Will The GOP Plan To Raise The Retirement Age For Social Security Be Very Popular?

[Independent thinker]

And that is their choice. Not forced to do so.

Because they are able to. If they are able to then they are able to, contradicting your posts which claim they are unable to. People are "forced" to work until 62 now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Because they are able to. If they are able to then they are able to, contradicting your posts which claim they are unable to. People are "forced" to work until 62 now.

Okay so if one 70 year old can work, then that means they all are - got it.

There is a major difference between people at 62, and at 70. MAJOR.
Especially in relation to what they do for a living.
I am only 58, but I can't do what I use to do physically now...at 58.
12 years from now I will be severely limited. It would be cruel to expect me and millions of others to be expected to still go to work at that age full time. Outright cruel and inhumane.

I suspect that when I am 70, I will do some sort of work to keep busy and for health reasons. But it won't be a full time job that's for sure. Hell no.

 

[Flash]

Will the Democrat plan to turn the US into a Socialist Shithole ever be popular?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Many can work until age 70 now, that's why many wait until 70 to start collecting. If they can wait, so can many others. Also, many work and collect SS after they have retired.

If we were all clones, correct. But we are not. Some people can work until they want and others barely make it to retirement age now. My father retired and 62 and he loved his line of work. At the time they gave him about two to three years to live, so he figured why should he work until the day he drops dead? Luckily for him advancements in clogged arteries was taking place at the time and he's still alive today at the age of 91.

 

[22lcidw]

We leftists don`t believe that we`re entitled to free stuff. Why do you?

Change the social welfare laws on payments and benefits to start. Provide payments on a limited number of products and only basic medical. Free stuff. 60 years of it and pissed off people is evidence of a system not working.

 

[Independent thinker]

Okay so if one 70 year old can work, then that means they all are - got it.

There is a major difference between people at 62, and at 70. MAJOR.
Especially in relation to what they do for a living.
I am only 58, but I can't do what I use to do physically now...at 58.
12 years from now I will be severely limited. It would be cruel to expect me and millions of others to be expected to still go to work at that age full time. Outright cruel and inhumane.

I suspect that when I am 70, I will do some sort of work to keep busy and for health reasons. But it won't be a full time job that's for sure. Hell no.

Most can work. If you can't then you collect disability, just as a 61 year old can collect disability now.

 

[Independent thinker]

If we were all clones, correct. But we are not. Some people can work until they want and others barely make it to retirement age now. My father retired and 62 and he loved his line of work. At the time they gave him about two to three years to live, so he figured why should he work until the day he drops dead? Luckily for him advancements in clogged arteries was taking place at the time and he's still alive today at the age of 91.

I'm saying that many, many people continue working long past the point they can officially collect social security, even into their 80's and 90's. I don't see why we can't raise the retirement age up slightly for the younger generations as we go because they will be living longer. If they can't work, then like a 61 year old today who just can't work anymore due to medical reasons, they can collect disability.

I think we can also offer people incentives to work longer, such as awarding them double, triple, or whatever of their salaries to go toward their retirement SS formula, if they stay working instead of retiring. Since they take your 35 highest wage earning years adjusted for inflation to figure retirement benefits and you would theoretically not make a enough money in salaries in your later years to make a difference in the formula, we offer them the double or triple rate after a certain age (if they don't collect SS). So, if they bag groceries when they are 70 years old and earn 20K per year doing it, we credit them with earning 40K or 60K for that year if they delay collecting SS, which could very well have an effect on the formula for calculating retirement benefits. We could even means test it if we wanted to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm saying that many, many people continue working long past the point they can officially collect social security, even into their 80's and 90's. I don't see why we can't raise the retirement age up slightly for the younger generations as we go because they will be living longer. If they can't work, then like a 61 year old today who just can't work anymore due to medical reasons, they can collect disability.

I think we can also offer people incentives to work longer, such as awarding them double, triple, or whatever of their salaries to go toward their retirement SS formula, if they stay working instead of retiring. Since they take your 35 highest wage earning years adjusted for inflation to figure retirement benefits and you would theoretically not make a enough money in salaries in your later years to make a difference in the formula, we offer them the double or triple rate after a certain age (if they don't collect SS). So, if they bag groceries when they are 70 years old and earn 20K per year doing it, we credit them with earning 40K or 60K for that year if they delay collecting SS, which could very well have an effect on the formula for calculating retirement benefits. We could even means test it if we wanted to.

So where would that money come from to provide double or triple benefits? How is it any advantage to put people on disability than to just let them retire without all the red tape? These are not solutions.

There is only one solution, and that is to greatly increase employee/ employer contributions to these programs. We also need to increase the ceiling on how much a person can contribute to their IRA. As people become more dependent on their own money and less dependent on government payments, eventually SS will be a thing of the past, especially if we did what GW suggested and allow people to use some of their SS contributions for their own personal retirement plan.

These programs are like anything else. If you want a house for X amount of money, you need to pay X amount in monthly mortgage payments. If you want X car to drive, you have to pay monthly payments to have that car. If we want to keep these social programs, and most Americans do, they simply have to be funded.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most can work. If you can't then you collect disability, just as a 61 year old can collect disability now.

There is no age limits on when you can collect disability. You can collect disability at 45 or 50. Of course because you didn't contribute much to your SS account, you will not be getting a payment good enough to live off of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So where would that money come from to provide double or triple benefits? How is it any advantage to put people on disability than to just let them retire without all the red tape? These are not solutions.

There is only one solution, and that is to greatly increase employee/ employer contributions to these programs. We also need to increase the ceiling on how much a person can contribute to their IRA. As people become more dependent on their own money and less dependent on government payments, eventually SS will be a thing of the past, especially if we did what GW suggested and allow people to use some of their SS contributions for their own personal retirement plan.

These programs are like anything else. If you want a house for X amount of money, you need to pay X amount in monthly mortgage payments. If you want X car to drive, you have to pay monthly payments to have that car. If we want to keep these social programs, and most Americans do, they simply have to be funded.

So where would that money come from to provide double or triple benefits?

Double or triple the credit toward their benefit.
It would come from their delayed collection of benefits.

 

[Robert Urbanek]

Perhaps the GOP thinks it can appeal to young people by screwing the old people who are "holding them down." Kill off old people with COVID disinformation so their children can inherit their wealth, reduce their Social Security and Medicare, and eliminate mail-in ballots so old people with urinary issues will have to wait in long lines at the polls.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So where would that money come from to provide double or triple benefits?

Double or triple the credit toward their benefit.
It would come from their delayed collection of benefits.

I don't see how that would inspire anybody to work in their golden years unless they really enjoyed their work. When I look at the little I get from SS after working my entire life it's not all that much really. Working another couple of years even with credits won't amount to that much.

In fact I think it's a bad decision to wait until full retirement age now. If you can still work, you'd do better by retiring at the age of 62 and make the maximum allowable. As we age we have to face the higher possibility of death, and then you end up with nothing if you pass away at 66 or younger.

 

[initforme]

Some of you think people working until 70 is moral. It is you that shall be cast into a bad place.

 

[initforme]

Will the Democrat plan to turn the US into a Socialist Shithole ever be popular?

You are a corporatist.

 

[Independent thinker]

So where would that money come from to provide double or triple benefits? How is it any advantage to put people on disability than to just let them retire without all the red tape? These are not solutions.

There is only one solution, and that is to greatly increase employee/ employer contributions to these programs. We also need to increase the ceiling on how much a person can contribute to their IRA. As people become more dependent on their own money and less dependent on government payments, eventually SS will be a thing of the past, especially if we did what GW suggested and allow people to use some of their SS contributions for their own personal retirement plan.

These programs are like anything else. If you want a house for X amount of money, you need to pay X amount in monthly mortgage payments. If you want X car to drive, you have to pay monthly payments to have that car. If we want to keep these social programs, and most Americans do, they simply have to be funded.

When say, a 70 year old makes 20K per year bagging groceries, you give them an incentive to not collect SS by giving them credit in the SS system for earning 40k because earning 20K would probably not alter the calculation of their retirement benefits when they do actually retire (with a few maybe it would). Of course only the original 20k would actually be real money but the 40k would only be used for calculation purposes, the difference would not actually come from anywhere. The government would not be on the hook for the entire difference because it is only used as a calculation. Now this would increase their retirement check when they do officially retire but part of that calculation would come from their earnings history as it might bump off a year where they already earned 30K and replaced with the 40K figure so that difference would only be a 10K difference instead of the 20K difference. So, while these people who would take advantage of this would earn more on their monthly checks when they retired than they would have, their time of collecting SS would actually be shorter than before, not to mention a percentage of them would actually pass away before they ever actually collected, which may reduce the total of all monies paid out.

Just an idea that popped into my head. I agree with a lot of what you said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When say, a 70 year old makes 20K per year bagging groceries, you give them an incentive to not collect SS by giving them credit in the SS system for earning 40k because earning 20K would probably not alter the calculation of their retirement benefits when they do actually retire (with a few maybe it would). Of course only the original 20k would actually be real money but the 40k would only be used for calculation purposes, the difference would not actually come from anywhere. The government would not be on the hook for the entire difference because it is only used as a calculation. Now this would increase their retirement check when they do officially retire but part of that calculation would come from their earnings history as it might bump off a year where they already earned 30K and replaced with the 40K figure so that difference would only be a 10K difference instead of the 20K difference. So, while these people who would take advantage of this would earn more on their monthly checks when they retired than they would have, their time of collecting SS would actually be shorter than before, not to mention a percentage of them would actually pass away before they ever actually collected, which may reduce the total of all monies paid out.

Just an idea that popped into my head. I agree with a lot of what you said.

I don't know how old you are but I can tell you after a lifetime of working, most of us can't wait to retire regardless of money. I counted the days until I turned 62 just to get out of work. Some will be influenced by additional credits but as an older person myself, I don't think it would have much of an impact as few would take advantage of it.

Right now we have tens of millions of Americans that are younger, healthier and not contributing to the program. I would say if we are to influence anybody, it should be them instead of older people. When you get older you ask yourself how much longer do I have to go? The older you get, the less you are able to do. You might have more money, but less to spend it on.

So the first thing that needs to happen is not cut SS, but cut programs that keep able bodied people from working. Secondly is to greatly increase employee/employer payroll deductions. Third is greatly increase the IRS contribution ceiling. If we did these things, we could extend these programs for many more years.

 

[themirrorthief]

Perhaps the GOP thinks it can appeal to young people by screwing the old people who are "holding them down." Kill off old people with COVID disinformation so their children can inherit their wealth, reduce their Social Security and Medicare, and eliminate mail-in ballots so old people with urinary issues will have to wait in long lines at the polls.

the real threat to social security is the insane spending by democrats....a broke nation cant pay anybody anything

 

[Flash]

You are a corporatist.

But yet it was the Democrats that bailed out all the banks and corporations in 2009, weren't they?

Nowadays they are subsidizing all the Environmental Wacko industries, aren't they?

Wall Street gave more money to the Democrats than the Republicans in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020.

Big Tech Corps significantly support the Democrat filth, don't they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Secondly is to greatly increase employee/employer payroll deductions.

Greatly? 12.4% of my salary isn't enough?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Greatly? 12.4% of my salary isn't enough?

Not enough to sustain the program obviously. Like I said, there are only two realistic choices here: find a way to phase the program out in the future or fund it.