Raising SS age

[joelbc1]

The math also would tell you that more people will die before they draw.

Not so much......that isn't "math" that is actuarial science......The actuarial will also tell you that many will live beyond their contributions....Erase the cap....

 

[CeMar_Clone]

True, but not an argument against what I said. Debt or no debt, it's still better, I would argue, for the limited available jobs to be freed up for young workers than to force older workers to hang onto them longer by raising the retirement age.

If we got smart and invested heavily in modernizing and upgrading our infrastructure and going green and so on, we could create a lot of new jobs for at least as long as it took to get those things done - which would be many years. But there would still be no need to force the elderly to keep working.

There are lots of young folks looking for work. Moreover, with more people working, SS would have more revenues flowing in.

It is an argument against your plan to the extent that SS is not going to be able to service a lot of the debt people have and leave them enough for a standard of living they have by working.

My argument is people are going to work longer not because they are forced to by a change to SS but because to maintain the life style they want will require it.

Investing in infrastructure and green jobs could happen with most of the jobs going to younger workers or older workers taking them freeing up their old job for a younger worker.

Investing in infrastructure does not have a good return on your investment for creating permanent jobs. Obama spent money Collins Road in CR, and I have yet to see any real benefit in terms of jobs. While at the same time, the defense department basically employs at least 20,000 people in CR for decades.

 

[IamHawkeye]

A lot of people don't realize the age already has been raised. I think as long as the early retirement age remains at 62, that will become more of a factor. A lot of people have jobs that they simply can't do when they get to 70 or thereabouts. Not as many as in the days when the U.S. had factories, but still a lot of people.

Yes, so many posted about relatives who wanted to work for various reasons, like not getting bored. My post was about people who would have to work and what could they work at to make a decent living. Isn't the age at 67 now? And social security is not just for retirees Minors of earners who die get money until age 18 (I think that's the cap). Plus guess I'll throw in the low interest rate on savings that keeps on. Many older people are afraid of putting extra money in anything except insured bank savings and CD's. They saved to supplement their
SS but aren't getting much from it now. Heck, I'm related to several of them.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Yes, so many posted about relatives who wanted to work for various reasons, like not getting bored. My post was about people who would have to work and what could they work at to make a decent living. Isn't the age at 67 now? And social security is not just for retirees Minors of earners who die get money until age 18 (I think that's the cap). Plus guess I'll throw in the low interest rate on savings that keeps on. Many older people are afraid of putting extra money in anything except insured bank savings and CD's. They saved to supplement their
SS but aren't getting much from it now. Hell, I'm related to several of them. Suppose I should also mention how many retirees do charity and volunteer work. Probably even some of them who have to have supplement their soc. sec.

 

[22*43*51]

Not so much......that isn't "math" that is actuarial science......The actuarial will also tell you that many will live beyond their contributions....Erase the cap....

Good thing science and math are mutually exclusive...

Privatize it.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

[you uOTE="joelbc1, post: 941723, member: 9268"]THe age needs to be raised to 68 or 69 over a period of time......The "cap" on earnings taxed needs to be removed so ALL income is subject to SS fees.... A lot of the "immediate" issues some have would be alleviated greatly with these 2 simple steps.[/QUOTE]

You can't remove the cap without raising the corresponding benefits. benefits are already highly skewed towards low wage earners in terms of percentage of total income and benefits relative to total contributions.

however as life expectancy increases then FRA can increase as well. how do past increases in FRA compare to increases in actuarial life expectancy?

I'm fiscally pretty conservative but I believe strongly in the social safety net of SS.

 

[joelbc1]

Good thing science and math are mutually exclusive...

Privatize it.

Yeah...so "we the people" can pay someone higher administrative fees to manage Treasury bills. Well thought out knee-jerk, 22. You never disappoint.

 

[22*43*51]

Yeah...so "we the people" can pay someone higher administrative fees to manage Treasury bills. Well thought out knee-jerk, 22. You never disappoint.

We the people get our SS and Pensions raided by the government consistently.

Joel - you never learn.

 

[Lone Clone]

Here is the problem: Not everyone is still healthy and
able to work at age 65. The people in that category need
to be able to retire and start collecting SS. It would require
a medical doctor to sign off on their disability. We need to
help those who worked 40 years and simply ended up with
health issues.

Nobody can retire at 65 anymore. Legally, I mean, with full benefits. Social Security raised the age quite some time ago. A great many people do not realize this.

I am on the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation, born in '46, and I wasn't eligible to retire with full benefits until age 66. People born in '60 or after must be 67 to get full benefits. And of course, if you retire early, your benefits are reduced permanently, not just until you reach the full retirement age.

Specifically, I think it's half a percent per month for each month short of your full retirement benefit date. For a person my age, I began drawing benefits at age 62, so I've been getting about 75% of the amount I'd be getting if I'd waited four years (48 x 0.5% = 24%). If I'd waited until age 70 (next year), I'd get about 132% of the "full" benefit.

It's not a small thing. Let's say I'm getting the national average of $1,300 a month. Based on that, it cost me about $430 a month to start getting benefits at 62 instead of 66, and about $1,000 a month to start benefits at 62 instead of 70.

It depends on how much money you have, what kind of lifestyle you want, and how long you think you're going to live. In that example, for instance, by starting benefits at 62 instead of 70, by the time the retiree reaches 70, he will have received about $125,000. So he has to live to a bit over 80 to come out behind on the deal.

I wanted the money, and besides, I wasn't confident that (a) Social Security would keep on pumping out the money, and (b) I wouldn't get hit by a runaway hearse or shot by a jealous husband or something. I mean, consider the way you'd feel if you delayed taking benefits until 70, and on the eve of your 70th birthday you were hit by an asteroid or something.

 

[joelbc1]

I left work at 65. I enrolled in MediCare at that time. I started drawing my SS $$ a year later. Waiting a year allowed me to gain an extra 8% on my pay. I think if I had waited another year, I would have collected another 8% and so on until I reached 70. However, age 66 was my "retirement" year so I lived a year on my charm and good looks and now I am on the gravy train!

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

With the increase in life expectancy/increasing age of the population....it's just a matter of time before the age is raised or payout's get decreased. It's just such a hot potato political issue that it won't happen until it's completely obvious and unavoidable.