise the retirement age.

Toro, do you have any estimates for how much raising the retirement age would save the budget?

Sorry to burst the bubble...but it wouldn't save the budget a damn dime...in fact it would cause more deficits. The EXCESS money collected by Social Security is "borrowed" from the SSA and placed in the general fund to be spent as Congress sees fit.....which means more of the same ol' stuff we see happening today.

and in case anyone's wondering the full retirement age HAS been raised already on people born in 1961 and above, incrementally like the posters here suggested. At 62 people born after 1960 collect REDUCED benefits. It's no longer 62/65 for them.

I think the Feds owe the SS about 3 trillion that they have spent on other things.

That is one of the biggest issues with SS. The govt not wanting to qay the money back.
And I believe they will have to start paying it back in about 10 years or so.

 

[Toro]

Toro, do you have any estimates for how much raising the retirement age would save the budget?

Sorry to burst the bubble...but it wouldn't save the budget a damn dime...in fact it would cause more deficits. The EXCESS money collected by Social Security is "borrowed" from the SSA and placed in the general fund to be spent as Congress sees fit.....which means more of the same ol' stuff we see happening today.

and in case anyone's wondering the full retirement age HAS been raised already on people born in 1961 and above, incrementally like the posters here suggested. At 62 people born after 1960 collect REDUCED benefits. It's no longer 62/65 for them.

I think the Feds owe the SS about 3 trillion that they have spent on other things.

That is one of the biggest issues with SS. The govt not wanting to qay the money back.
And I believe they will have to start paying it back in about 10 years or so.

People get the wrong idea, I think. The trust fund is comprised of government obligations to the trust. Yes, the government takes the money out and spends it, but that is no different than if the trust was filled with Treasury bonds. The government of China owns a ton Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve owns a trillion dollars worth of Treasury bonds. This is money that is taken by the government and spent. That's what government borrowing is. Do people think the government borrows and then turns around and saves it? That is pointless. The government obligations in the social security trust are no different than Treasury bonds except that they are not transferable. The fact that the money "is not there" misses the point. The money is not supposed to be there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, absolutely. No question about it.

The age should be raised to 72 or 75. Maybe not this year, but gradually over the next 10 years.

This has to happen. The country has literally tens of trillions of dollars of liabilities for government programs, including social security. Eventually, social security will go bankrupt if it isn't dramatically reformed. And the easiest way to reform it is to raise the retirement age.

what if your job is a physical one that tears your ankles and knees and back down.....and doing that job when you are 70 is kinda unrealistic?.....

Its unrealistic at 60 too, isn't it?


EDIT - I get it. I know that physical labor is hard. But the current system simply is not sustainable. It must be reformed.

I am a millwright in a steel mill. One of the tools I use a regular basis is a 1" impact air wrench. It weighs about 30 lbs. The socket we use in a particular job weighs 10 lbs. To do this job, you are in cramped quarters, on your knees, holding the impact at arms length. As stated, I can still do this kind of work. Most at my age cannot.

So what do we do about those that have worked at jobs that are very physical all their lives? Just tell them to apply at Walmart?

By the way, the average age for millwright in the US is over 50. You see, it is hard dirty work, it does not pay as well as it used to, and is also mentally demanding. Were I not in the last year of my career, I would have to go back to school to catch up on the new hydraulic systems.

Toro, it comes back to those who have soft, high paying jobs wanting to dictate that those that do the physically difficult jobs work until they drop dead. That is not acceptable to me.

 

[uscitizen]

Cato is very misleading on SS. They say that SS is already 12.8 trillion in debt.

SS has no debt, they are owed a lot by the feds that already spent the SS surplus on other things though.

1. What do the Social Security trust funds consist of?

The Social Security trust funds are United States Treasury bonds. These bonds are issued by the U.S. Treasury to raise money to pay for budget deficits. The total value of all outstanding Treasury bonds is the national debt. The Social Security trust funds own part of the national debt.

The trust funds have been accumulating Treasury bonds since the mid-1980s because Congress, at the recommendation of Alan Greenspan and Ronald Reagan, decided to collect more in taxes than were needed to pay current benefits. That decision was made in order to build up reserves against the retirement of the baby boomers. As workers, baby boomers have been accumulating Treasury bonds to help pay for their retirement.

Figure 1 shows how the total national debt increased from March 1994 through March 2005 and who owns the Treasury bonds that constitute the national debt. The total national debt did not grow steadily over this period. In the seven years between 1994 and 2001, the national debt increased by a little more than a trillion dollars. In the four years since 2001, it has increased by two trillion dollars. When budget deficits were small or there were surpluses (as in the late 1990s), debt grew little. When they were large (as in recent years), total national debt rose rapidly.

Four Questions and Answers about the Social Security Trust Funds, the National Debt, and Sound Fiscal Policy

It appears that the money our gummit owes SS is about 20-25% of our total national debt.