• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Social Security - Raise Retirement Age?

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
More and more I'm seeing talk of raising the retirement age for SS.

This angers me. Why?

For one thing I see it as more of the same where the government puts a fee/tax on something and then uses that money elsewhere for some pet project (or whatever, hell they don't even know). See below.

For another, if they do raise the age it's only gonna apply to younger people (they've already done that once). Our problem has been that so far the people on SS retirement paid in a pittance but reap big benefits. Further, it's the coming Baby Boomers who are about to retire and slam SS, unless they raise the age requirement for them it's not gonna help, merely 'punish' younger people who are paying more than fair share. I.e., a rape job.

More to my point above:

How Is Social Security Funded?:

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. Through 2017, Social Security collects more in tax revenues than it pays out in benefits because there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. However, as Baby Boomers start to retire and draw down these benefits, there will be fewer workers to support them. By 2040, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted and 100% of benefits will be paid from that year’s payroll and general tax revenues.

How Is Medicare Funded?:
Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues. Because of rising health care costs, general revenues will have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030.
So the part of SS that is for retirement benefits (OSADI) is hauling it's own freight - the revenues support the expense (so far). But Medicare does NOT.

So why the hell would we raise the retirement age for SS to just use that money to help support Medicare?

I say cut Medicare spending or raise Medicare taxes until it supports itself.

I think if we actually charged people for the true costs of Medicare we'd have a better debate about the subject. And I always think it's better to show the true costs for things rather than switch money all around in a cup-n-pea game of illusions where the price paid != the cost. The fed gov needs to stop this game of one program subsidizing another etc.

Fern
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,716
51
91
don't forget the illegal alien drain on social systems. If they raise the age, then return all SS payroll deductions to qualified recipients 50 and older. It's their money. They put into the system. They deserve to have their contributions returned if the contract obligation are forfeited.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
There was an increase in medicare taxes in the health care law. Raised from .9 to 1.4 I believe and also tacked onto capital gains. My memory is foggy but there was added taxes for medicare.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
It has to be raised. SS was meant as a safety net for those who lived longer than their savings held out. It was not intended as a retirement plan that people live off for 30 years. Medical science keeps us alive longer, we should expect more of those years to be productive.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
There was an increase in medicare taxes in the health care law. Raised from .9 to 1.4 I believe and also tacked onto capital gains. My memory is foggy but there was added taxes for medicare.
If true (my memory's foggy on that also) and sufficient, I see no need to discuss raising the retirement age.

Fern
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,716
51
91
how many collecting SS today are back sliders that never put a dime into the system??
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,319
124
106
The average life expectancy is a lot higher now than it was when the retirement age was originally set, and it will continue to go up. As such I think it's both necessary and prudent to start raising the retirement age gradually.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It has to be raised. SS was meant as a safety net for those who lived longer than their savings held out. It was not intended as a retirement plan that people live off for 30 years. Medical science keeps us alive longer, we should expect more of those years to be productive.
Eh, everything sucks when the government gets involved. The argument then is, with the high unemployment we have, every job a senior has is a job a person just entering the workforce does not have. If posed this way, what would we rather have, a 70 year old with a job and a 20 year old collecting unemployment benefits, or a 70 year old collecting SS and a 20 year old with a job?

Reforming Social Security likely will raise unemployment benefit payouts. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,240
2
76
The average life expectancy is a lot higher now than it was when the retirement age was originally set, and it will continue to go up. As such I think it's both necessary and prudent to start raising the retirement age gradually.
its already 70 for me. how much longer should I wait? I dont want to live much past 70 based on family history!
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,319
124
106
its already 70 for me. how much longer should I wait? I dont want to live much past 70 based on family history!
70 seems reasonable. A lot of people retire significantly younger than that though.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Avg lifespan of a person when SS started was like 59 years. Age to collect was 60. They pretty much built the system to be sustained by not serving half the people. We should imo try to adhere to the standards set by the FDR administration and raise the age to 76 years.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
It has to be raised. SS was meant as a safety net for those who lived longer than their savings held out. It was not intended as a retirement plan that people live off for 30 years. Medical science keeps us alive longer, we should expect more of those years to be productive.
I agree. We are living longer (not necessarily healthier). We both plan on working until 70 health permitting and both saving as though there will be no SS when we get there. If it is still there... bonus cheese.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,240
2
76
Oh yeah? I can start collecting at 62 albeit at a reduced rate.
yeah I can collect about 200 a month if I go at like 66. anyone who isnt already getting SS but is old enough to retire gets it at 66, us younger bucks get full benefits at 70 *i think*
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
If the SS benefits age is increased; what is going to happen to those employees that presently have to leave their work at 65? Will the companies want them around for the extra 3-5 years.

It Medicare that is coupled to the SS system that is the actual problem. If the government is going to control all Healthcare (as it seems they are trying to); then let them dump Medicare and/or fold it into the Healthcare system that is being raved about.
Having two progams doubles the overhead waste without having any additional benefits to the people.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
If the SS benefits age is increased; what is going to happen to those employees that presently have to leave their work at 65? Will the companies want them around for the extra 3-5 years.

It Medicare that is coupled to the SS system that is the actual problem. If the government is going to control all Healthcare (as it seems they are trying to); then let them dump Medicare and/or fold it into the Healthcare system that is being raved about.
Having two progams doubles the overhead waste without having any additional benefits to the people.
You can't just fold Medicare into the current system. Elderly people do not have jobs to get employer based insurance, and private companies won't insure them because the risk is too high. And they are the demographic who needs healthcare the most. The only way to fold it into the system is if the system is single payor, government insurance across the board for everyone. But that ISN'T what this healthcare law is, nowhere close.

- wolf
 

emm386

Junior Member
Oct 10, 2008
12
0
0
Sadly, the funding line has been crossed a few years early:

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1
 

bruceb

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
8,874
111
106
I can also start at age 62, but I will probably wait till 66 if possible. Depends on if I am still working or not and how my investments turn out. Also what state I am in. Seriously thinking about leaving NJ for either North Carolina, Virginia or West Virginia sometime in the next 10 years max. Property taxes here are way, way too high.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
If true (my memory's foggy on that also) and sufficient, I see no need to discuss raising the retirement age.

Fern
Yes it did, and it cut Medicare spending as well. However, the Medicare tax increase and spending cuts are used to fund the subsidization of insurance for people who do not have it. So it doesn't solve the grave fiscal problem that Medicare now presents.

Incidentally, I agree that Medicare needs to be reformed (again), so that it is fiscally balanced, while raising the retirement age for SS (again) is not necessary. The retirement age for me is already 67 due to the Reagon/O'Neill reform back in the 1980's. I've paid into the system and I'll be pissed if I have to wait till 70 for the benefits.

- wolf
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
If the SS benefits age is increased; what is going to happen to those employees that presently have to leave their work at 65? Will the companies want them around for the extra 3-5 years.

It Medicare that is coupled to the SS system that is the actual problem. If the government is going to control all Healthcare (as it seems they are trying to); then let them dump Medicare and/or fold it into the Healthcare system that is being raved about.
Having two progams doubles the overhead waste without having any additional benefits to the people.
You can't just fold Medicare into the current system. Elderly people do not have jobs to get employer based insurance, and private companies won't insure them because the risk is too high. And they are the demographic who needs healthcare the most. The only way to fold it into the system is if the system is single payor, government insurance across the board for everyone. But that ISN'T what this healthcare law is, nowhere close.

- wolf
I thought that was what the Obama & Dem leaders were pushing - government control of the healthcare system. Let the taxpayers pick up the cost for everyone in the end.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
It's my understanding that you have to have paid into it for a minimum of ten years to collect.

Thats how its suppose to work . But alot of white and Blacks that never ever worked are getting regular SS.

I saved the one you will like the best for now. If ya spent enough time in prison . Ya can apply and recieve SS. As your considered unemployable. Go into a SS office apply and while your their talk real nice . Than if the person serving you says any little thing that ya don't understand Go off on them like a wildman . Than you to can get SS. They will send ya to doctors but act thesame way and you will get SS.< bi polar
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
The average life expectancy is a lot higher now than it was when the retirement age was originally set, and it will continue to go up. As such I think it's both necessary and prudent to start raising the retirement age gradually.
Not only that but the ratio of young taxpayers to old beneficiaries is shrinking
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,573
5
81
according to the article, medicare tax increase won't take effect until 2013, so the gains won't be immediate.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news/economy/medicare_tax_increase/index.htm

It has to be raised. SS was meant as a safety net for those who lived longer than their savings held out. It was not intended as a retirement plan that people live off for 30 years. Medical science keeps us alive longer, we should expect more of those years to be productive.
Most people forget that. SS is supposed to be a safety net, NOT a nest egg, and one of the unintended consequences of better medical practices is that the life expectancy continues to increase with the net result of more people living longer.

how many collecting SS today are back sliders that never put a dime into the system??
if you're thinking of social security, zero. you MUST be insured to get SS benefits, usually "fully insured" (where you must have a certain number of QCs, aka quarters of coverage, based on earnings). SS =/= welfare; you had must've paid FICA taxes in order to get QCs towards SS eligibility.

however, if you were eligible for SS early on and lived to your 80s or beyond, you certainly received more than you paid in.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/insured.html

It's my understanding that you have to have paid into it for a minimum of ten years to collect.
the short answer is yes. keep in mind that SS can be paid not only as retirement but also as a disability benefit; for retirement you MUST be at least 62 if you opt for reduced benefits and have 40 QCs. Without going into detail, I'll say that if you've made at least 4,480 (4 x 1 QC which is 1,120) then you've made the maximum of 4 QCs per year.

Since you need 40 QCs to be fully insured for SS retirement, assuming no breaks in earning QCs you can get it in 10 years, yes.

to qualify for disabled status for SS, the rules are different (see above link).



here's an excellent reference guide on social security's past, and possible choices
http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Social-Sec.../dp/159884119X

the 3 solutions to SS revolve along one or a combination of 3 approaches:

- raising the retirement age
- raise taxes
- cut benefits

personally I favor a combination of the 3; slowly raising the retirement age to reflect the increased life expectancy, raising medicare if not SS taxes, and reducing/occasionally suspending COLA (cost of living adjustments)....although frankly it's a matter of tweaking given the number of people living longer than Social Security imagined in the 1930s (and as someone pointed out, fewer workers to support retirees).
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Your benefits are based on the last 15 qt that you worked befor appling . So if you been in the job market for 40 years . Your wages went up alot . So your last 15 qt work are going to be disproportionate to your paying in.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS