Social Security - Raise Retirement Age?

[Bitek]

Yes. Have to.

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.

 

[CPA]

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.

Medicare has been 1.45 percent for a while (both employee and employer pay), however it's only been applicable to wages. Under the healthcare law it will now be in effect on capital gains for those making over $200K ($250K married - thank you for another marriage penalty). Social Security is 6.2%.

 

[JS80]

Here's a novel concept - let's fucking phase it out.

 

[piasabird]

Odds are only a small percentage of people will live until 70. Once they start rationing health care dont expect many people to live past the age of 70. A lot of poor and hard working people can expect do die before retirement age. A lot of people now die in their 50's.

Teacher's dont receive full social security. Neither do lots of government workers.

Social security system will go bankrupt soon. Dont worry because you will never reach retirement age. When you get older they will raise the retirement age to 85. It is time to quit letting the government steal all that money. Lets just end the Social Security Drain. May as well cut off health care at age 60 and just let people die.

Let grandma die on the streets. Old people are a drain on society.

This is what O'Bammah is heading toward. Is this the direction you want your life to go?

 

[nobodyknows]

Here's a novel concept - let's fucking phase it out.

Yep, we should elimante ALL retirement plans.

 

[Munky]

Such an inconvenience about those Ponzi schemes... they all go bust eventually, no matter what you do.

 

[ericlp]

I'll be damn lucky to even see 70! The odds are not in your favor. I could care less what they do. Since I was kinda pissed last time from 62 now 68, and what now 70? What will it be next year? or the year after that. Hell, I think it will be kinda funny if they get it up to 80...

Our government sucks... Medical Sucks........

I'm almost to the point to where bush might of been right, why not just give up on it and give me 10% of what I paid into it, at least I'd see something.

Something is better then nothing.

 

[nobodyknows]

Such an inconvenience about those Ponzi schemes... they all go bust eventually, no matter what you do.

Except for the fact that SS is NOT a ponzi scheme, but a pay-as-you-go system.

 

[nobodyknows]

I'll be damn lucky to even see 70! The odds are not in your favor. I could care less what they do. Since I was kinda pissed last time from 62 now 68, and what now 70? What will it be next year? or the year after that. Hell, I think it will be kinda funny if they get it up to 80...

Our government sucks... Medical Sucks........

I'm almost to the point to where bush might of been right, why not just give up on it and give me 10% of what I paid into it, at least I'd see something.

Something is better then nothing.

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, deriding what he called "the hype about a Social Security crisis", wrote:

“ There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come. ”

 

[Zebo]

The powers that be are screwing us again.

Heaven forbid they tax all forms of income or only give to those in need - lets just raise even more past the already absurd level compared to the rest of first world. I'm surprised they have not figured out a way to privatize it and make you buy it like HC.

 

[BoberFett]

If Krugman hadn't noticed, we've been running massive deficits for quite some time, and are expected to for quite a bit longer. If he can pull money out of his ass to fund it, he's welcome to try.

 

[Zebo]

Our government sucks....

Indeed I think that's one thing we can all agree on.

 

[Zebo]

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, deriding what he called "the hype about a Social Security crisis", wrote:

“ There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come. ”

Has anyone done any studies on amount raised should you remove cap? Or alternatively apply it to all forms of income?

Seems strange to me every other country has a Federal pension that kicks in in your 50's and we can't do it.

 

[BoberFett]

Seems strange to me every other country has a Federal pension that kicks in in your 50's and we can't do it.

Like Greece?

 

[Zebo]

Like Greece?

It is Greece after all. Let's just say Americans work hard enough all their lives to deserve better.

 

[BoberFett]

It is Greece after all. Let's just say Americans work hard enough all their lives to deserve better.

If people could retire at 50, then no, they would not be working hard enough their whole lives. They'd be working very hard roughly 40% of their lives, which is not a sustainable amount of effort for any populace to put forth.

 

[Zebo]

If people could retire at 50, then no, they would not be working hard enough their whole lives. They'd be working very hard roughly 40% of their lives, which is not a sustainable amount of effort for any populace to put forth.

They have been doing 55 in Japan forever. That's why I asked Has anyone done any studies on amount raised should you remove cap? Or alternatively apply it to all forms of income? So I could do some math and see.

Also you'd have to stop the multiple dipping ie. no police pension, military pension and SS and everyone gets rolled into a single pension like everyone else does.

Edit: I stand corrected it was 55 then changed in 1982 and again in 1986 now it's 65. Appears they are having poor demographics and living too long to work.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

ROFL

I know that may sound "fair" but do you really think the Government will say "Here is the money we taxed from you for the last 30 years back, you deserve it"???

I got news for ya bud, once the .gov gets their hands on your money it no longer is your money. It is theirs, period. SS payroll deductions are nothing more than a tax, not some .gov ran 401K. In other words, it ain't yo money no mo and they ain't given it back. Besides, they couldn't give it back if they wanted to because they kinda spent it already, all of it. Oooh, they could give you some IOU's, they have tons of those laying around.

 

[ebaycj]

It's my understanding that you have to have paid into it for a minimum of ten years to collect.

Indeed this is the case. Except in cases of disability, which I think has a lower threshold.

 

[Darwin333]

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, deriding what he called "the hype about a Social Security crisis", wrote:

“ There is a long-run financing problem. But it's a problem of modest size. The [CBO] report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending — less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts — roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year. Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come. ”

Question: Historically, has the US been able to extract more than roughly 20% of GDP in revenue?

 

[KB]

Except for the fact that SS is NOT a ponzi scheme, but a pay-as-you-go system.

Thats what the SS website will tell you- its a PAY as you GO system. But guess what the two have in common? If people stop paying into it, it will fail almost immediately. The government would be unable to keep SS going if people stopped paying into it right now. Ponzi/Pyramid schemes are the same way. You have 3.3 workers paying that one retired worker, each hoping that their will be 3.3 workers to pay their benefits when they retire. You can call it whatever you like, it still behaves as a pyramid scheme.

 

[highland145]

I know that may sound "fair" but do you really think the Government will say "Here is the money we taxed from you for the last 30 years back, you deserve it"???

Most of us will have 50 years in.

 

[Anarchist420]

They should have it start at 69 for everyone, paying a maximum of $250/month, then go up $175 each year until 79.

 

[daishi5]

Question: Historically, has the US been able to extract more than roughly 20% of GDP in revenue?

No, the government for the last 40 years has almost always collected around 17% of GDP in revenue, the only change was in the last 10 years, we had a slight dip and a rebound. I can find the link again if you want it.

 

[Mursilis]

ROFL

I know that may sound "fair" but do you really think the Government will say "Here is the money we taxed from you for the last 30 years back, you deserve it"???

I got news for ya bud, once the .gov gets their hands on your money it no longer is your money. It is theirs, period. SS payroll deductions are nothing more than a tax, not some .gov ran 401K. In other words, it ain't yo money no mo and they ain't given it back. Besides, they couldn't give it back if they wanted to because they kinda spent it already, all of it. Oooh, they could give you some IOU's, they have tons of those laying around.

This. People who talk about SS money being "theirs" are foolish - like giving money to a con man, once the gov't has it, it's gone, and it's not coming back.