Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 10:57 AM Aug 2012

Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%

Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15%

by bink


You want to know how to save the economy?

Temporarily lower Social Security eligibility to age 55 and raise benefits by 15%.

Sounds crazy, right?

But only because the One Percent and the Media have moved the Overton Window so far to the right that we can no longer see out of the room and into reality.

The reality is that we need to move older workers out of the workforce so that young people can get the job experience and training that they need.

The reality is that we need to raise benefits to match the shadow cost of living increases over the last thirty years that government has excluded from Social Security by conveniently leaving out skyrocketing costs in housing, food and fuel from its calculations.

The best thing about this?

It's also a tremendous economic stimulus that will flush billions of dollars into the consumer economy, while providing security for old people and opportunities to work for the young.

Sounds crazy, right?

Not really.

What's really crazy is the government practice of requiring that all monetary expansion be brokered through a few privileged banks. We need to get money into the hands of humans, but our government is refusing to spend adequately into the economy at large, preferring instead to present gifts amounting in the trillions of dollars to its corrupt bank partners in the form of so-called QE.

The banks won't lend and they don't spend.

Instead, they are hoarding the cash, or using it to enrich a few insiders.

Reuters published an article recently where the author, a well-known economic journalist, suggests that central banks practice QEP -- Quantative Easing for the People -- instead of just giving money to banks:

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/09/suddenly-quantitative-easing-for-the-people-seems-possible/

Crazy?

No -- the crazy thing is that we ever considered doing anything else.

The money that the Fed is giving to the banks is our money.

Lowering the Social Security Eligibility age to 55 and raising benefits is a great way to start.

It just makes sense.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118528/-Lower-Social-Security-Eligibility-to-55-Raise-Benefits-By-15


Great idea. Harkin's proposal is also good if only Congress would move on it, now or next session.

Dave Jamieson

Raise Minimum Wage By 35 Percent, Peg It To Inflation: Senate Dem

WASHINGTON -- Legislation introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on Thursday included a litany of measures aimed at boosting income for low-wage workers, most notably raising the minimum wage significantly and pegging it to inflation.

Along with spending on school modernization and renewable energy development, the Rebuild America Act calls for raising the minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to $9.80 -- a 35 percent hike -- over the course of two and a half years, then indexing it so it rises with the cost of living. For restaurant servers and other tipped employees, the minimum wage before tips would leap from the current $2.13 to $6.86, and then track at 70 percent of the normal minimum wage.

The bill would also require employers to offer their workers paid sick days, make more white-collar workers eligible for overtime pay that they're currently exempted from, and give more workers the right to join a union.

In short, Harkin's bill, pitched as a prescription to rebuild the American middle class, hits all the right notes for worker advocates who say low- and middle-income earners are falling behind. The package was quickly praised by groups such as the AFL-CIO federation of labor unions; the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers; and the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, a national group representing restaurant employees.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/minimum-wage-tom-harkin_n_1389457.html



Harkin’s Rebuild America Act Builds Economy for 99%

Mike Hall

Saying there can be no economic recovery without the recovery of the middle class, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) today introduced the Rebuild America Act. The legislation would, says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:

achieve shared prosperity by putting America back to work, rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our safety net and insisting that shared sacrifice start at the top—with Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans.

<...>

The Rebuild America Act, says Trumka, “addresses many unmet needs that have been ignored for far too long.”

The bill would revive the manufacturing sector so we can make things in America again, increase Social Security benefits and restore the minimum wage’s purchasing power. Sen. Harkin recognizes that fairness requires us to ensure workers don’t lose overtime protections to inflation, discourage rampant speculation on Wall Street, alleviate the cost of child care for working families and other overdue reforms.

Harkin says his legislation “will ensure that all workers have a right to join together and stand up for fair wages and working conditions and that employers face real penalties for violating that right.”

Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, says the bill:

offers strong medicine for what ails America—and a stunning rebuke both to those who say we can’t afford to invest in our future and to those who would cut vital investments to the bone.

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Harkin-s-Rebuild-America-Act-Builds-Economy-for-99



Harkin bill would revive the American Dream

by Lawrence Mishel and Ross Eisenbrey

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has introduced a bill that shows the way to a better economic future for most Americans. The Rebuild America Act tackles many of the biggest problems that hold back the American economy and shut off opportunity for working families.

It’s an omnibus bill that will increase employment by making big infrastructure investments, developing renewable energy systems, addressing unfair foreign trade practices, providing assistance to state and local governments to retain police, firefighters and teachers, ending tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs offshore, and promoting manufacturing in the United States.

It will help workers get a decent return on their education and their work by strengthening the minimum wage and overtime laws, better protecting the right to join a union and bargain collectively, enhancing retirement security, and guaranteeing paid sick leave.

<...>

We want to particularly applaud Sen. Harkin for his courage in swimming against the tide in two critical areas: Social Security and labor policy. The Rebuild America Act rejects the notion that Social Security is too expensive and that we can’t afford to meet the promises we made to America’s workers: That if they worked hard for a lifetime, they could retire with guaranteed benefits and inflation protection. Too many other politicians are ready, if not eager, to cut Social Security’s cost of living protection and to reduce benefits by raising the retirement age, no matter that such changes have the biggest impact on the retirement security of women and blue-collar and low-income workers, many of whom have seen little or no increase in life expectancy. By contrast, Sen. Harkin knows workers need more help, not less; that fewer and fewer workers have pensions; that 401(k) accounts are insufficient and undependable sources of retirement income; that Social Security is steadily replacing less and less of pre-retirement income; and that the Social Security COLA is not too generous, but rather too skimpy to keep up with the cost of health care inflation that drives the spending of older workers.

The Rebuild America Act therefore replaces the Social Security COLA formula with one that better accounts for cost inflation in the products and services that older workers pay for. It raises benefits across the board. And it pays for these improvements and addresses the program’s long-term revenue shortfall by “scrapping the cap” – eliminating the loophole that shelters incomes above $110,100 from Social security taxes.

- more -

http://www.epi.org/blog/harkin-bill-revive-american-dream/


60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lower Social Security Eligibility to 55; Raise Benefits By 15% (Original Post) ProSense Aug 2012 OP
Works for me. 1-Old-Man Aug 2012 #1
+1 hedgehog Aug 2012 #33
A lot of people get their health insurance through work, so unless you also move the age for still_one Aug 2012 #2
Just moving Medicare eligibility to 50 Patiod Aug 2012 #3
You really think people will want to start their own businesses at 50? dkf Aug 2012 #14
You're thinking "entrepreneur" and I'm thinking consultant Patiod Aug 2012 #17
“... the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity belongs to the 55-64 age group." acamp Aug 2012 #20
Is that when they start their entrepreneurship or the only ones left? dkf Aug 2012 #43
Starting a business acamp Aug 2012 #59
You also get to the point where you realize it's far riskier putting your fate... acamp Aug 2012 #60
Hell yes, they would. Jackpine Radical Aug 2012 #29
Right. All that intellectual capital should be squandered. Scuba Aug 2012 #35
I started my own business at 44 Lydia Leftcoast Aug 2012 #55
+1. The problem is health insurance, not SS. Dawgs Aug 2012 #4
The problem is both. n/t FourScore Aug 2012 #5
The ProSense Aug 2012 #7
Interesting. There's all kinds of good stuff "buried" in ACA. Hoyt Aug 2012 #8
Fact sheet says only 31% of employers are providing benefits to retirees. dkf Aug 2012 #9
That ProSense Aug 2012 #12
Can be but will be? dkf Aug 2012 #16
What nonsense. ProSense Aug 2012 #18
That program is out of money antigop Aug 2012 #24
Solution: ProSense Aug 2012 #26
That bill hasn't gone anywhere and I don't expect it to go anywhere n/t antigop Aug 2012 #41
You went from ProSense Aug 2012 #47
It wasn't a "silly point" -- it was a fact -- the program is out of money antigop Aug 2012 #50
Besides, the whole program is a stupid idea. antigop Aug 2012 #42
Your comment ProSense Aug 2012 #46
My comments make perfect sense if you understand how the ERRP worked. n/t antigop Aug 2012 #49
Early Retirement Chef Aug 2012 #6
No one should be forced to retire who doesn't want to, and who can still do kestrel91316 Aug 2012 #10
I was forced to retire because of a layoff. RebelOne Aug 2012 #40
The formula reduces benefits for every month of early retirement. dkf Aug 2012 #11
Then boost it by whatever makes sense. ProSense Aug 2012 #15
Do you know how much you need to save to retire comfortably? dkf Aug 2012 #19
Well ProSense Aug 2012 #21
Too many don't think things through. dkf Aug 2012 #25
Yeah, ProSense Aug 2012 #30
I did think things through and I am underwater right now! CreekDog Aug 2012 #31
+1,000. Thanks for that. freshwest Aug 2012 #39
That 2 million figure is way out of touch with reality...median income in the US is around 46,000 Bluenorthwest Aug 2012 #57
I think it'd be politically impossible to make it temporary. Kaleva Aug 2012 #28
Wait 13 more years please. ileus Aug 2012 #13
....And the way to finance this is... EdinGA Aug 2012 #22
Senator Tom Harkin, democrat! Citizen Worker Aug 2012 #23
Makes no sense at all. upaloopa Aug 2012 #27
Where did you get this 'force people to retire' meme? Bluenorthwest Aug 2012 #56
The idea was to raise the amount of social security paid and people retire at 55 so younger people upaloopa Aug 2012 #58
Instead of bailing out the banks, penndragon69 Aug 2012 #32
I like it Lefty Thinker Aug 2012 #34
Thom Hartman also suggests lowering S.S. age eligibility. chknltl Aug 2012 #36
I've been saying this for ages mcar Aug 2012 #37
Sounds like a great idea and one that would actually help the economy. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #38
HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Aug 2012 #44
Yes! truebluegreen Aug 2012 #45
it's another measure of how corrupt Washington is that they have discussed doing the exact opposite yurbud Aug 2012 #48
My husband would retire today if he got full benefits. CrispyQ Aug 2012 #51
What about folks who want to continue to work past 55? MadHound Aug 2012 #52
Those who want to work would have that option. There would just be another option. Bluenorthwest Aug 2012 #53
We pay for this by taxing the rich. TBF Aug 2012 #54

still_one

(92,190 posts)
2. A lot of people get their health insurance through work, so unless you also move the age for
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 10:59 AM
Aug 2012

Medicare eligibility to 55, I think it would be a problem


Patiod

(11,816 posts)
3. Just moving Medicare eligibility to 50
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:06 AM
Aug 2012

would move a lot of entrepreneurial folks out of the paid workforce and into their own consulting businesses, leaving room for young people, who need structured companies as a place to grow and develop in business.

Many of us would leave our paid jobs in a heartbeat and strike out on our own if we didn't have to worry about the nightmare of affording insurance when you're over age 50 or have pre-existing conditions.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
14. You really think people will want to start their own businesses at 50?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:00 PM
Aug 2012

That is a tough life and a risky one. I would think a younger person with more energy and less to lose (because they haven't built as much yet) would be more ideal to target for entrepreneurship. It's kind of perverse to think we want 50 year olds to be the base of our entrepreneurs.

Patiod

(11,816 posts)
17. You're thinking "entrepreneur" and I'm thinking consultant
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:06 PM
Aug 2012

I agree with you on entrepreneur - opening up their own restaurant, or making and selling something.

I'm thinking consultant, because by 50 you have enough experience to do so.

I'm doing that now, because it allows me the flexibility to be a home with my elderly sick dad. I'm working a lot harder than I did when I was employed, but still enjoy it. If I had insurance, that would be the icing on the cake (my income stream is just getting to the point where that may be affordable in the next month or so when some of my clients actually PAY me for the work I've done over the past few months).

acamp

(12 posts)
20. “... the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity belongs to the 55-64 age group."
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:37 PM
Aug 2012

“It turns out that over the past decade or so, the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity belongs to the 55-64 age group. The 20-34 age bracket, meanwhile, which we usually identify with swashbuckling and risk-taking youth (think Facebook and Google), has the lowest rate."

(...)

"The average age of the founders of U.S. technology companies is 39—with twice as many over age 50 as under age 25."

That was in 2009.


http://ecopreneurist.com/2009/09/21/the-average-age-of-an-entrepreneur-is-older-than-you-might-think/

acamp

(12 posts)
59. Starting a business
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 03:31 PM
Aug 2012

I'm in my 40s and happily employed but can't bear the thought of working for someone else for the next couple of decades. You reach a point (at least I did) where you're old enough to know what you want and young enough to do something about it.

acamp

(12 posts)
60. You also get to the point where you realize it's far riskier putting your fate...
Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:19 AM
Aug 2012

...in some employer's hands. Job security? A myth.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
29. Hell yes, they would.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:27 PM
Aug 2012

I left a state job at 62 & launched my own consulting business, which has turned out to be successful. That was 6 years ago. I'll be 68 in a couple of months & expect to continue for at least another couple of years. Since my business interests require me to do a certain amount of scientific research, I'm also putting together some articles which I hope to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
35. Right. All that intellectual capital should be squandered.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 02:00 PM
Aug 2012

To suggest otherwise would open the door for higher taxes.

Lydia Leftcoast

(48,217 posts)
55. I started my own business at 44
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:59 AM
Aug 2012

It can be done. But I was able to do so only because I had a second job during my last year of teaching, and that second job continued and gradually faded out over the next two years.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
4. +1. The problem is health insurance, not SS.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:12 AM
Aug 2012

Many folks in late fifties and early sixties continue to work because of health insurance.

It's my biggest reason for hating Lieberman. They were one or two votes from getting this in the ACA, and he vowed to drop his vote if they lowered the age of Medicare to 55. It was killed because of him.

Of course, lowering the retirement age for SS and making rich pay fair share would also be a big deal for the economy.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
7. The
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:20 AM
Aug 2012

A lot of people get their health insurance through work, so unless you also move the age for

...health care law already does that.

FACT SHEET: The Affordable Care Act’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program
http://www.healthreform.gov/affordablecareact.html

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
9. Fact sheet says only 31% of employers are providing benefits to retirees.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:43 AM
Aug 2012

Then employers need to apply and be accepted.

Again this skews towards big business. I doubt a small business can keep up with the costs and paperwork.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. That
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:57 AM
Aug 2012
Fact sheet says only 31% of employers are providing benefits to retirees.

Then employers need to apply and be accepted.

Again this skews towards big business. I doubt a small business can keep up with the costs and paperwork.

...makes no difference in context. This applies now it will easily be expanded when the health care law is fully implemented.

Point, it can be done.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
16. Can be but will be?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:05 PM
Aug 2012

As costs rise employers are less likely to cover health insurance period. The ACA is a stop gap measure to cover people til the system collapses on the weight of its out of control costs. If there was a strong emphasis on cost controls maybe it would be a longer term solution but as is it's not feasible.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. What nonsense.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:10 PM
Aug 2012

Small business get subsidies under ACA.

The OP is a call to do something. Everything can be adjusted to make it work. Period.





ProSense

(116,464 posts)
47. You went from
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:29 AM
Aug 2012

making a silly point about the program being out of money to pretending that it can't get additional funding.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
50. It wasn't a "silly point" -- it was a fact -- the program is out of money
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
Aug 2012

and there won't be any additional funding for it.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
42. Besides, the whole program is a stupid idea.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 05:17 PM
Aug 2012

If taxpayers are going to help pay for something, they might as well pay for Medicare for All and get the corporations out of the picture entirely.

Why should taxpayers subsidize corporations to continue retiree health care plans? Especially when a lot of companies are sitting on hordes of cash.

It's dumb.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
46. Your comment
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:27 AM
Aug 2012

makes no sense.

The program was cited in response to concern about the OP suggestion. Your issues with the health care system have nothing to do with the point that was made.

Chef

(460 posts)
6. Early Retirement
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:20 AM
Aug 2012

First, many are putting off retirement because in this economy and with the cratering of pensions makes early retirement a bad move.
Second, I suppose that getting rid of higher paid older employees and replacing them with lower paid younger ones would be attractive to the "job creators" but, unemployment is not just restricted to the young.

 

kestrel91316

(51,666 posts)
10. No one should be forced to retire who doesn't want to, and who can still do
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:50 AM
Aug 2012

their job competently.

I am 55 and seriously resent the implication that I should just move aside so some idiot with no experience can take my place.

RebelOne

(30,947 posts)
40. I was forced to retire because of a layoff.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 03:34 PM
Aug 2012

It was not because of my age (I had just turned 71), since three others who were about 20 years younger than me were laid off at the same time, including my boss. My job was totally eliminated.

I wanted to work longer to build up more money in my IRA, but had to retire because there are no jobs around for people in their 70s, and I sure as hell do not want to be a WalMart greeter.

Fortunately, I am collecting social security and have no debt, so I am not destitute yet. It will be quite a while before I have to eat cat food.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
11. The formula reduces benefits for every month of early retirement.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:53 AM
Aug 2012

The reduction in benefits if retiring at 62 vs 66 is 25%...55 would be even worse.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

If you boosted the amount by 15% that is still a huge cut from normal retirement age.

All this would do is give extra funds to those who can afford to retire without social security. For those who are forced into early retirement it means a life of reduced payments.


ProSense

(116,464 posts)
15. Then boost it by whatever makes sense.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:01 PM
Aug 2012
If you boosted the amount by 15% that is still a huge cut from normal retirement age.

All this would do is give extra funds to those who can afford to retire without social security. For those who are forced into early retirement it means a life of reduced payments.


...boost it by whatever makes sense. Frankly, a 15 percent increase at 62 would make sense. Are you arguing against temporarily reducing the retirement age to 55?

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
19. Do you know how much you need to save to retire comfortably?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
Aug 2012

My retirement calculator at work tells me I need $2 million with a 4% post retirement return. If the meager amounts from social security push you over to retirement you are either rich or maybe you are one of the few with a nice pension who can retire early anyway.

Moreover they use your highest 35 years of earnings. If you don't have 35 years then they throw in zeros for those years.

I can see this is a great way to turnover government workers if that is the goal. But it would also drain their pension systems earlier than expected.

There are always these unintended consequences. It needs to all be considered pros and cons.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Well
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:41 PM
Aug 2012
Do you know how much you need to save to retire comfortably?

My retirement calculator at work tells me I need $2 million with a 4% post retirement return. If the meager amounts from social security push you over to retirement you are either rich or maybe you are one of the few with a nice pension who can retire early anyway.

Moreover they use your highest 35 years of earnings. If you don't have 35 years then they throw in zeros for those years.

...aren't you special, and thanks for the non sequitur.

You'd be surprised at what the majority of people who are working are living on.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
25. Too many don't think things through.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:12 PM
Aug 2012

Look at the mortgage debacle and the emerging student loan mess. Those are prime examples of not planning ahead.

Moreover when the trust fund runs out that is a reduction of 25%. So you reduce benefits for early retirement then it gets cut further with the depletion of the trust fund and they don't save for those extra 7-11 years... That spells disaster to me.

Again, this will only be a bonus for those who can afford to retire and it will be funded by a depleting trust fund.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
30. Yeah,
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:30 PM
Aug 2012

"Look at the mortgage debacle and the emerging student loan mess. Those are prime examples of not planning ahead. "

...not enough "planning ahead" for the incidents of predatory banks and greedy corporate bastards.


Your point is absurd!

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
31. I did think things through and I am underwater right now!
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:41 PM
Aug 2012

I got a fixed rate, low interest rate loan in 2004.

I made a 20% down payment.

I bought a smaller, cheaper place than I could have qualified for.

I saved in a 401k, carefully balanced and managed, and lost 20% in 2008 anyway. There are many people like me.

None of that matters. All my thinking and planning? Worthless when the economy crashes.

And most of my neighbors? Most of them have been there for years, the crash made it almost impossible to sell their homes, even if they were paid for.

And the schools in my community? Devastated by budget cuts. Due to our neighborhood not thinking ahead? Hell no, most of us have been here for years.

STOP BLAMING US.

And for once start advocating for the average person and not the CEO that the average person works under.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
57. That 2 million figure is way out of touch with reality...median income in the US is around 46,000
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:16 PM
Aug 2012

Half of Americans live on that much or less a year. If you figure 40 working years, the total gross income for those making 46k comes to 1,840,000. The gross total, pretax, before any expenses at all, is less than the savings you claim you 'need' to retire. So while it is fine and fun for more affluent people to speak of needing 12K to spend on tootsie rolls each month, the reality is that figures like '2 million' and phrases like 'I need' just do not go together. That figure is what you want, and no matter what they do, most Americans will never even earn that much in total in a lifetime of working. So if more than half of the nation never earns nearly that amount and yet most people do in fact retire, clearly most people know they don't 'need' 2 million liquid to retire.
It is a very out of touch statement. I'd also point out that if one is rich, Social Security does not figure into planning much, Medicare might, but only if you mean 'moderately affluent' when you say rich. The rich don't need it. The rich are not waiting for those benefits to do anything, they just do as they can afford.

Kaleva

(36,301 posts)
28. I think it'd be politically impossible to make it temporary.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:20 PM
Aug 2012

For those with high paying jobs, I don't see a benefit for them as they'd get a large drop in monthly income. Same goes for the upper middle class. Those in low paying jobs might benefit from this if they are also eligible for Medicare.

One can live comfortably on SS if one is debt free and has a strict budget.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
13. Wait 13 more years please.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:57 AM
Aug 2012

I'll be happy to retire at 55.

My brother will retire in 3 years at 55. My father retired at 55. I can only dream of retirement.

EdinGA

(11 posts)
22. ....And the way to finance this is...
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:53 PM
Aug 2012

...by eliminating the cap on social Security and Medicare contributions, currently pegged at $106K. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill raising the cap, but I say get rid of it altogether. Also include unearned income from dividends, deferred income and K-1 earnings as well.

At the same time, introduce a five cent per share trade surcharge to bring in yet more revenue for job training and assistance and free college at state universities. It would also stifle speculation and currency manipulation on Wall St.

These would be wonderful companions to Senator Harkin's bill, with about the same chance of being voted on and passed.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
27. Makes no sense at all.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:19 PM
Aug 2012

First off you would have to raise the FICA with holding almost twice what it is now to pay for it and that would also increase the employer part of FICA forcing prices of everything to go up or for more companies to lay off workers.

Second you could not live on social security from age 55 until you die. if a person gets $2,000 then you add 15% more that would be $2300. Who can live on $2,300 a month for 30 some years?

Third you can't force people to retire. They would just keep working a collect social security on top of it.

People should get real when the propose something like that.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
56. Where did you get this 'force people to retire' meme?
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:02 PM
Aug 2012

Not everyone is without other income for retirement. Many people would like the option of taking it earlier, because they can afford to do so if the Medicare and Social Security are in place. Many need only think of the Medicare, for they have plenty of money and income.
As it stands now, additional work income while getting Social Security leads to paying more and more tax on your Social Security income, so the 'just keep working and collecting' paradigm you suggest is not really all that simple. Enough 'extra work' and you zero out your benefit for that year via tax. So it is not 'on top of' at all. Retired people pay income taxes. Social Security benefits are taxed as income.
So giving the OPTION of retirement at an earlier age, those who could afford it could take it, and those who do not or simply don't want to take it simply would keep working until they wanted to retire. Assuming everyone is in the worst boat with just SS income is just not accurate at all. Sure people say 'all pensions are gone' but that is not actually the case many people still get pensions, own property, get royalties, you name it. The people who'd opt for early retirement would be those who either need it health wise or who can afford it financially. Because 'eligible' does not mean 'required to' it means 'qualified to'.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
58. The idea was to raise the amount of social security paid and people retire at 55 so younger people
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:49 PM
Aug 2012

could get those jobs. I don't think it was that only one part was going to happen

 

penndragon69

(788 posts)
32. Instead of bailing out the banks,
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:55 PM
Aug 2012

They could have taken that money and GIVEN every family a check
for a measly $25K tax free.

Where do they think the money would go anyway but straight into the banks
as people paid their bills and BOUGHT junk they didn't need.

Talk about an economic stimulus !

Lefty Thinker

(96 posts)
34. I like it
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 01:58 PM
Aug 2012

Not quite as much as I like the Job Guarantee, but I like the direction. Getting the economy going means putting income in the hands of the lower and middle classes...the upper class already spends their money on what they want.

Plus, we either care for our seniors or watch them die on the streets; I know which one I prefer to see. This isn't about people getting a buck without earning it...it's about not having to know people are dying in the street. I think it would be great if either candidate would say "America is a country producing enough goods and services that Americans don't have to go to bed at night knowing that someone -- some American who led a productive life -- will die in the street that night, starving because she can no longer even afford enough food." But I can't ever imagine Rmoney saying those words in public.

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
36. Thom Hartman also suggests lowering S.S. age eligibility.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 02:05 PM
Aug 2012

He has been doing so for years. He agrees that it will allow many to retire early thereby opening jobs up. He adds that those new jobs would be filled by those with less experience/seniority and therefore paid less, which could be a benefit to the company as well.

mcar

(42,331 posts)
37. I've been saying this for ages
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 02:06 PM
Aug 2012

I'm 53 and would love the option of retiring at 55. Working at a computer for nearly 30 years has caused enough damage to my body. I'd love to be able to slow down, do some consulting work and volunteer some as well - and let a younger person take on my current job, which is a good one.

We have everything ass backwards with this whole raise the retirement age thing. At the same time, young people can't get work while 70-somethings are still trudging off to work every day. It's crazy.

Scrap the cap, lower the SS and medicare eligibility ages and see how much better the economy does.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
45. Yes!
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:26 AM
Aug 2012

Austerity is clearly Not Working, how about some new ideas? how about just doing the opposite? As has been noted, Thom Hartmann has been advocating this for years. We tried just giving money to the banks and look how well that worked. How about some outside-the-box thinking? I for one am sick of the Can't Do attitude so prevalent in our politics, on both sides of the aisle.




I wish Obama was a socialist.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
48. it's another measure of how corrupt Washington is that they have discussed doing the exact opposite
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 01:42 AM
Aug 2012

cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
52. What about folks who want to continue to work past 55?
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:46 AM
Aug 2012

What about the fact that even with a fifteen percent increase in SS, most people simply wouldn't be able to afford to retire because their savings have been devastated in the past few years? Are you going to force these people to retire?

Rather than monkeying around with a benefit program trying to get it to be a job creation program, why not simply create a job creation program, something along the lines, and scale, of the WPA? Worked before, it should work now.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
53. Those who want to work would have that option. There would just be another option.
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:52 AM
Aug 2012

Where do you get 'forced to retire'? Right now, we have ages set for eligibility and yet many just work right past those ages if they are able. Other take the retirement option. Lowering the age of eligibility simply places the same options at a lower age.
Why not do a WPA type thing AND also this? They are not mutually exclusive.

TBF

(32,060 posts)
54. We pay for this by taxing the rich.
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 11:56 AM
Aug 2012

And it's about time - capital gains taxes should never have been decreased. This would allow folks to retire a little earlier and provide jobs for the kids graduating now. It is an investment in our people instead of war. I'm 100% for this option.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Lower Social Security Eli...