Raise the Retirement Age?

[saveliberty]

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.

Wow, you are as confused an individual as I have met in some time. First, understand that we are NOT talking about government money here. Social Security is a tax on people that is to be returned to the people. We had more people inputing money than taking it out due to the baby boomer era. At some point that was going to reverse itself and those access funds needed to be there in order to handle the out flow to baby boomers.

Those were protected dollars until Congress couldn't help themselves and passed legislation to raid the piggy bank. Any change in benefit levels is simply theft. Since the government cannot be trusted to keep the money, I suggest that we be given a payout on what we have paid in and allowed to invest it for our own retirements. Somewhere in the future we can just discontinue Social Security.

 

[editec]

We've already done this.

We'll probably have to keep raising the age of retirement, too.

I'd say 65 for partial SS and 70 for full SS bennies is probably in most of our futures.

 

[uscitizen]

I just got my SS benefits letter the other day I should be getting $2,772/mo in another few years. But I won't make it that long.

So you youngins will get the benefit of my $160,000 that I and my employers have paid in over my lifetime. Enjoy.

 

[Claudette]

I think its something they are going to have to do.

Was watching a news show on this last night. The folks drawing today are useng the money that the current workers are providing. The current working pool is shrinking so who knows what there will be left to draw on by the time these folks get to retirment.

All of this would be a moot point if LBJ had left the lockbox on SS. SS is full of IOU's from the Clowns in DC. Morons one and all.

 

[uscitizen]

I think its something they are going to have to do.

Was watching a news show on this last night. The folks drawing today are useng the money that the current workers are providing. The current working pool is shrinking so who knows what there will be left to draw on by the time these folks get to retirment.

All of this would be a moot point if LBJ had left the lockbox on SS. SS is full of IOU's from the Clowns in DC. Morons one and all.

Ahh the raiding of the SS surplus goes back well before LBJ. It started within a few years of SS's beginnings.

 

[Mr Natural]

Remove the income cap.

Everybody pays and if you don't like it, too bad, go live somewhere else.

 

[Claudette]

I think its something they are going to have to do.

Was watching a news show on this last night. The folks drawing today are useng the money that the current workers are providing. The current working pool is shrinking so who knows what there will be left to draw on by the time these folks get to retirment.

All of this would be a moot point if LBJ had left the lockbox on SS. SS is full of IOU's from the Clowns in DC. Morons one and all.

Ahh the raiding of the SS surplus goes back well before LBJ. It started within a few years of SS's beginnings.

Are you sure on this one??? THe only think I ever heard was that LBJ unlocked it. Up until that time there was billions sitting there that Govt couldn't touch.

 

[Toro]

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.

Trust me OldRocks, you do work I could not do. And I have a huge amount of respect for that.

And I certainly believe that anyone who is close to retirement age should receive full social security. That is how you planned your life. That is how you should be received.

I'm not saying one cannot retire. However, the math simply does not work. The typical recipient has not put enough money into the fund to justify the amount they receive. I'm not sure what the exact number is but the typical person receives something like 2 to 5 times more than what they put in plus accrued interest. People who are receiving social security now should have not been putting in 6% of their paycheck but more like 10% or 12% of their paycheck. (Don't quote me exactly.) Because recipients have not put in enough, that means their kids and grandkids are going to have to pay more social security taxes than they will receive in social security benefits. That is unconsciousable to me. It is massive a transfer of wealth from younger generations to older generations, and those younger generations will not be able to receive the benefits that they pay into and what older generations receive now. What does the millwright do in 40 years when he is 65? There won't be anything left for him.

 

[Toro]

Wow, you are as confused an individual as I have met in some time. First, understand that we are NOT talking about government money here. Social Security is a tax on people that is to be returned to the people. We had more people inputing money than taking it out due to the baby boomer era. At some point that was going to reverse itself and those access funds needed to be there in order to handle the out flow to baby boomers.

Those were protected dollars until Congress couldn't help themselves and passed legislation to raid the piggy bank. Any change in benefit levels is simply theft. Since the government cannot be trusted to keep the money, I suggest that we be given a payout on what we have paid in and allowed to invest it for our own retirements. Somewhere in the future we can just discontinue Social Security.

I'll explain how this works.

You pay $100 into your pension fund. That money is then invested for you. If the fund invests in government bonds, as all funds do to some extent, the fund takes the $100 and invests in government bonds earnings a rate of interest.

You can do that for yourself now. You can go to the Treasury website and invest in T-bills or T-bonds. That is you lending to the government. The pension fund that took your $100 is lending to the government. The government then spends it. They have now spent the money you have lent them while you own a liability of the government, i.e. a bond, with the promise by the government to pay you back.

The social security trust works differently but the concept is the same. If it were like every other pension plan - which it should be IMO - it would buy government bonds. But it does not. Instead of issuing typical government Treasury bonds to the trust, the government issues obligations to the trust to pay a liability in the future. A typical government bond is a liability to pay you in the future. The government obligations in the trust fund are liabilities to pay the trust back in the future. The difference is that the obligations in the trust are non-transferable. You cannot buy or sell them.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

Once again I gave you the answer two pages ago and it IS the right answer. FULLY fund your company 401K........MAX IT OUT as much as they will match........FREE MONEY and the BEST investment you will EVER make as far as return since it is MATCHED $ for $ upto a certain %. Invest in a ROTH IRA. Do it while you can because it will probably not be available for much longer. The Roth is recognised as the best investment you can make for yourself after the 401K.

If you do BOTH of these you will have MORE than enough money to retire at 50 if you start at 20. When SS comes along it will be GRAVY and allow you to travel more or do whatever you WANT to do.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Hey Toro do you see any reason why the SS tax should be capped at $100K? Why shouldn't ALL income be taxed? Do you have any figures about how much taxing ALL income for SS would add to the program?

 

[Toro]

Hey Toro do you see any reason why the SS tax should be capped at $100K? Why shouldn't ALL income be taxed? Do you have any figures about how much taxing ALL income for SS would add to the program?

I believe social security income is capped, correct? You cannot receive $10,000 a month in SS no matter how much you put in, I believe. Thus, if social security income is capped, then contributions, i.e. social security income taxes, should also be capped.

Social security is supposed to be a pension fund. That's how pension funds work. You get what you pay in.

Maybe America wants it to be more like a welfare fund, I don't know. But that's what it becomes if taxes aren't capped while income is capped.

 

[Care4all]

You are both wrong....uscit and claudette....when Lbj had congress change the law, where SS was put in to the Budget and not kept separate...there was NO SURPLUS in SS funds, we were pay as you go...

LBj DID NOT have this change done to "steal" or use the SS funds in the general budget....he had this change made to MASK the percentage of the cost of the vietnam war/defense spending....

by adding SS in to our general budget, and what we spent on it, it diluted the percentage our government was spending on a very unpopular war.

It was not until 1983, when Reagan had congress give us the biggest tax increase in usa history n the middle class, by DOUBLING the 3% we and our employer's each were paying, to over 6% each....it was a 100% increase in SS taxes on to the middle class....and their employers....yes, they upped it gradually....

This was done intentionally, surpluses taken in with the higher tax, so that boomers could not only pay their own parent's SS, but to pay for their own retirement....so since about 1983 forward, the SS taxes collected and paid out have been in surplus.

 

[Care4all]

Hey Toro do you see any reason why the SS tax should be capped at $100K? Why shouldn't ALL income be taxed? Do you have any figures about how much taxing ALL income for SS would add to the program?

I believe social security income is capped, correct? You cannot receive $10,000 a month in SS no matter how much you put in, I believe. Thus, if social security income is capped, then contributions, i.e. social security income taxes, should also be capped.

Social security is supposed to be a pension fund. That's how pension funds work. You get what you pay in.

Maybe America wants it to be more like a welfare fund, I don't know. But that's what it becomes if taxes aren't capped while income is capped.

it already has a sliding scale that gives less percentage in monthly retirement to those who paid the most in to it and more money as a percentage, in retirement for those who paid the least...those in the middle pretty much get what they paid for....

It is not that there is a cap on benefits paid...just that one who makes over $100k don't have to pay taxes in to it for that amount over the 100k and as a result, the percentage they receive as benefit is automatically reflective of it...

sooooooooo, although it is a retirement fund, it is also...slightly a "progressive tax" while still being a regressive tax because the poor and the m,iddle class are taxed on their entire income while those making the most in this country are not...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Wow, you are as confused an individual as I have met in some time. First, understand that we are NOT talking about government money here. Social Security is a tax on people that is to be returned to the people. We had more people inputing money than taking it out due to the baby boomer era. At some point that was going to reverse itself and those access funds needed to be there in order to handle the out flow to baby boomers.

Those were protected dollars until Congress couldn't help themselves and passed legislation to raid the piggy bank. Any change in benefit levels is simply theft. Since the government cannot be trusted to keep the money, I suggest that we be given a payout on what we have paid in and allowed to invest it for our own retirements. Somewhere in the future we can just discontinue Social Security.

I'll explain how this works.

You pay $100 into your pension fund. That money is then invested for you. If the fund invests in government bonds, as all funds do to some extent, the fund takes the $100 and invests in government bonds earnings a rate of interest.

You can do that for yourself now. You can go to the Treasury website and invest in T-bills or T-bonds. That is you lending to the government. The pension fund that took your $100 is lending to the government. The government then spends it. They have now spent the money you have lent them while you own a liability of the government, i.e. a bond, with the promise by the government to pay you back.

The social security trust works differently but the concept is the same. If it were like every other pension plan - which it should be IMO - it would buy government bonds. But it does not. Instead of issuing typical government Treasury bonds to the trust, the government issues obligations to the trust to pay a liability in the future. A typical government bond is a liability to pay you in the future. The government obligations in the trust fund are liabilities to pay the trust back in the future. The difference is that the obligations in the trust are non-transferable. You cannot buy or sell them.

That sounds all rosy and nice but unfortunately that's not how it works.....

The government borrows your Social Security money, they issue a bond in place of said money. Then instead of KEEPING THE MONEY, they spend it thus leaving a GIANT HOLE where that bond used to be...because not only now do they have to pay interest on that bond THEY ARE IN THE HOLE for the face value of that bond.

Now...if you go to treasury direct.gov and look at the definition of "intragovernmental holdings" you will find that this is where the money borrowed from Social Security is placed AS PART OF THE NATIONAL DEBT to the tune of nearly 5 trillion dollars.

 

[kyzr]

IMHO we need to make EVERYONE part of SS. The way it is now only about 2/3 of us are in SS. The other 1/3 are in State or Federal pension systems. So the public still pays their pensions if the states run short. IMHO we need to consolidate pension systems to even the playing field. I'm not sure how the contributions match-up with benefits, but I want to do what is necessary to save SS & Medicare. Otherwise we'd have a 2-tier pension system, those with guaranteed benefits, and those who paid in all their lives without.

 

[Truthmatters]

SS protects more than retireees.

I would be willing to raise the age when the lifespan of Americans starts going up again instead of down.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

SS protects more than retireees.

I would be willing to raise the age when the lifespan of Americans starts going up again instead of down.

good point.

 

[Care4all]

Most EVERYONE is on The Social security program KZ....other than just a few now....

All of congress and all federal jobs with the exception of a few, pay in to SS as of the 1980's I believe...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Most EVERYONE is on The Social security program KZ....other than just a few now....

All of congress and all federal jobs with the exception of a few, pay in to SS as of the 1980's I believe...

This is correct.