Is raising the retirement age for Social Security acceptable or unacceptable?

[no limit]

As part of a budget agreement would you find increasing the retirement age for social security to be acceptable or unacceptable?

[TacticalPeek]

1. Social Security is not part of the budget and not part of the deficit. This poll presumes wrong.

It is a fact that is frequently obscured by right wing talking points, especially lately.

Today, cable talking heads have several times brought up how Obama said very little about Social Security in the speech. Little was said because Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the 'national debt'.

Facts are important.

It cannot (honestly) be "part of a budget agreement".

[no limit]

9. You are correct, but I don't think the poll presumes wrong

If Obama raised the retirement age he would do so as part of a budget agreement.

[alc]

15. paying back the SS trust fund bonds is part of the budget/deficit

The money needs to be borrowed or taken from another program. I think this year's budget includes (or needs to include) $40 billion to repay SS trust fund.

If the budget is $40 billion too high. They can do one of these
* Decrease the dept. of education budget by 40%
* Decrease the war budget by 10%
* Borrow $40 billion extra
* Not pay back SS trust bonds needed to fund SS this year

[davekriss]

18. Option 4 is unacceptable and amounts to class theft

If the Treasury chooses to default on Treasury Bonds, they should do so equally and not just default on the Bonds owed to working American people. Let them default on Treasury Bonds held by Wall Street financiers and Chinese uber-capitalists too, equally. Anything lease amounts to theft by the monied classes from the working classes. And if you depend on a weekly paycheck, you are working class, no matter the size of your tv or number of cars in your driveway.

Ps/ I am not implying you recommend option 4, just taking this as an opportunity to make my point.

[inna]

2. it shoud be lowered, not raised. absolutely unacceptable. nt

[TacticalPeek]

7. Exactly - lowered.

With no changes at all the Social Security system continues paying full benefits until approximately 2037 at which point, again with no changes, it can continue paying 75% of benefits "indefinitely".

None of that has anything to do with the federal deficit.

Of course, we obviously should strengthen the system now to take care of the out-years, as the President mentioned and as OMB Director Jack Lew has well argued last night and this morning.

By removing the cap that now exists on income subject to FICA tax almost all of the shortfall disappears, again "indefinitely" (which is a good thing meaning no problems/shortfalls appear in the forecasts). The remaining additional revenue needed would almost certainly be more than covered if the tax were applied fairly to ALL income, regardless of source, for example, investment income.

The system should be fixed by having everyone pay their fair share. That would probably make it financially sound to lower the minimum age which would benefit the economy by opening up good-paying jobs for younger workers.

[xchrom]

10. +2

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. You try strapping on 50# of tools, a hard hat, safety glasses, work boots,

and coveralls and climbing up and down ladders all day with two 10 min breaks to pee and 1/2 hour for lunch day after day for 40 some years and tell me that the retirement age should be raised. That is what I have done for most of the last 43 years as a Union Sheet Metal Worker and at 60, my body simply can't do it anymore.

[Lars39]

17. That's very similar to what my dad did as an industrial mechanic.

He barely held on until he was 62.

[CountAllVotes]

19. working in the trades can do that fast

It seems the human body is pretty shot by age 60 for sure when doing work like you have been doing for years.

I think changing the retirement age is a very bad idea.

That is because I know of just too many people (friends, etc.) that died in their 30s, 40s, 50s and early 60s long before retiring even crossed their minds. :(

I agree with others, if anything the age should be lowered.

I am seeing a lot of folks around your age barely make it to retire and much less collect any Social Security at all. Most deaths I'm seeing in this age group are from cancer while I know of a few Greatest Generation folks still alive that are relying on their kids to care for them in their advanced old age. While they live on and their kids (Boomers) aren't lasting; many are dying out just too quickly it seems to me and their parents are still around. :wtf: Am I the only one that has noticed this?

Boomers were exposed to a lot of toxic crap while growing up, which includes all of the non-stop nuclear testing going on in Nevada to name just one place in particular. :nuke:

:dem:

[onehandle]

4. It's as early as 60 in Belgium.

So, no. Unacceptable.

[bemildred]

5. It needs to be lowered to 60. nt

[jillan]

14. Agreed!

[SoCalDem]

6. It's a moot point anyway

If you get downsized/outsourced out of your job at 50, an official retirement age of 65, 67 or even 70 doesn't really make all that much difference.. Going without meaningful health care for 15 years probably means that many will not live long enough to ever draw any checks.

Postponing retirement is only effective IF people still have jobs available to them..jobs that pay a living wage and come with affordable health care options.

"reforming/modernizing/fixing" SS is the modern version of putting Granny & Gramps out on an ice floe..(of course soon there won't even be ice flows)

[bigwillq]

8. Unacceptable (nt)

[Le Taz Hot]

11. So far, 11 votes for "acceptable"

but no defenders. I'd like to see what the rationale of that would be if there are any takers.

[no limit]

13. I'm wondering the same thing

[Demit]

16. I would guess it's young people who are still very strong physically & can't imagine

what it will feel like to be sixty. They probably can't even picture a time when they will be old.

I know that's how I felt, back then.

[CountAllVotes]

20. invincible

That is how I felt, invincible.

Then came age and what comes with it ... ugh.

:kick:

[Common Sense Party]

24. Acceptable and inevitable. It's going to happen, there's no way around the demographics.

It should be a small increase, perhaps a year, combined with an increase in the FICA-taxable income level.

[Johonny]

12. It depends

are they guaranteeing me I WILL LIVE LONGER!

[no limit]

22. Now that's a very good point

:)

[Liberal In Texas]

21. It's a totally stupid idea, and it comes from guys who's hardest job all day is deciding which

lobbyist they're going to let buy them dinner.

We should be lower the retirement age, and remove the cap. This would greatly improve the unemployment picture.

[former9thward]

23. It should be lowered to 62 or 60.

If we had a decent retirement system I would favor mandatory retirement at 65 so jobs could be opened up for young people.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I support lowering it to 55. We need upward pressure on wages.

Anyone wanting to expand the pool of workers better get to explaining where all these living wage jobs are going to come from.

Folks that live to say 18, aren't living any significantly longer time than in the past and if they do squeeze out another 18 months or whatever, they aren't getting anymore healthy years but the major non-feeling issue is we will have less and less jobs as we go into the future and more people for fewer positions means wide spread wage destruction which in turn will greatly reduce tax revenue which means that corrective action makes the problem worse.

The main reason we are having this discussion (other than some especially greedy fuckers salivating over stealing the money) and those who stole our money don't want it refunded is a concerted effort to lower the cost of labor.

The bottom 40% are already well under 10% of income and wealth, driving that number down means billions for the wealthy.