Would you support raising the retirement age for Social Security?

[kentuck]

I heard it mentioned on C-SPAN this morning, as a way to save the program.

That may be fine for some people that are able and wish to work until they are 70 or older. However, there are many people that are not able to work. And even if able to work, how are they supposed to find work in this economy? Employers do not want to hire people over 55, let alone over 65.

This will be my line in the sand for the Democratic Party. If they raise the age limit, rather than the income limit, they have lost me. I cannot support such an idea.

[unpossibles]

1. I think it could be an option.

Not sure if I'd want it to be mandatory because different people age differently and some would need to retire at that age, but our lifespans and lifestyles are different than generations past too.

[fasttense]

30. Where have you been? The age limit is already at 70??????

[kestrel91316]

56. Wrong. People CAN start collecting it at 65, or they can wait until as late as 70

to start - it's individual choice.

Perhaps changing it so you can't start collecting until 66 would help. But only if they enact a ban on forced retirement at 65 (except where safety issues are in play).

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Still wrong-- you can start collecting at 62 like I did. 70 is just for the upper...

limit on benefits. Sometime in your 50s, you start getting statements from SS telling you what your benefits will be.

I took a hit of around a 150 bucks a month to start collecting at 62 instead of 65, but since I'm damn near flat broke without it, even with two P/T jobs, it wasn't much of a hit.

If, for some reason, I want to collect the full benefit at 65, or even more at 70, I would have to pay back everything they paid me up to then before I could collect the higher amount. Can't imagine many scenarios where that would happen.

[sandnsea]

75. Well the hit is a lot bigger than that now

You only get about half what you would if you waited until 70. The ones who need to retire, the laborers, are the ones who can't, and they're also most likely to die in their early 70s.

[laughingliberal]

111. +1000 nt

[dflprincess]

188. I got my annual statement from Social Security today.

Based on my current income, I would collect $690 more a month if I retire at 70 instead of 66. That's a big incentive to keep working - assuming, of course, I manage to stay employed at the same income until then.

[SoCalDem]

211. If you are married, you might be better off collecting at age 62

since your husband's would become yours if he dies before you do.. the amount you would collect in the interim (62-70 for you) would probably outweigh the difference in yours.. If he were to pass in that time-frame, yours would just be forfeited completely..(assuming that his would be more)

[high density]

214. You have to live for quite a while to make up the difference

I think people should start collecting as soon as they can.

[CTyankee]

128. I couldn't start collecting at 65; I had to wait until 65 and 4 months. So the age

you can collect full benefits has inched up incrementally. My husband, a full year younger than me had to wait a bit longer than the 4 months. My guess is that they will keep on incrementally increasing the age...a month or two here and there could make a difference in the aggregate...

The thing is that you have to have SOME sort of a plan if you want to retire. I had desperately wanted to retire at 62 but decided to stuff my 401k with every penny I could each pay period, put off spending that wasn't absolutely necessary, pay down any debt I had and take no vacations. I had 3 more years of absolute misery in my job but got through it...it was no easy lift, that...

[luckyleftyme2]

221. your right

you are correct you can start collecting at age 62 and some of the younger ones will have to wait until they are 70 for full benefits!
you can apply for medicare at 65!

[Hannah Bell]

new info

Here's how it works. If your full retirement age is 67, the reduction for starting your benefits at

•62 is about 30 percent;
•age 63 is about 25 percent;
•age 64 is about 20 percent;
•age 65 is about 13 and 1/3 percent; and
•age 66 is about 6 and 2/3 percent.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/retirechart.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/retirement/1938.html

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

[fasttense]

199. Wrong - you lose anywhere from 20% to 55% if you don't wait until 70. n/t

[high density]

215. You lose a lot more if you defer to 70 and happen to die in your 60s. NM

[activa8tr]

229. Exactly! I know people seldom think about it as more than a

monthly amount, but if they were to think of what they would collect between 62 and 70, and then how healthy they will be at 70 instead of say 65, to go on trips, spend time away, do everything they want to do...

Gambling on living until one is 99 or 84 or even 80 is not really worth the years of wear and tear of a job after 65 or so.

Days and time are more important to most people than MAYBE getting a few extra dollars in a monthly check later on down the road.

[Obamanaut]

66. It is possible to begin Soc Sec at a reduced rate at age 62. Full

retirement is around 65, depending on year of birth. I started at 62, and will receive a reduced amount until I die or Soc Sec goes under, simply because I started early. It's about a $300/month (roughly) difference.

[laughingliberal]

112. 'Full' retirement for those born the year I was is 66 and 2 months and it goes up from there

My statements now show a reduced benefit for 66 and 2 months (and a seriously reduced benefit at 62) and the full benefit at 70. I was born in 1955. Congratulations in making it out in time.

[Obamanaut]

146. My full retirement was closer to 65, born in 1942, but I don't recall

the exact number. I'm glad I started at 62.

Miz O also started at 62. Her disability claim after a motorscooter accident was denied, and it was easier and quicker just to start early SS than to fight it. This was in 2006, and she's still going to various treatments, has some memory issues, and we were told we should expect to see sympoms similar to the after-effects of a stroke.

I'm retired military, and we had Tricare insurance. If not for that, we would have lost everything to medical bills. Thus, I'm in favor of expanding many of these programs - SHIP (or SCHIP), medicare, Tricare w/ all it's branches, VA = into some sort of single payer. The personnel are there, the offices are there, an estimated 100 million people currently use those various programs, why not add a few more staff members and accomodate the remaining citizens.

[luckyleftyme2]

220. and do you know who made it that- 70 to be max age for ss retirees

how short some right wingers memory really is!
if you told them we sold the shore frontage in Arizona they would believe it!

[SharonAnn]

138. No, we've already done that. And the GOP just stole the surplus to give tax cuts to their friends.

No, no, no.

The issue is, how do we get the funding we need to keep Social SEcurity operating the way it is and the way it was promised to be?

The answer is to raise the FICA limits on earning AND to classify all income as subject to earnings taxes.

The way it is, someone who doesn't work but lives on inherited wealth never pays into Social Security. Never!

Think about it.

[merh]

169. I like your suggestion.

Now, how do we get the borrowers to put the money back that they took out of the fund?

And can we remove the funds from the general funds, maybe the SS fund untouchable?

[Statistical]

195. Why would you make the trust fund untouchable.

SS trust fund will be repaid with interest. That will begin in 2013.

Due to the demographics it was necessary to save up enough to get over the "baby boomer hump".
As a result SS paid General fund for 20 years. Now the reverse will happen and General fund will repay SS for 20 years.

[G_j]

2. that would be utter cruelty

so I guess it is possible.

:mad:

[Liberal In Texas]

3. I'd rather see the cap raised or eliminated.

Why should those who may not be able to work past 65 have to suffer when there is a way to fix it by raising the cap?

[woodsprite]

19. I'm with you. n/t

[kestrel91316]

58. Raising the cap is an excellent idea. That probably means our Dems will

fail to do it out of fear of their wealthy masters.

[awoke_in_2003]

174. Hear Hear. nt

[Fire1]

4. No, I can't support that either. Mine is already at 67 for full

SS benefits.

[ThomWV]

5. I believe it already is rising. Isn't the age going up year by year?

By a couple of months each year?

[KatieW]

6. No, I'd rather they raise the cut off limit for when Social Security taxes are withheld.

[calico1]

8. That would be a better idea. Or have no cut off. n/t

[calico1]

7. To what? Ninety?

At the rate they are going we will all be dead before we can start collecting.

[Bluzmann57]

9. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am middle aged and have no intention of working the rest of my life. I have paid into this system since I was 16 and at the risk of sounding selfish, I want my share and I want it sooner rather than later.

[AngryAmish]

31. You realize you get all you paid in in 4 to 4.5 years, right?

If life expectancy at 67 is 10 years, then you have over five years of freeloading there.

[yodoobo]

39. freeloading?

Guess you never heard of compound interest.

[AngryAmish]

44. Do the math

[laughingliberal]

47. I'd rather do the math on how much has been 'borrowed' to cover the tax cuts for the rich all these

years since Ronnie raised the payroll tax to cover cutting the income tax on the wealthy. How many years did they freeload off the taxes of the workers?

[RKP5637]

50. +1, n/t

[fascisthunter]

117. .

[sad sally]

180. Why is that fact conveniently forgotten? Imagine how solvent the USA

would be if voodoo economics hadn't happened back then. We could afford health care for all, education for all, trips to the moon, state of the art transportation, clean energy, up to date infrastructure, healthy children, well taken care of old people, well taken care of veterans, assistance to needy Countries and their people, maybe more...

[MajorChode]

67. I've done the math an it's not that simple

The more FICA you pay, the larger your annuity check becomes, however the formula is not linear. The more you make, the less you receive as a function of what you paid. So if you take the example of someone who made say $20K for 40 quarters, and then started drawing their SS annuity, it wouldn't take long for them to recoup what they paid. However, if you consider someone who worked for over 40 years and paid the SS maximum for say 30 of those years, they would probably not live long enough to even get out what they paid, much less see any of those freeloading years.

[Hannah Bell]

139. let's see *you* do the math.

[laughingliberal]

46. Those who went to work in the 80's have paid a higher payroll tax all these years

It created a surplus over what was required to pay current benefits and the excess has been used to fund the tax cuts for the rich as the income taxes no longer covered all the spending. Now, after paying in to cover these tax cuts for the rich all these years, they don't want to pay back what they 'borrowed' from us.

It's a BS bait and switch. We were given no choice in paying the tax all these years but now our future benefits are being seen as optional.

Lifting the cap on the FICA tax is one way to get back the money we 'loaned' the wealthy all these years so their income taxes stayed low.

[Lerkfish]

60. freeloading? Ive been paying into it since 1970--

fuck your "freeloading" attitude. Its MY MONEY.

[AngryAmish]

72. I've been paying into it for over 25 years myself

If I get 3x what I paid into it (allowing for interest and inflation) then I am a ...wait for it...freeloader. I do not expect my fellow citizens to pay for my things that I did not earn.

[Lerkfish]

74. even though I've been paying for everyone that came before me?

yup, my money went to fund my grandfather, everyone's grandparents, and then my parents.

sorry, but you have a messed up attitude about this.

[RKP5637]

78. I've paid into it since 1961, and during that time the damn politicians have stolen

funds from the SS fund to cover their recklessness in trying to manage this country. Why politicians are allowed to siphon funds from SS is beyond me. Yet another nefarious "out of sight, out of mind" criminal activity IMO.

[laughingliberal]

76. That figure never seems to take into account those who pay in all their lives and die before they

can collect benefits. In addition to all the other reasons the figure is not true across the board, it always ignores this.

[Individualist]

101. Exactly

Some people prefer to ignore that fact.

[Raineyb]

93. My mother died at 42. So can my sister and I have the money she paid into it since it

could have been part of her estate instead of going to some freeloader?

Yeah that's what I thought.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase.

[Big Blue Marble]

126. Your assumption fails to include the time-value of money.

When people start receiving their SS at 66 or 67 the government has had use of some of that money for over 40-45 years. If the government
was paying compounding interest on your money as any other investment would, the amount you receive back would reflect that significantly
increased value.

Your pejorative term "freeloading" is inflammatory and ageist. It reflects a extremely simplistic and dangerous view of how the SS program works
to support our elders.

[Hekate]

137. Great RW talking-point, AA. You might want to rethink that.

The intergenerational resentment that is being stoked here at DU is as good a RW talking-point as any I've ever seen.

It's just a joy getting to be over 55 in this country, or even over 50. You lose your job, forget finding anything even close to what you had. I know engineers who never worked in their field again. But somehow they're supposed to make do (at what? Wall-Mart greeter?) without income or health-care for the next 10 - 15 years. Riiiiight.

If you stay in your job past 60, you're stealing a career from younger workers, who have soooo much wisdom and experience under their belts.

Is everything in this country a zero-sum game?

Our SS deposits were supposed to be invested wisely, earning interest, and instead they've been used as a Congressional piggy-bank. Don't blame me for that.

Hekate

[Statistical]

196. You are insane or failed math. Every heard of capital costs = interest?

Try doing more realistic math that involves a lifetime of payroll deductions combined with lifetime of compounded interest.

Then compounded interest during repayment period.

[Greyhound]

223. Has the corporate bullhorn ever bleated anything that you didn't buy and spread around?

Speaking of doing the math, why don't you?

[ljm2002]

10. No, we should raise the income cap...

...we don't have to remove the cap altogether, just raise it up by another $50K or so IMO.

Making people work longer is counterproductive, since there is a dearth of jobs too! Not to mention that people deserve to have retirement before they are too old and feeble to really enjoy it.

[frazzled]

11. No, just raise the freaking cap on income subject to SS tax

It's easy, it's progressive, it will work. End of story.

[blindpig]

12. This will be the final blow

It's coming.

Again, a Democratic administration will do what the Republicans dare not.

All in the service of the ruling class.

k&r

[LibDemAlways]

13. Hell no.

My 59 year old husband was recently laid off and is looking for work. He's not alone. Companies have caught on to the idea that if they let older workers go before retirement age they save money. Meantime the worker is up shit creek without a paddle.

[newspeak]

104. exactly!!!!

It's getting harder for people in their fifties and sixties to even find employment. Also, I worked for SSA years ago--I had claims where the worker died leaving no wife or children--they had worked for years and all they received was the lump sum death payment. Many act like we all survive to our sixties and seventies. SSA is an assurance for those who do survive and it was put into place for a very damn good reason.

[LibDemAlways]

120. My husband attended a job fair last week for a big corporation with a

new government contract. He's well qualified for the work. There were other men and women there his age and older. He said that all the older people were basically getting the brush off while the recruiters were buzzing like flies on honey around the younger applicants. He finally cornered one recruiter who wouldn't even look him in the eye and then admitted they want to hire 200 new college grads this year and have their older workers train them. Good luck with that. In a year they'll be hiring more experienced people as contractors to fix all the screw ups. Penny wise. Pound foolish.

Not suggesting that younger workers don't need jobs, but in this economy it's cruel to let people near but not quite at retirement age go to fend for themselves. Horrific on the ego as well.

[raccoon]

14. No effing way--mine is already 66. nt

[Echo In Light]

15. Fuck no

[Skink]

16. Obama said what most people here are saying when I saw him.

raise the cap. Let's let him do tht now while we have the momentum.

[RKP5637]

17. The fallacy in this line of thinking is believing there are unlimited jobs available for

people over 65. I have friends in their 50's, multiple degrees and skills, unable to find employment. One friend just started working at McDonald's making hamburgers. He said he felt fortunate. He has a EE degree + MBA and an incredible work history. I have a number of friends like this discriminated on because of age. People not in ones shoes always seem to have solutions for the others...

[LibertyLover]

18. I would have no problem with it

but my employer mandates that everyone retire at age 62. Our employees association is trying to get that raised to at least 65, but I understand that they have been trying to get it raised for 20 or more years and it never happens. Some of the bosses get extended past 62, but for the most part, it's 62 and out. I will have a pension from them at 62 (and it's an old-fashioned, honest-to-Goddess pension, thank the Gods) which will help, but with a child who will just be going into junior high I'll need to continue to work. However, as the OP pointed out, employers don't want to hire anyone old.

[activa8tr]

232. I didn't think an employer could "mandate" based upon age.

I thought that went out 15 or so years ago under Clinton.

What you probably mean is that your employer gears your retirement pension to maximize at 62, and have no added incentive to stay longer .

That might still be legal, I'm not sure.

If you retire, you don't have to start collecting from Social Security if you don't want to, of course you know that.

[jgraz]

20. Or... we could just stop stealing from the trust fund to finance wars and tax cuts.

That would also "save" the program.

[chill_wind]

26. Amen. n/t

[RKP5637]

29. EXACTLY TRUE!!! The politicians have stolen from the SS fund for a long time. It has

been no less than outright criminal theft and negligence IMO in CF America.

[newportdadde]

98. Bingo!

[fascisthunter]

119. we spend more on death and destruction than on bettering life itself

that tells me everything right there.

[JVS]

193. That hardly sounds fair!

[wordpix]

197. +1

[Deep13]

21. No, for two reasons.

First of all a lawyer or a professor might be able to work into her 80s, but that might be difficult for an iron worker. Second, people already don't get enough free time.

[fasttense]

22. Thanks to Raygun and Greenspan the age limit has already been raised to 70.

The earliest I can retire is at 62 BUT I take a cut in my benefits of 43%. If I retire at age 66.5, I take a cut of 22%. I DO NOT GET MY FULL BENEFITS UNLESS I WAIT UNTIL I REACH 70 YEARS OLD.

I've been paying in for 38 years now and I'll probably only live to 75. So, I pay in for 52 years and get back full benefits for only 5 years.

Where have you been these last 30 years the age limit has already been raised.

[laughingliberal]

108. I'm not sure how people missed that. I noticed it on my estimated benefit statements a while back

The amount it once said I could collect at 66 and 2 months is now lower and the full amount is not until 70. What do they want? Raise it to 80?

[closeupready]

23. Absolutely not.

Just raise or eliminate the cap as necessary.

[Hepburn]

24. No. n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. I'd trade that for a cessation of H-1B visas

If we're going to raise the age AND give jobs away, then no, I don't support it.

:hi:

edit to add: Well, all that AND taxing the "value add" due to outsourcing.

[Locrian]

27. no fucking way - nt

[lunatica]

28. No. But they should be able to keep working to supplement their SS checks

Chances are they would pick lesser paying jobs since in reality they want to retire. That would still leave jobs for the younger people. I'm sure something could be worked out where they can work at least part time so they aren't on a fixed income.

[RKP5637]

32. No offense, but could you please provide a list of these jobs? n/t

[lunatica]

154. I was thinking of the kinds of jobs they're forced to take for cash only

There's plenty of talent among the retired people. Crafts, repair work and general maintenance work, teaching, helping foreigners learn to read. Would you hire someone who's retired to repair odds and ends around your house or paint it? I definitely would. I would also hire them as tutors to help my kids learn to read and write better. The Boomers retiring now are very useful and a resource that's being wasted because of the stupid social security laws.

My point is that if they can supplement their SS checks legally they would retire more readily. Gardening, making toys, mending clothes, or simply creating arts and crafts to sell at flea markets. All the things they do now only without having to hide it for fear of losing their social security.

[RKP5637]

158. I see...

:hi: :hi: :hi:

[laughingliberal]

49. If a person waits til 65 or whatever their age for the full benefit is they are allowed to work and

make money. Those who take the reduced benefit at 62 are limited in what they can make in a year but not after the full age has been reached.

[lunatica]

155. If they weren't limited they would be more willing to retire and

let younger people get jobs. Our economy would benefit in both cases. The retiree making spending money and the younger worker getting a job and making spending money. It would be a two-fer.

[SocialistLez]

175. I can dig it

[caty]

33. There needs to be more

flexibility in this. If SS is running low, eliminate the cap until it is solvent again. When it has an abundance, lower the cap again. Sometimes government finds ways to complicate something that should be so simple.

[RKP5637]

37. The politicians over the years outright stole funds from SS to make themselves

look good by budget balancing and eliminating tax increases. Therein is one of the reasons SS is always on the edge... until we have responsible politicians, we will always have difficulties with SS.

[wordpix]

198. budget balancing? With a $14 trillion deficit???

[old mark]

34. Mine was already 66, but I retired at 59, got SS at 62. I understand people wanting to work longer,

but they should understand those of us who have had enough, too.
I have already had at least 2 heart attacks, diabetes, circulatory problems and back problems for years before I retired, and got nothing but grief from my employers for being sick.
I wanted some time to enjoy my life, which I was not doing for all my years working. I had enough to retire early and survive till SS began at 62, and I want the Democrats to defend people's right to choose and to be as free as possible in making life decisions.
I recall one of my sociology profs who worked with dying people told us that no one on their death bed ever said "I wish I had spent more time at work".....

I feel very fortunate to be retired and to still be healthy enough to enjoy it. Tax those rich enough, let those of us who had to work for life at least have a bit of freedom of choice.

mark

[loudsue]

35. HELL NO!!!!

To save social security, they need to quit wiping the asses of high salaried workers, and let the withholding be the full 14% no matter what the salary level. (7% is paid by the employer for those who are employed by someone else. The full 14$ is paid by those who are self-employed. )

Right now they cut off taking social security out of your check after somewhere around $80,000 in salary. If they would STOP that cut-off, social security WOULD NOT BE IN ANY TROUBLE!!! PERIOD!!!!

[yodoobo]

40. $80k?

actually its around a $106k

[Mariana]

48. Still too low. nt.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

202. And that's just wages....

If all your income is from interest, dividends, and capital gains, you don't pay any Social Security at all.

Tax EVERYTHING. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. I suspect you could make Social Security solvent AND reduce payroll taxes for those already paying them.

[laughingliberal]

52. Actually, the withholding is 15.3% now. My husband is self employed and that's what we pay. nt

[ctaylors6]

192. that 15.3% SE tax includes 12.4% SS and 2.9% medicare

[laughingliberal]

36. I'm already in an age group which must wait until 66 and 2 months to draw my entire benefit

The trick, here, is the benefit is calculated more heavily on the most recent years. With that in mind, those who find themselves spending long periods of time in the later years unemployed or having to take lower paying jobs to stay employed will see their estimated benefits go down. This has been a push by Republicans for years. Remember Paul O'Neill who 'couldn't see why able bodied older Americans couldn't provide for their own needs?" Now, I'm sure the Democrats will be joining in calling for this draconian measure.

[tonysam]

Same here

Suppose I never find a job again at age 55, and my current "estimated" benefit is a piddling $771 a month at 62, which will be reduced because I have five years into Nevada PERS. What then?

[laughingliberal]

124. I know. And every year we stay unemployed it goes down a little more

I'm in that boat and so is my husband. The reduction of our income is driving down what little we would have been drawing even further. I see all this as part of a big push to screw the boomers. They used our payroll taxes to fund the tax cuts for the rich all these years and now the plan is to steal it rather than pay it back.

[AngryAmish]

38. Yes.

If someone retires at 66 today they have a life expectancy of 16.02 years (actually life expectancy has increased in the 5 years since this table was created, but it is close enough for our purposes.

Most people get out in benefits in 4 to 5 years. Then there is ten years or more where younger people have to support you in excess of what you paid in. I think this is unfair.

[unblock]

41. given how hard it can be to find a job at 55, the current 70 for full benefits is high enough!

and income test would be much preferred, though in a sense we already have this to the extent that social security distributions are subject to income taxes.

[w8liftinglady]

42. I work with a lot of 65+ nurses.I think it depends on the job

I figured the age would increase as the life expectancy does.

[laughingliberal]

55. The average age of retirement for nurses, however, is 57

It has been steadily decreasing with the increasing patient loads, forced overtime, exploding documentation demands since the for profits took the industry over. There are still some older nurses around but not nearly the numbers there were when I entered the field in the early 80's.

[w8liftinglady]

64. I guess it depends on where you live

Here in the midst of divorce central,most of us are on our own.And,yes-the job hasn't gotten any easier,especially in Texas-a right-to-work state.Most of the older nurses(I am 50) are in more administrative,non-clinical roles.

[laughingliberal]

71. Yes, those who can make it out of the trenches to administrative positions do last longer

There was a time when that was an option for most nurses as they grew older. With the dearth of younger nurses entering the field these past 20 years, more nurses are having to remain on the front lines. I hit the wall 2 years ago at 53. I've always been in the right to work states and was in Texas for 10 years. The last hospital I worked for was in Texas and I left in 1995 when they had the nurses on the oncology floor taking 10 patients in a shift.

[yodoobo]

43. I would support removing the cap, but that would violate Obama's promise

of not raising taxes to folks under $250k

While I don't mind raising taxes of rich bastards making over $100k (let alone $249k), I don't think he should start breaking promises.

[Ms. Toad]

61. The cap could be eliminated,

with a credit offset for the taxes collected between the current cap and $250,000.

[trayfoot]

NO! Raise the cap!

[Romulox]

45. Yes, but only if the change took place immediately. No more kicking the can. nt

[kenfrequed]

51. No.

Raise the cap on taxable income so that the Social Security tax is slightly less regressive and they will be able to increase its solvency.

Also it still is not going to go insolvent anytime soon. They merely collected less money than they payed out this year and this could be attributed to unemployment and underemployment more than any other factor which, in my way of thinking, is the product of an economy that is increasingly speculatory. Such an economy does not reward productivity or labor and therefore razors out a fair number of people from participating and therefore contributing to it.

[lonestarnot]

53. Nope.

[NEOhiodemocrat]

54. NO, raise the cap or remove it

[rocktivity]

57. Neither has to happen. Just elminate the salary cap

Soc Sec is rendered forever solvent, and everybody pays a lower rate.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[DURHAM D]

187. It won't fix anything because the monthly pay out will also have to increase.

It isn't really that high. SS is currently a poor investment plan for higher income workers and a better plan for low - middle income workers.

My sister is one year older than I am. Over the past 48 years I have made more money and contributed more to SS by a large percent then she did. However, the differential in our SS checks is very small. Meanwhile, her deadbeat husband made less than either one of us but his check is bigger because he floated around the the Mediterranean for 18 months in the naval reserves back in the 60s and he gets the good boy military premium. Seem fair?

[DavidDvorkin]

59. I'd rather see it lowered

And the benefits increased. Eliminate the cap and make the tax progressive.

[Warpy]

62. Damn it, NO!!!

While desk jockeys can continue their jobs into their 70s, a lot of the rest of us are not so lucky and have had to do the kind of work that wrecks our bodies.

The way to save SS is to get it out of the general fund, turning it back into a pay as we go insurance program, and raising the cap as needed to keep it funded until we Boomers are all dead.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Tough call-- politically, it seems like it would be poison to put in a means test..

but that would probably be the better idea.

I suspect they would take the coward's way out and just keep raising the age until the actual payment of benefits is just for a few years-- like it was in the beginning.

[joe_sixpack]

162. I agree with you

If you have a certain income or asset level at retirement, you should forfeit any benefits. If I'm rich at retirement and have other sources of income, I'll say right now that you can keep my share.

[madinmaryland]

68. One of the primary reasons for not hiring older people is health insurance

for older people. If Medicare is allowed to cover younger people (i.e. 55 and above), I have no problem raising the retirement age for SS.

[CTyankee]

130. I worked part time for a small nonprofit after I retired at 65.4 yrs.

I worked along side a 70 year old, also part time, who had retired from a full time job. The nonprofit could not pay health insurance so hiring us oldsters on Medicare was a good fit! We got interesting jobs in causes and programs we supported and they get our experience and work ethic. It works out well from that perspective...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. Yeah, but I would also make Social Security benefits means-tested.

My father who makes well over $250,000 can expect to receive SS benefits that he doesn't need because he can afford to have these nice retirement packages. It's not fair. Even he asserted that it's not fair that he only pays a small percentage of his income for SS benefits. There are seniors who need it much more and are forced to work rather than retire because they cannot afford to live on SS alone.

I say, means-test SS benefits. I would support that approach more than I would raising the retirement age.

[tonysam]

113. Absolutely fucking NOT. That would turn SS into a welfare program.

Absolutely unacceptable. The rich would favor abolishing it altogether.

If you paid into it, god damn it, you have the right to it regardless of how much you make.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. You would receive what you paid into. But you would not receive the same level of benefits

that a person who doesn't have as much money, but who paid MORE of their income into it.

SS is a regressive tax. The more you make, the less you pay. The less you make, the more of your earned income you pay.

It's not a welfare program, because if it were, we wouldn't be paying anything. (And frankly, SS did start off as a welfare program under FDR, but doesn't seem that you know much history, so I'll let you slide.)

Bottom line, is that we all will be paying into SS, but because the poor pay more than the wealthier individuals, it is not fair that the level of benefits should be the same.

My father stopped paying as much into SS many decades ago, while those Americans who have to continue to work two jobs, and sometimes more, are still paying into it.

It's just not fair.

This isn't about welfare.

[joe_sixpack]

165. Not a welfare, but an insurance program

Look at it as paying premiums to cover the risk that you might not have other means of support at an elderly age.

[shanti]

70. hell.no.

i plan to take my SS at 62, the earliest age possible. that, added to my pension, will sustain me (and only me, as i'm single). as many others have posted, we've been working since our teens, it's our money!

[SnoopDog]

73. No, it should actually be lowered...

This would put more younger people to work...

And raise the cap.

[Taverner]

77. It should be an option, but retiring early and going on it should be as well

Change it from 65 to 60-70

[fasttense]

203. Raygun already changed it to 70 for full benefits. n/t

[Taverner]

204. Raygun was worse for this country than 9/11, Pearl Harbor and Katrina combined

[Vincardog]

79. If they want to raise the age they must provide jobs tht pay a living wage, that we can do until we

reach that age. But basically fuck that raise the cap and make the trust fund bastids pay their share instead.

[M155Y_A1CH]

80. African-American males should'nt have to pay in that case

The CDC states the average life expectancy of this group is 69.5 years.

If the age were raised to 70, more of those who pay in would receive nothing for their payments.

It would certainly increase solvency but is this what we really want.

If the program goes bust the government can just print more money,
like they do for the programs that they want to succeed.

We all do know that the government can't go broke. Not really, because they are the originators of the money.
There is no reserve anymore, to limit the printing presses.

If they loved SS like they love war, there would be no worries about funding.



Caution Advised: Don't go to the CDC site without virus protection. While there checking figures, my Firefox tab and header changed to Chinese letters that persisted even when I closed that tab. I had to reboot my browser and dump cache for it to return to English alphabet. I guess the Chinese have hacked the CDC?

[barbiegeek]

81. If you earn $1 million in cash a year NO social security

If you earn $1 million dollars in cash a year, why do you need a 500$ SS check?

Or how about since you only pay social security tax on the first $70,000 and the rest of the year is tax free, how about taxing you entire income after $70,000 for social security.

Many rich people--the wealth of our society-- They Quit paying social security in March, because they've already earned $70,000 by March. That's why they don't bitch much about S.S. tax, because it's over for them so quickly.

[Liberal In Texas]

83. It's now $106,800.

Wealthy people should pay more in taxes and SS because they benefit more from a stable society and use more of the infrastructure.

[barbiegeek]

97. Can retired Teabaggers send back their SS checks since they hate Govt. in their lives

ha ha

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

144. Exactly!! They make enough money and have nice 401K retirement packages.

They don't need it. Or, at the very least, the level of benefits should match what they paid into it.

It's a regressive tax that hurts the poor and working classes.

[MajorChode]

82. SS does not need saving

Even with the severe recession we experienced, the last SS trustees report only pushed forward the trust fund exhaustion by 2 years. The trustees actuary figures use an extremely conservative estimate for growth. If we get several years of significant growth in the economy (which is very likely), the exhaustion date will push back significantly even using the trustees' overly conservative figures. In all likelihood, the trust fund will never exhaust even if no changes are made to SS. Even if it does exhaust, there will still be money available to pay 3/4ths of all SS benefits. If we do away with the cap at that point, SS will be able to pay 100% of it's obligations with money to spare.

That being said, I think we should raise the retirement age. People live much longer than they did in 1935, and more significantly they are able to work longer. Raising the retirement age will still fulfill the original promise of SS. I think we should also eliminate the cap and do away with the FICA exclusion for investment income. Social security is the responsibility of all Americans. Not just the middle and lower wage earners. If we made those changes, we could significantly drop the FICA tax and give all poor and middle wage earners a real tax break for a change.

[laughingliberal]

85. The retirement age has already been raised for full benefits

And I am absolutely against raising it further especially for those who are now within 10 years of their age to collect full benefits. People may live longer than they did in 1935 but that does not, in and of itself, speak to their ability to do certain types of work for much longer. And with the employment climate demanding higher and higher productivity from workers over the past 30 years, we are seeing the average retirement age of many professions declining. Mine is one of them. With the for profit takeover of the health care industry the demands on nurses increased to levels we never saw before 1980. The average age of retirement for a nurse has now dropped to 57. With higher patient loads and monumental documentation needs, nurse are burning out at a phenomenal rate. Add to that the dearth of younger nurses entering the field the last 20 years and nurses are remaining in direct patient care for much longer when once they would have moved on to administration. And, trust me, you wouldn't want those of us who have been burned to a crisp out there responsible for patient care.

[MajorChode]

90. It's not the responsibility of SS to insure an early retirement

Social Security came about because elderly people were quite literally starving and/or eating out of trash cans. Towards this end, SS has been enormously successful. SS is not a retirement plan and never was intended to be a retirement plan. As far as retirement plans go, it's a pretty shitty one even though it's a great social insurance plan.

[laughingliberal]

95. 66 is not early retirement

and that's the age at which I can draw out my benefit (or a very reduced rate at 62). Raising the age will allow us to see many starving and eating out of trash cans, again. In addition to the fact that it's damned hard to get a job if you lose one after 50, there are many who are flat not able to do what they are trained for after 65 or 66. Many who are now within a decade of that age have seen retirement accounts they had decimated by the crash. I actually have started 401k accounts 3 separate times over the years. I was forced to withdraw the first to survive medical problems (I had insurance but was off work 12 weeks and high out of pocket expenses to pay when it was over with).

The 2nd one had to be withdrawn when I lost everything in a flood in 1998 and was forced to relocate. The last was withdrawn 2 years ago when my husband's business crashed with the housing market and I lost my job while he was undergoing cancer treatment and our COBRA premium was $1200 per month along with a mortgage of $1400 and virtually no income. People who have every intention and make every effort to plan for retirement sometimes find they are stuck with SS.

Raising the retirement age now is just another effing bait and switch after stealing our money to cover the tax cuts for the wealthy for 30 years.

edited typo

[MajorChode]

167. SS was never meant to solve all the problems you mention

If anything, adding additional programs to SS makes it less solvent. And yes, it is problematic when people are forced to rely on SS solely, but other solutions like HCR and others should be sought for those problems.

SS was originally designed to be a pay as you go program. Those who are working pay for the SS annuity of others. The trust fund was Raygun's idea, and a piss poor one, but even with the trust fund, no FICA funds are used to cover tax cuts for anyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. That might be fine for people with desk jobs, but

it would be cruel for people whose jobs involve physical labor.

The age has already been raised for people in my generation (boomers). Our parents could retire at 65. We have to wait till 66, and younger people have to wait till 67.

[laughingliberal]

86. +1000

I think a lot of people in favor of this either have desk jobs or they are too young to realize that a lot of types of work become much harder as we age.

[pitohui]

87. its a done deal under RONALD REAGAN, so GOP did this, not democrats, jesus people are stupid

ronald reagan slammed this thru some decades ago, of course, since it would not come to pass while he was still alive, the stupid people are going to blame it all on obama

seriously, kentuck, before you parrot stupid shit that you half heard on c-span inform yourself a little bit

the younger so-called boomers, people still in our fifties or younger -- we can thank herr reagan for the raised social security age

to try to blame this on DEMOCRATS in any way, shape, or form is bullshit of the highest caliber

[laughingliberal]

96. I damned well am going to blame it on the Democrats if they go along with it

We all know Ronnie screwed the workers by raising payroll taxes to cover his free ride for the rich freeloaders. If the Democrats go along with a plan to keep us working longer or cutting the benefits now that we approach retirement age, it's on them. They may not have created the problem but it is inherent on them to fix it now. And fixes that further punish workers will be their responsibility if they choose that path.

[pitohui]

115. can you read? the law was passed in 1986!!!!! christ on a crutch!!!

the stupidity of this entire thread is truly breath taking

[laughingliberal]

123. I believe what we are hearing now is calls to further raise the age and/or reduce benefits

And we hear Democrats and the people appointed by them condoning it. Yes, there's plenty of stupidity to go around. Can hardly wait for the deficit commission recommendations to come out.

[Thothmes]

166. The Democratic party controlled the House of Representatives

during the Reagan years. They passed the legislation that Reagan signed.

[tonysam]

88. The program does not need "saving."

It isn't going to "die." If there is really a concern about a "shortfall," ABOLISH state "opt out" in paying Social Security for state and local employees. This are literally millions of employees who don't pay into SS and their government agencies don't either.

Fourteen or fifteen states do this now, and it should be fucking illegal. Midlife public servants get screwed over on BOTH SS and PERS thanks to WEP/GPO.

[Jim__]

89. No! - n/t

[Greyhound]

91. NO! Don't believe and help spread the Big Lie.

No "fix" of SS is required, the only thing broken is the fact that they can't/haven't yet got their filthy hands on the $$$.

They put this out every few months and each time a few more people are suckered into believing the Lies.

[bigwillq]

92. No (nt)

[kentuck]

94. Just like under Reagan, it is a way to raise taxes on the lower and middle incomes...

and give more and more to the wealthy. Soon, the only taxes being paid will be FICA taxes. I said, "if" the Democrats raise the age limit, they have lost me. Perhaps you are secure in knowing that they would never do such a thing. I am not as sure.

[newspeak]

99. NO-take the cap off of salary

and as Gore said, lock the box. Funds paid into SSA are for SSA only.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

100. Maybe for people under 30

Anyone much older has been operating on assumptions about their life based on the current set-up

[laughingliberal]

110. Yep

Anyone who has finished half their working life planning on current estimates needs to be exempted from any age increases. If they want to raise it for those who still have time to plan differently I'm still really against it but that would not be quite as unfair.

[Better Believe It]

102. No. We should immediately reduce the age at which one can collect full benefits to 65

And end the cap on Social Security taxes.

[Yo_Mama]

103. The age limit is already 67

for most future retirees.

If you have to retire early (62 1/2) then you get very reduced benefits.

Raising the age limit to 70 would just be a closet reduction of benefits. Most people would have to retire early and would get much lower benefits because of that.

If you raise the early retirement age, you're just going to get a ton of people going on disability. And then they may get Medicare early, which actually will cost more.

So I think raising the age is not a viable solution. Raise taxes on wealthier retirees and wealthier workers, but don't kick the slats right out from under older people who have very little option.

[Juche]

105. Or we could lift the cap or the tax rate

There are lots of ways to keep SS solvent. Nothing above 106k is taxed. And the tax rate is 12.4%.

Would I support raising the age limit? Yeah, personally. But only as a last resort and only if lifting the cap or raising the tax rate didn't work.

If anything we should lower the SS age. The reason is that boomers aren't retiring, which means young people are being pushed out of the job market.

[ParkieDem]

106. Absolutely.

Depending on what statistics you use, the average life expectancy of Americans has increased by 10 to 12 years since Social Security began in 1935. For people in their 30s and 40s today, it could increase another 5 years, and many people in these generations will be living well into their 90s.

Let's take this individual as an example: he is in school from ate 5 to 18, then goes to college, and maybe a year of graduate school. So he starts working (other than odd-jobs and summer jobs) at age 25. Let's say he lives to be 95 years old. If he retires at age 65, he will have worked for less than half (42%) of his life. Contrast that to the retiree in the 1950s or 1960s. He probably started working at age 18, and continued until age 60. Let's say he died at age 75. He worked for 56% of his life.

Now, add the fact that due to drastic changes in demographics, there were many, many more workers paying for retiree #2's social security. There may be just one or two workers paying for retiree #1's social security.

Remember, even for the progressives that helped found social security, it was not meant to be a retirement program or welfare program. It was supposed to be an insurance program to keep older people at some kind of subsistence level of income. It was never meant to be a person's sole source of retirement income. Given the burdens on the system, and the fact that today's younger workers will be living much longer, it makes complete sense to gradually raise the retirement age.

[iris27]

216. Well, sure, if you fuck with the numbers enough, you can make them say whatever you want.

If the average male life expectancy is 78 -- and it is --- then your guy living to 95 is quite an exception. Moreover, a standard amount of time in college plus "maybe a year of graduate school" would make him 23 not 25...and even this puts him in the minority as a large majority of people haven't attended any amount of grad school. If you do that more realistic math (start at 23, stop at 65, die at 78), he's worked for 53% of his life...quite a bit closer to your theorized retiree of 50 years ago.

And what's more, the age has ALREADY been raised in a staggered fashion (depending on birth date) from 65 to 67 for the current generation of workers. And money has been "borrowed" from it many times for other purposes, that, if it were repaid, would keep the system solvent for a long, long time.

[CLANG]

107. Absolutely not - they should eliminate the cap and LOWER the age.

[upi402]

109. NO! tax the god damned hogs at the trough. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

114. +1000

[laughingliberal]

182. +2000 nt

[eleny]

116. Let Lucy pull the football away? No.

[Blue_In_AK]

118. I took my social security at 62

and I don't feel bad about it at all. If all of us old farts were still in the job market, the unemployment figures would be even higher. I think I'm being very altruistic by giving up a full-time job so somebody else can have one.

[Hippo_Tron]

122. This young person agrees with you 100%

[Hekate]

136. Upthread there's a "freeloading"comment that rankles me too much to even respond. I turned 62...

... last September and started collecting my reduced pension in November. I've been out of the paid workforce for years due to a combination of forces, but I certainly feel I've contributed to the social good with unpaid work.

The intergenerational resentment that is being stoked here at DU is as good a RW talking-point as any I've ever seen.

Hekate

[Blue_In_AK]

161. Yeah, that comment rankled me, as well.

After 45 years in the work force, paying steadily into social security, I hardly think I'm freeloading at this point.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. At the moment, no

As average life expectancy continues to rise, I imagine there will be a day when it is a good idea to raise the age.

[crazylikafox]

125. Only if they intend to seriously enforce age discrimination laws.

As of now, it's almost impossible to get a job when you're over 55. If you get laid off in your 50's, you're screwed.

[LibDemAlways]

131. Husband got laid off in January at age 59 after giving the company

twenty years of loyal service. For the last five he commuted 1000 miles weekly to keep his job, but it was all for naught. They are determined to get rid of senior people and kicked him out the door without so much as a "job well done." We have a daughter who will be starting college next year. He has to keep working. Has contacted hundreds of companies. Had one phone interview where the guy told him, "You are 99% of what we're looking for. Unfortunately you aren't a perfect match, and in this economy I can afford to be picky." Also has received responses telling him, "The position has been filled with a more qualified applicant." Husband is as well qualified as they come, and I suspect the only thing holding him back is his age. It sucks.

[Contrary1]

127. Here's a chart that shows retirement benefits by year of birth:

If you go to the site, you can find out more by clicking on your year of birth.



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

[eridani]

129. Right, with underemployment + unemployment at 20%, dumping a bunch of us old farts

--into the job market is just what people in their family-raising years need! Not.

[Hekate]

132. Not really. People who do manual labor wear their bodies out a lot earlier than desk workers...

And that's just for starters.

One-size-fits-all social policies are truly stupid.

Hekate

[B Calm]

133. I support taking it down to 55. It would open up a lot of jobs, and the

unemployment problem would be fixed!

Cash for Geezers

[tammywammy]

134. No

I think 67 is an appropriate age, I'm 29 now.

[OnionPatch]

135. No!!

Just raise the freakin' cap. It doesn't even have to be raised all that much.

No, I won't work until I freakin' drop dead to get what I've been putting into SSI my entire life. That's BS. Besides, in this job market, it's better if people retire earlier so there will be more jobs for the younger people entering the workforce.

Just lift the cap.

[951-Riverside]

140. Enforce age discrimination laws first

[Dr Morbius]

141. Consider me a party of no.

And to paraphrase Sarah Palin, something I never thought I'd ever do, make that the party of "Hell, no!"

It is, firstly, the wrong solution for the people it will affect. It may place American seniors in misery; ideological concerns must be put to the side in the face of human suffering. It is, secondly, the wrong solution for the government, which should implement an incremental cap increase instead. As the "baby boomer" generation grows older, social security will need more funding; it's a simple fact which no one wants to address. Raising the cap slowly takes a smaller bite from those who will have to pay more, and permits Congress to stop the increases at some future date if something happens in the meantime to make social security more solvent. Either we have a social security system that allows seniors to subsist at some meager but livable level, or we shouldn't have social security at all. A social security system that pays less and less to people as prices increase, when those people are too old to work anymore, and have paid taxes their whole lives, is insulting to the people.

Hell, no. I would in fact support, strongly, lowering it and drastically increasing that social security cap (to something like half a million dollars!). If fewer seniors are seeking employment, more jobs are available for those who are younger and have kids to feed.

[earth mom]

143. NO-Social Security is NOT broken. People need to educate themselves and stop buying into the lies

that Obama, Congress and the banksters are trying to feed them about Social Security.

Question what's in it for THEM.

[DURHAM D]

190. Yep - This generational war started during the primary.

Sadly, it was Obama that kept saying and still says that SS is going broke. Its a rightwing lie and he continues to repeat it so his followers never question its validity.

Watching the health care "reform" debate I just kept wishing so-called Democrats would pay more attention to policy and less attention to personalities as they trumpeted a bill that is a Republican wet dream.

[earth mom]

206. Yep and people are buying into the Social Security LIE because Obama is saying it.

I can't believe the stupidity and sheep like behavior I see around here on DU on a daily basis. :wow:

[anigbrowl]

145. Yes, actually

Life expectancies have gone way up since the idea of retirement at 65 was introduced many years ago. Letting it go up to 67 or 68 (and phasing that change in over several years, so it doesn't hit people who are just about to retire) does not freak me out. Disability and such is still available, just as it is for people below the current retirement age who are unable to work for health reasons.

Many European countries are implementing similar policies. One reason is what I stated above, changes in life expectancy. Another is that demographic changes mean there are fewer younger workers due to people having smaller families in recent decades, so people beginning or mid-way through their working lives today are supporting a higher number of retirees for longer than their parents' generation did.

Edit to add that I am also in favor of removing the income cap on SS contributions.

[tammywammy]

148. It's already at 67 for those born after 1960 n/t

[anigbrowl]

149. It seems a little bit more complicated than that

per the first sub-thread above. But my point is that gradually increasing it in accordance with overall trends in life expectancy does not bother me in principle. There are a lot of details that need fine-tuning, eg someone pointed out above the black people tend to have shorter life-expectancies so it would be unfair to oversimplify with a one-size-fits-all approach.

I personally feel that legislation specifying absolute quantities for things like ages, dollar amounts and so on unintentionally result in an awful lot of problems. If I was doing constitution 2.0 I'd require that all laws specify quantities in percentage terms, but most people are too math-phobic for that to have a realistic chance of success.

[tammywammy]

151. I see what you're saying

And yes percentages would scare the average math-phobic person. :)

I'm 29 and I don't want to see the retirement age raised to 70+, but I'll admit I have my biases...I'm already tired of working. lol

[anigbrowl]

152. Yeah I hear that

I'm almost 40 but I've already gotten used to the idea that my parents entered a very different economy from the one I did, due to demographic shifts. It's an issue affecting almost every developed country.

[wishlist]

147. No, since age increase phase-in for full benefits has already started

Reducing retirement age even further than the current law provides should only be considered at least 10 years from now and only if trends for increasing longevity continue. I have my doubts that younger Americans will live as long as the current older generation in light of the prevalence of obesity. I have observed that most of my friends and relatives in their 50's and 60's struggle with more health problems and obesity than did my parents' generation (in their 80's now) when they were the same age. But maybe the positive factors of reduced smoking and health care advances will offset the negative factors of obesity.

[Common Sense Party]

150. Yes, we will HAVE to raise retirement age, raise taxes on everyone,

get rid of the cap, and perhaps reduce the rate of increase in benefits.

And Social Security is the EASY fix.

Medicare is the mother.

Unfortunately, there are no politicians with balls or brains enough to actually admit there is a problem, and none of them have the guts to tell Americans what they don't want to hear.

[CBGLuthier]

153. It already is raised. Raise it much more and we all will be dead.

67 for me. I don't know where you get this 65 stuff. They have already raised it.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

[mmonk]

156. No, pay for it.

I'm tired of being threatened with losing the western world's stingiest safety net because people don't want to pay any taxes.

[B Calm]

157. Kick all the Tea Baggers off it. They won't mind, they hate socialism!

[crazylikafox]

160. good answer!

[librechik]

159. In this economy? Better to lower the age...

[Warren Stupidity]

163. No. There are approximately zero jobs for people in their 60's.

[quiller4]

183. Tell that to my 64 yr old husband who has had 2 offers and he

isn't looking for work. His previous employer wants him to come back, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

191. That is where the "approximate" fits in.

Anecdotal evidence aside, finding a new job in your 60's is difficult at best.

[Naturalist111]

164. NO

hell NO. What raise until only a few live long enough to use it? GRRRRR

[varelse]

168. No, I do not

[Toucano]

170. I could support it changes to the retirement age, but only if it were part of other reforms.

1. I want an Al Gore "lockbox". They can even put his name on it if they want.

2. I want tough legislation that protects workers' private pensions.

3. I want the contribution cap removed. Contributions have to apply to all income (wages, investments, bonuses, gambling winnings - everything)


Then we can talk about the need for an adjustment to the age when benefits kick in.

People who are unable to work should always qualify for benefits under disability provisions, regardless of their age.

[protocol rv]

171. Sounds like a bogus claim

The Social Security program is sound. If they want to change it, then they should stop raising the payments for those who are retired today, which they can accomplish using a special inflation indicator for older people. Since I am older, I assure you I know how to prepare such an indicator:

20 % X UTILITIES bill + 10 % Dentist Charges for False Teeth + 10 % Cost of Eyeglasses + 10 % Cost of Clothes + 20 % Cost of Prunes + 10 % Cost of Cable TV + 20 % cost of Bingo.

[Yo_Mama]

178. Thank you

I burst out laughing at the "calculator".

[harkadog]

172. No, Hell no.

[SocialistLez]

173. Raise taxes on the rich

My grandmother is 70+ and still working.
I am glad she is able to still keep working but I know plenty of people here age ARE working and really wish they weren't.

Kind of reminds me of the guy from Sicko working as a janitor just to help pay for his wife's meds.

[Desertrose]

176. HELL NO. Raise the cap on the big earners.

How much can the little guy/middle guy give already??

[Cleita]

177. Program does not need to be saved except in the minds of some

deluded Republicans. If this is coming from Democrats, you can be sure they are DLC DINOS. Bernie Sanders has said the program is not in trouble and it will only take a little tinkering to keep it on track.

[scarletwoman]

179. Hell no! Make the damn thieves pay back what they stole!

[proud2BlibKansan]

181. No

[OhioChick]

184. Hell no. n/t

[troubledamerican]

185. NO -- raise the income cap.

[divineorder]

186. My immodest proposal

Lower the partial benefits age from 62 to 56 and combine it with other tranfer benefits (food stamps, senior/affordable housing, medicare, and a generous allowance for funds earned through parttime work). Make the benefit package double what younger workers would get, and allow for parttime employment. Call it the Senior Package This combination would free up a lot of jobs for younger workers and allow the long-unemployed older workers to actually permanently drop out of the full-time workforce.

Second immodest proposal would be a WPA for people who are 50 plus. The Federal Government (or State and Local) would hire older workers for all sorts of civic regenerative projects. The jobs would meet civic needs while freeing up private sector jobs and absorbing those who are too young to retire or collect Social Security.

[Withywindle]

189. Absolutely not.

The way we treat our elderly is already miles beyond shameful, I will NEVER support anything that makes it worse.

[Statistical]

194. No. There are other better solutions. AARP did an exaustive analysis

Most likely a combination of things will be required.

Raising cap of deductions
Raising the deduction rate by 1%
Requiring all new employees to participate
Make SS taxable on wealth collecting SS

Those 4 things combined cover shortfall by over 100%.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

200. How about raising benefits?

You already get more if you wait to collect benefits until you're 67 (I think that's the age). Why now allow a higher benefit if you wait until 70 or until 75? The longer you put off collecting benefits, the more you'll receive per month.

The idea, of course, is that your increased amount will not be more (based on your life expectancy) that what you would have received if you had started collecting benefits at 65.

[iris27]

219. For those of us born after 1960, we can't even get the standard amount until we're 67.

That is our "full retirement age". For those able to retire at 65 now, they can wait until 67 and get higher benefits, you're right. That "delay and get more" age will be pushed back to 70 anyway for those of us whose normal retirement isn't until 67.

They could add a second layer onto this like what you suggest, but otherwise, most of this has already been implemented as part of the age increase passed in the 80's.

[Zynx]

201. Either that or raise payroll taxes or index benefits to prices instead of wages.

I'm in favor of any of those, though my preference is for a mix of benefit cuts and tax increases to correct the small long term funding problem.

[Ysabel]

205. NO i would not...

[The Gunslinger]

207. no way

[RagAss]

208. Hell No !....I've been paying into that son of a bitch system for 30 years !

Do I need to keep supporting these fucking Tea-Baggers that hate my country !!!!

[hansberrym]

210. And I bet you feel entitled to the money you paid in? n/t

[RagAss]

225. and not a dime more.

[krabigirl]

209. Yes. People are healthier nowadays, and people are living longer. but...

However, I think if you are truly disabled or are not as healthy, you should be able to receive your benefits earlier.

If we weren't so much in debt, I'd say no, but honestly, how is this system supposed to sustain itself?

[iris27]

212. Fuck that, my SS retirement age is already going to be 67.

Get rid of the income cap already...and no more stealing from the fund to finance tax cuts!

[iris27]

213. self-delete dupe n/t

[Unvanguard]

217. It may be the only long-term solution, but it should not be the first choice. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

218. There is no SS problem, short or long term.

These solutions are solutions for a different problem: a federal budget that for political purposes is kept in a fictional balance (of sorts, current a hideous deficit) by using the ss surplus to hide the real annual deficit. The real problem is that those surpluses will dry up and have to be paid back for the boomer retirement boom. That is NOT an SS funding problem, SS has sufficient funds to pay retired boomers, that is a federal general revenue problem, the solution to which is to abolish the ruinous Reagan-Bush-Bush tax cuts for the filthy rich.

[Greyhound]

222. THE PROGRAM DOESN'T NEED SAVING! And if we continue to let them get away with this

foundational lie, they will steal it. Once you accept the false premise, the rest can't be stopped.

[Doctor_J]

231. One of the usual suspects dragged it in here

using the Repuke framing of course.

[Capitalocracy]

224. save it from what? that's a strawman. hell no

ridiculous.

And if it were unsustainable and needed to be gradually raised to continue to work, we'd have to find another solution because starting at 120 years old means the program is already dead anyway.

[DefenseLawyer]

226. Raise the cap.

End of story.

[activa8tr]

227. How high shall we go? Yes, let's raise it to 99! Problem solved.

It's already 67, people can start at 62, how high do you want to go?

Some people are perfectly healthy at 67, some are not able to do a full day's work at 62. The human body doesn't age like a machine, and not all people have the same genes.

Then we have the problem the OP mentioned. If one loses one's job at 55 or even 50, one is NOT likely to get a good paying job to work at until the age of 67 or higher. What do we do with those people who are REALLY STRUGGLING with physical jobs at 63. No, age is NOT a valid reason to legitimately qualify for social security disability at age 55.


Let's encourage those that WANT to work to work until 72 or so, give them a bonus of some sort, but let's not further restrict our elders. My father died at 65, three days after his birthday. My cousin at 68, a year after taking a late retirement. My brother-in-law retired at 58 from teaching and is going to live to 99 at the rate he is going. It's never fair.

[Doctor_J]

228. Absolutely not. The way to "save" it is to

lower the retirement age. That is, if actually needed "saving". Since it hasn't missed a payment in 75 years, so even that is a right-wing canard.

[Doctor_J]

230. HOw do these Heritage/CATO/Fox "News" talking points always get here?

:wtf:

It doesn't need to be saved. It's fine

[texastoast]

233. No, but I do support

Raising the contribution salary to $200,000.

[activa8tr]

235. Why stop at that level? Why not tax everybody the same %?

All the way up the ladder to the multi-million dollar execs?

Why give the rich "boys", (and smaller number of rich "girls") more breaks?

How about if we stop the tax at the first $200K, then we insist those who earned 3 times over that for many years, and have a million or two in the bank at retirement use THAT up before they collect a dime?

Why are we paying SOME millionaires a couple thousand a month plus medical care simply because they are over 65?

[texastoast]

236. You have a good point

But I do believe that singling out an earner group will cause trouble. We need to keep it solvent in any event, and however that works out is going to be some tough negotiation.

[Starry Messenger]

234. HELL NO!!

I think it should be lowered!

[maryf]

237. Took the words out of my mouth...

Lower it to 62!

[maryf]

238. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24

Thanks!