New CBO report – Lower (not increase) the early retirement age!

[elehhhhna]

New CBO report – Lower (not increase) the early retirement age!
Submitted by Bruce Krasting on 01/15/2012 09:33 -0500

Congressional Budget Office Unemployment


At one point or another, all the big name politicians have indicated they would support changing the minimum Early Eligibility Age (EEA) rules for Social Security. Obama has said it, so has Boehner. Even guys who love Social Security, like Sen. Harry Reid, thought it might be okay. Many economists have publicly opined that raising the EEA for benefits is good economics, as the average life expectancy is higher than it was forty years ago. To me, the most significant evidence that a consensus is forming on this important issue is the fact that the ultimate supporter of the Grey Panthers, the AARP, came out with its support last year.

I think that all of these deep thinkers are wrong. In fact, a good case can be made for lowering the minimum retirement age from 62 to 60.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/new-cbo-report-%E2%80%93-lower-not-increase-early-retirement-age

[Yo_Mama]

1. The real benefit of raising the early retirement age is deaths before benefits

Death rates start rising pretty rapidly in the 60s, so the cohort life expectancy calculation doesn't capture the greater net payouts to people who would otherwise not have collected.

However there is an offset to lowering early retirement which might be of very significant benefit to OASDI, and that is that if you get disabled when you are 60, you are going to get a higher disability benefit than you would if you took early retirement at 60.

But most working people can't retire early because if you retired at say 60 when your full retirement age is 67, you'd get way too low an SS check to survive. Early retirement only benefits those who are relatively well off or who have saved a great deal. Also, early retirement without some sort of government funded medical insurance program is not a good idea for anyone who can get private insurance by continuing to work. The cost of private insurance to cover those years in the 60s before Medicare kicks in is quite prohibitive.

[Warpy]

2. Early retirement also allows people to work part time instead of full time

and that combination keeps them engaged and active without killing them off. Lowering the retirement age is a good idea, past due. Unless they want to make laudanum over the counter again, few of us will be able to work full time physical labor into our 60s.

The problem, of course, is medical insurance. The problem in this country is always medical insurance. Obviously, it's the one that has to be tackled first, lowering the Medicare age long before the retirement age is lowered.

We've allowed Congress to dick around too long. It's time to force them to do their damned jobs.

[Yo_Mama]

5. I agree with you

Of course, you can only earn a certain amount when you retire early, after which your benefits get cut.

I am a bit offended that this discussion is only conducted in terms of costs to OASDI without factoring in human welfare, and without considering the plight of all the older workers who are going to retire with very small SS checks and really can't afford to retire early. Raising the full retirement age by two years will be a very rough situation for them. For them, paradoxically, raising the early retirement age would be beneficial, because then they could claim a higher disability check.

We have many more people working past the age of 65. In most cases it is because they need the income.

I think the Medicare age should be lowered to 62, but I also think we should look at the situation of the near-retirement crew with minimal SS benefits and adjust.

[Warpy]

10. Medicare needs to be lowered to 55 NOW

since that's the corporate expiration date and the age most people who had good jobs with insurance suddenly find themselves downsized or otherwise unemployed. Surviving on a patchwork of nothing jobs is doable; doing that without health insurance at the age of 55 is not.

Then lower the age 10 years every few years until we have universal Medicare. Insurance companies can then scramble to provide Medigap, something they've actually done fairly well so far. If they start trying to cheat oldsters again, revoke their damned charters.

[spin]

3. I retired just before I turned 60 ...

But I have a pension. I consider myself very fortunate.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. I will tell you exactly when they will lower retirement to 60

The fucking day I turn 65!

[Snotcicles]

7. I hope thats Tuesday. nt

[pinto]

6. Seems the idea here is a lower retirement age = lower monthly / annual benefit payouts.

Might be missing something, obviously. But this looks like a retire earlier, get a lower monthly payment, save Soc. Security approach.

If so, I'd rather support a very gradual increase in eligibility age factored to average longevity and average work force, length of service, data. Discounting health related disabilities, work related disabilities, etc.

And, as noted above, Soc. Sec. is basically OK. It's Medicare we need to keep solvent.

[Justina For Justice]

8. Increasing the Retirement Age Will Increase Unemployment for Younger Workers.

The Social Security funds are sufficient to cover anticipated retirees and current retires until 2036. The simpliest and most equitable way to increase the SS funds is to raise the income amount for those making over $106,000 a year, which is the current maximum of income subject to social security withholding. If the maximum income were raised to $200.000 or $300,000, not only would that cover the social security fund well beyond the year 2036, it could also be used to supplement the Medicare fund to keep that fund solvent for the foreseeable future.

Raising the retirement age is a terrible idea, as the fact that life expectancy has increased says nothing about the fact that the vast majority of those over 65 (even 60) do not have the physical health and strength to keep working. This is especially true for those doing physical labor.

Lowering the retirement age, with a possible increase in benefits, would allow older workers to retire, thus freeing up their jobs so younger workers could take them.

Supplemental benefits might be calculated based on need based on one's base social security check. This would make it possible for older, low paid workers, to retire but still survive economically.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Yes, exactly. There are too many people seeking too few jobs.

Pay for it by raising the SS tax if required... but it probably isn't because a worker shortage will raise salaries which will raise tax receipts.