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

[hadit]

Justifying Attack on Social Security, House Republican Claims People 'Want to Work Longer' | Common Dreams

Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they "actually want to work longer."

www.commondreams.org

"Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they "actually want to work longer." Allen is a member of the Republican Study Committee, a House GOP panel that released a policy agenda last year calling for gradually raising the "full retirement age" from 67 to 70, partially privatizing the New Deal program -- House Republicans have repeatedly signaled in recent months that they will exploit every point of leverage they have—including a fast-approaching showdown over the debt ceiling—to pursue long-sought cuts to Social Security under the guise of "saving" the program from a non-existent financial crisis."


I definitely hope the GOP will start being more serious about drastically cutting if not, totally ending Social Security instead of just talking about it....If you look at the polls, the majority of the US would totally support cutting and or ending Social Security, since the only people who benefit from it are old poor people who were too dumb to invest in the free market for their retirement savings -- and like disabled people and other lazy losers....

Raising the age to 70 is a decent start but why not raise it to at least 75 or 80. The amount of people who would be dead by then would drastically save on costs as there will be less people to mooch off of our tax dollars...But the ultimate goal should always be doing away with it all together and allowing Americans to do their own retirement planning instead of relying on government to do it.....since Social Security has been in existence, it has been a failure...which is why it is the least popular Democrat policy in the last 70 years....Republicans need to be more upfront with the voters about how evil Social Security is and how we need to get rid of it.

You think you're being funny by saying that we should raise the age high enough that most people would be dead by the time they could collect, but that's how it was originally set up. It was not supposed to give a person 20 years of idle living in retirement, it was supposed to sustain the (then) truly elderly that were no longer able to work. Today, most people can expect to live well past the age of 70, and in fact work past that age. In order to return SS to its original purpose, we would have to raise the age to probably at least 75. No one should expect the taxpayers to give them 20 years of idleness.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Despite the OP's stupid sarcasm, with life expectancies ever increasing, sooner or later the age for being eligible for SS will have to be raised.
Get used to the idea, it's going to have to happen.

 

[August West]

I once had an insane Senator who suggested working until At Least 70. A steel mill or any other kind of heavy industry is no place for a 70 year old.

Santorum in '94: no retirement until 'at least age 70'

<p>Rick Santorum spoke on the campaign trail Sunday about the possibility of raising the retirement age, pointing out (per POLITICO’s Juana Summers) that allowing people to retire as early as 65 means giving a government entitlement to people who are “generally healthy and able to work.”</p>...

www.politico.com

 

[August West]

Despite the OP's stupid sarcasm, with life expectancies ever increasing, sooner or later the age for being eligible for SS will have to be raised.
Get used to the idea, it's going to have to happen.

Ask the workers if they would prefer to pay more into SS or work longer. They`ll pay up.

 

[Mac1958]

That chart is accurate, but with differences.
I was born in 1965.
So my SS benefits look like this...

Age 62... eligible for SS, but benefits are reduced by 30%
Age 65... same but benefits are only reduced by 13%.
Age 67... full benefits.

We are retiring at 65.

Yeah, the earlier you start before FRA, the lower your benefits will be. I usually tell clients it's roughly 8% per year, and it's broken into months. So wait one month and the benefit will be a few dollars higher. Once you've hit 70, that would be your maximum possible benefit if you wait that long.

So, for this particular tweak, they could increase the minimum age to, say, 65, and/or they could stretch out the top end to 72, 75, whatever.

Social Security was never meant to last that long, given the life expectancy back then. Now it has to last a long time.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

When SS first started life expectancy for men was 58 years old and 62 years old for women, and of course the retirement age was 65.

Here we are today and life expectancy for men is 77 years old, and 81 years old for women, yet retirement age is still 65!
Think about that for a second, there's no way we can continue at this rate without raising retirement age.

No one wants to talk about it, but it's got to happen.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yeah, the earlier you start before FRA, the lower your benefits will be. I usually tell clients it's roughly 8% per year, and it's broken into months. So wait one month and the benefit will be a few dollars higher. Once you've hit 70, that would be your maximum possible benefit if you wait that long.

So, for this particular tweak, they could increase the minimum age to, say, 65, and/or they could stretch out the top end to 72, 75, whatever.

Social Security was never meant to last that long, given the life expectancy back then. Now it has to last a long time.

All granted, my only stipulation is that you can't screw millions of people over by changing their retirement funds drastically when they are nearing that age.
I wanted to retire at 65. not 70.
So beginning years ago I planned my money all around receiving about $4400/mo pretax from SS (between the two of us) and then have my planned investment withdraws etc. to augment that and pay for medical insurance till FR.
As well as our home ownership, and even purchasing cars at a time where there will be no payments at 65.
I would be more than furious if the federal government, due to their own GROSS mishandling of our money and waste upon waste upon waste - try and change it now.

 

[skews13]

I can't imagine forcing people to wage slave for the billionaire class well into their 70's as very popular. Of course, the rich and the elite control the messaging and that messaging will get the loserterians supporting such a retarded idea.

Just remember

Tax cuts for the rich are entitlements

Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits

Entitlements can not only be tweaked, but completely eliminated.

 

[Mac1958]

All granted, my only stipulation is that you can't screw millions of people over by changing their retirement funds drastically when they are nearing that age.
I wanted to retire at 65. not 70.
So beginning years ago I planned my money all around receiving about $4400/mo pretax from SS (between the two of us) and then have my planned investment withdraws etc. to augment that and pay for medical insurance till FR.
As well as our home ownership, and even purchasing cars at a time where there will be no payments at 65.
I would be more than furious if the federal government, due to their own GROSS mishandling of our money and waste upon waste upon waste - try and change it now.

If they're smart -- and I really don't like typing that -- they'll realize that they can't make age-based tweaks for anyone for Soc Sec isn't very far away. So, like people who are 50 or 55 now shouldn't get screwed, for example.

Plus, remember, there are other tweaks that can be made. They can increase or even eliminate the maximum income threshold, which is currently $160,000. People who make more than that don't pay any more Social Security tax. Increase or eliminate that and you're essentially doing some means testing and adding a ton of cash to the system.

They could increase the total tax from 12.4%, too. So the age-based part of this could avoid being too draconian.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I once had an insane Senator who suggested working until At Least 70. A steel mill or any other kind of heavy industry is no place for a 70 year old.

Santorum in '94: no retirement until 'at least age 70'

<p>Rick Santorum spoke on the campaign trail Sunday about the possibility of raising the retirement age, pointing out (per POLITICO’s Juana Summers) that allowing people to retire as early as 65 means giving a government entitlement to people who are “generally healthy and able to work.”</p>...

www.politico.com

Yes. We may live longer, but our bodies wear out similarly.

 

[rightwinger]

I once had an insane Senator who suggested working until At Least 70. A steel mill or any other kind of heavy industry is no place for a 70 year old.

Santorum in '94: no retirement until 'at least age 70'

<p>Rick Santorum spoke on the campaign trail Sunday about the possibility of raising the retirement age, pointing out (per POLITICO’s Juana Summers) that allowing people to retire as early as 65 means giving a government entitlement to people who are “generally healthy and able to work.”</p>...

www.politico.com

If you work in a profession that requires heavy physical labor, it is up to you to plan to convert to an easier job or invest in a retirement fund so you can retire early.
We should not base retirement age on worst case conditions

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My thoughts...
Before there is even a discussion on altering SS benefits - FIRST - is to address the large scale fraud and allocation to people who never paid in.
In a similar discussion, I made the point that probably every single person who is on this forum above the age of 40 knows someone who is on disability that shouldn't be. I know of 3. Personally.
Get these people off of the tit before you even think of affecting people who worked their whole lives.
And then there are non citizens getting SS and disability, and Democrats in some states wanting to increase payments to more even more non citizens. Many never paid one dime in the system.
We can't talk about reducing benefits to people who spent 40 years paying in, while giving benefits to people who paid nothing.

Secondly... there is ageism and mental/physical decline.
I am about to turn 58. I have no problem admitting my physical strength/balance is probably as low as 70% of what it was 10 years ago. As well as I have CVI in both legs, especially my right leg. I have RA, and an Aortic aneurysm. The aneurysm alone greatly limits what physical activity I can do. And I am only 58.
As one person pointed out - yes people are living longer, but they are not staying young longer.
And then with ageism, older people are severely prejudiced against when seeking jobs. Every study has shown it, and everyone knows it. So "oh well sucks to be you"??
You can't just increase the retirement age. We are not the people we was when we were 45.

 

[rightwinger]

As one person pointed out - yes people are living longer, but they are not staying young longer.

That is not true
People are in much better shape physically and medically than they were a generation ago.

Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes are detected earlier and treatments are so much better
Also, the massive decrease in smoking has made people healthier later in life

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My thoughts...
Before there is even a discussion on altering SS benefits - FIRST - is to address the large scale fraud and allocation to people who never paid in.
In a similar discussion, I made the point that probably every single person who is on this forum above the age of 40 knows someone who is on disability that shouldn't be. I know of 3. Personally.
Get these people off of the tit before you even think of affecting people who worked their whole lives.
And then there are non citizens getting SS and disability, and Democrats in some states wanting to increase payments to more even more non citizens. Many never paid one dime in the system.
We can't talk about reducing benefits to people who spent 40 years paying in, while giving benefits to people who paid nothing.

Secondly... there is ageism and mental/physical decline.
I am about to turn 58. I have no problem admitting my physical strength/balance is probably as low as 70% of what it was 10 years ago. As well as I have CVI in both legs, especially my right leg. I have RA, and an Aortic aneurysm. The aneurysm alone greatly limits what physical activity I can do. And I am only 58.
As one person pointed out - yes people are living longer, but they are not staying young longer.
And then with ageism, older people are severely prejudiced against when seeking jobs. Every study has shown it, and everyone knows it. So "oh well sucks to be you"??
You can't just increase the retirement age. We are not the people we was when we were 45.

Absolutely. After Commie Care was enacted, my employer like so many other small businesses dropped their heath insurance coverage. I spent several years without coverage because the facility I deal with covered a large percentage of the services they provided. But when I went to look at Commie Care, not only were the prices ridiculous, but the coverage was even worse. In fact they had no plan for my doctor or hospital.

So I went out looking for other jobs and I was in my mid 50's. In spite of my attendance record, my many years of experience, my near flawless driving record, nobody would even call me for an interview. Why? My age.

Employers that do provide coverage well know that the older their workforce, the much higher their health insurance premiums are. The older we get, the more we slow down. So they resist hiring older people. Sure, there are laws against it, but how do you go about proving they didn't bother with you because of your age? And even if you could, who would be comfortable working at a company that was forced to put you on their payroll?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is not true
People are in much better shape physically and medically than they were a generation ago.

Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes are detected earlier and treatments are so much better
Also, the massive decrease in smoking has made people healthier later in life

We are the fattest country in the world. We have the worst diet in the world. We get the least exercise than most in the world. We are far from a healthy country.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

That is not true
People are in much better shape physically and medically than they were a generation ago.

Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes are detected earlier and treatments are so much better
Also, the massive decrease in smoking has made people healthier later in life

It is 100% true.
Humans did not slow their ageing process. That is absurd.
What changed, was safer working conditions, better personal hygiene, medications etc. that have reduced the number of people dying sooner than their biological clock allowed.
We are not staying younger longer. And it is criminally irresponsible to assume that people over 50 can do the same job as people 50 and younger. They can't. And like Ray just pointed out - employers know this and therefore hire accordingly.
No one in their right mind is going to want to hire a 65 year old if there are 35 year olds available... why the hell would you??

 

[rightwinger]

We are the fattest country in the world. We have the worst diet in the world. We get the least exercise than most in the world. We are far from a healthy country.

Not when you compare us to where we were a generation ago

Medical advances make medical conditions that would have been dehabilitating a generation ago, highly survivable

A generation ago, a heart attack, cancer, diabetes, hip and joint conditions would have killed you or left you crippled

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you work in a profession that requires heavy physical labor, it is up to you to plan to convert to an easier job or invest in a retirement fund so you can retire early.
We should not base retirement age on worst case conditions

Do you realize how much of your income you'd have to save to retire early? The average lifespan in the US is 78. So if you retire at 58 and live that 20 years, you're going to have to have enough money to be able to support yourself on your savings alone, or until you reach retirement age to collect SS. That's no realistic plan.

People don't like to switch careers midlife. They want to choose a profession and stick with it until retirement. If people can't do that with physical labor jobs, we won't have people taking those jobs right from the beginning. It's tough enough for the construction industry to find people as it is now.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you realize how much of your income you'd have to save to retire early?

An extra 5 percent in your 401k

 

[BackAgain]

The social insecurity “system” is obviously flawed. But lots of people have made big life decisions based, at least in part, on that “system.” So, flaws notwithstanding, it is quite impractical to suggest that it should be or even can be summarily terminated.

Instead, maybe it is time to craft a method to phase it out. Those who are currently on it (or who are close to retirement) shouldn’t be denied the benefits of a system they paid in to. It’s not as though they were given any choice.

Then there are the many who have already begun paying into that “system” but who are not all that close to retirement age. Go ahead and change the retirement age and modify the payout schedule (combined with a phased in reduction of the Social Security tax).

Eventually you tech the uounguns who haven’t yet started working under the “system.” They should be exempted entirely from paying into any mandatory Social Security system. But of course, they won’t be entitled to any social security payments down the road, at all.

Fine tuning. This proposal wouldn’t be easy. But it would be do-able. And it ought to be done. Sooner rather than later.