Social Security - Raise Age???

[mefordis]

We are not at that time of year where our checks do not have FICA witholding because we've already paid in for the year. Nice to see that extra money! This has me thinking about Social Security.

Since life expectancy has increased over the last 20-30 years, do you think they should raise the age to collect social security?

People are living well into their 90's now. Thirty years is a lot of time to collect social security, isn't it? Maybe people could work a few years longer?

Just curious what everyone thinks.

 

[bettymae1121]

I don't have a problem with raising the SS retirement age. People in general are living longer, so it make sense to increase the age for younger workers (those nearing retirement won't have their goal post moved, however). I'm 35, so likely a change would affect me in some way.

There is an arguement against it, stating that poorer people that have hard physical labor jobs can't make it to a later retirement age, and I agree that is a downside to raising it. A poor person can't save enough to retire early, and physical labor in your late 60's can be tough (my DH isn't even 40 yet and he already needs knee a shoulder surgery because his job is so demanding, there is no way he could do what he does for another 30 years). However I think if it's a choice between letting SS go bankrupt or raising the retirement age so SS stays in place, then it's an easy choice. Raise the age, something is better than nothing.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

The real reason to raise the age is because SS has no money, it has nothing to do with life expectancy. Poor people don't have to save to retire early or to retire at all, they are paid monthly through many different means and will continue to be cared for.

 

[dejr_8]

The real reason to raise the age is because SS has no money, it has nothing to do with life expectancy. Poor people don't have to save to retire early or to retire at all, they are paid monthly through many different means and will continue to be cared for.

The reason SS has no money is that people are living longer so that it has to pay out benefits for a longer period of time.

 

[bettymae1121]

The real reason to raise the age is because SS has no money, it has nothing to do with life expectancy. Poor people don't have to save to retire early or to retire at all, they are paid monthly through many different means and will continue to be cared for.

I'm talking about the working poor. People who bust their butts to make ends meet (and do not receive government help) but don't have any extra to put away for retirement. For people who work physically demanding jobs but don't have extra for retirement savings, working until age 70 can be a challenge or flat out not possible. I'm not saying that's reason enough not to raise the age, but it is a negative effect of doing so.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I have no problem whatsoever with raising SS retirement eligibility a few years. Something must be done to to protect the solvency of Social Security. I will leave it at that since I don't want to get all political and stuff.

 

[Pakey]

I'm talking about the working poor. People who bust their butts to make ends meet (and do not receive government help) but don't have any extra to put away for retirement. For people who work physically demanding jobs but don't have extra for retirement savings, working until age 70 can be a challenge or flat out not possible. I'm not saying that's reason enough not to raise the age, but it is a negative effect of doing so.

I agree. People may be living longer but that doesn't mean they have the physical ability to continue to do their jobs well into their 70s.

 

[Bilberry]

I believe it is a good idea. Thought Michelle Malkin had a nice article recently about simply raising the SS eligibility age by 5 years.

"Make 70 the New 65"

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/04/13/make_70_the_new_65

excerpt:

The reasons we should update these relics of our teetering federal entitlement programs are myriad. Demographic, actuarial and fiscal realities demand it. As powerless blue-ribbon entitlement reform panels have warned for years, the number of younger workers supporting Social Security beneficiaries is dwindling. It's a global phenomenon. The Economist magazine reports that, based on declining fertility rates, "by 2050 there will be just 2.6 American workers supporting each pensioner and the figures for France, Germany and Italy will be 1.9, 1.6 and 1.5 respectively."

This amounts to a budget-busting wealth transfer scheme whose lousy "investments" cannot be sustained unless basic structural reforms are made. Shared sacrifice means that every able-bodied worker -- including federal employees and elected officials -- must get with the times. Americans can no longer feel entitled to some 20 to 30 years of subsidized retirement, often collected over the course of many more years than retirees actually spent paying into the system.

_Raising the traditional and early retirement ages will mean extending workers' taxable earning years, fueling economic growth and putting a dent in our unfunded-liabilities crisis by delaying payouts. Some senior citizens' lobbying groups fret that today's workforce wouldn't be able to handle longer careers. Tell that to Betty White or Joan Rivers or Helen Mirren.

 

[minkydog]

People may be living longer but that doesn't mean they have the physical ability to continue to do their jobs well into their 70s.

I fall into that category. I've worked as a nurse for 34 years and I have the ruined feet, sleep disorders(2), and bad back to prove it. I can no longer work 12 hours night shifts standing on concrete floors, running hither and yon for emergencies. I have been very fortunate to find work as a school nurse, but 20hrs a week is proving to be my limit. I will be 55 in September and I can tell you unequivically, I will NOT be working until age 70. I will happily retire at 62-1/2 and draw my SS.

 

[sjs314]

While I agree something needs to be done to bail out the Social Security system we now have if it is to be around for future generations, I do not think raising the retirement age is an answer.

Maybe they need to stop giving the outragious amounts of retirement to former legistlators for little time spent in office. Put that money instead into Social Security to rebuild the funds.

The average worker now has to work 45 years before they are eligible to retire which I feel is long enough.

 

[goofyernmost]

The real reason to raise the age is because SS has no money, it has nothing to do with life expectancy. Poor people don't have to save to retire early or to retire at all, they are paid monthly through many different means and will continue to be cared for.

The reason SS has no money is that people are living longer so that it has to pay out benefits for a longer period of time.

I think the original poster kind of summed it all up when they said...we reached our income limit to pay into SS.

I don't have access to the figure right now while I type this but that is a pretty good yearly income and it is only June. Unfortunately, most people are not that lucky and do not make that kind of income, never have, never will.

Social Security is in trouble not for any of the reasons mentioned. Living longer? Yup! Some are. Not that many though. Poor people...save to retire? How exactly does one do that when they are spending every cent they can scrape together to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

No...the reason SS is in trouble is because the government has been borrowing money from it and not paying it back and because folks like the poster for some reason, totally unexplainable to me, can stop paying into it after they have earned more money then most of the rest of the population could even dream of. How is that even logical. If a poor person has to pay 7% of their almost non-existent income to SS. Why is it alright for a rich person to not pay the same 7%.

Also another reason that SS is in trouble is not because some poor old person lived a few years longer then convenient for us but because people with literally millions of dollars put away or invested at the time of their retirement get to pick from the SS fund at the same or higher rate then a person that is just barely making ends meet. They don't need it they already have more than enough money to last their lives, yet, they can and do still collect it. What for..to buy sun bonnets for their race houses.

Before anyone goes off on me about those statements, let me make it clear. I have nothing against people with money, but I do have something against people who are able to, but unwilling to, either pay their EQUAL percentage into the fund or then take from it's dwindling pot for themselves when it is totally unnecessary. Since they can retire whenever they want because of their wealth they feel that the proper answer is to make the working poor work a little longer, perhaps serving them coffee at the club.

 

[rwdavis2]

No problem with raising the age. Originally when the retirement age was set at 65 the life expectancy was, I believe, around 60.

 

[John VN]

I have a 93yo friend who has felt that the age should have been raised long ago. He retired at 55 because he did not expect to live longer than in his 70's. Great genes and constant improvements in the medical field has kept him going as is the case with many others. He is well aware that he has received far more than what the system was originally designed to pay out.

Personally, I like the Logan's Run solution. Let's say at 75, 80 tops.

 

[mefordis]

You bring up some valid points. I can see why people would feel that way.

What runs through my mind, though, is that many 62 year olds, who are very capable of still working, quit their jobs and go onto collect Social Security for 30 years or so. I'm talking about people who could continue working in their field for at least another 5 years or so.

That seems kind of odd to me when Social Security for everyone is in jeopardy.

I think the original poster kind of summed it all up when they said...we reached our income limit to pay into SS.

I don't have access to the figure right now while I type this but that is a pretty good yearly income and it is only June. Unfortunately, most people are not that lucky and do not make that kind of income, never have, never will.

Social Security is in trouble not for any of the reasons mentioned. Living longer? Yup! Some are. Not that many though. Poor people...save to retire? How exactly does one do that when they are spending every cent they can scrape together to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

No...the reason SS is in trouble is because the government has been borrowing money from it and not paying it back and because folks like the poster for some reason, totally unexplainable to me, can stop paying into it after they have earned more money then most of the rest of the population could even dream of. How is that even logical. If a poor person has to pay 7% of their almost non-existent income to SS. Why is it alright for a rich person to not pay the same 7%.

Also another reason that SS is in trouble is not because some poor old person lived a few years longer then convenient for us but because people with literally millions of dollars put away or invested at the time of their retirement get to pick from the SS fund at the same or higher rate then a person that is just barely making ends meet. They don't need it they already have more than enough money to last their lives, yet, they can and do still collect it. What for..to buy sun bonnets for their race houses.

Before anyone goes off on me about those statements, let me make it clear. I have nothing against people with money, but I do have something against people who are able to, but unwilling to, either pay their EQUAL percentage into the fund or then take from it's dwindling pot for themselves when it is totally unnecessary. Since they can retire whenever they want because of their wealth they feel that the proper answer is to make the working poor work a little longer, perhaps serving them coffee at the club.

 

[Pakey]

I think the original poster kind of summed it all up when they said...we reached our income limit to pay into SS.

I don't have access to the figure right now while I type this but that is a pretty good yearly income and it is only June. Unfortunately, most people are not that lucky and do not make that kind of income, never have, never will.

Social Security is in trouble not for any of the reasons mentioned. Living longer? Yup! Some are. Not that many though. Poor people...save to retire? How exactly does one do that when they are spending every cent they can scrape together to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

No...the reason SS is in trouble is because the government has been borrowing money from it and not paying it back and because folks like the poster for some reason, totally unexplainable to me, can stop paying into it after they have earned more money then most of the rest of the population could even dream of. How is that even logical. If a poor person has to pay 7% of their almost non-existent income to SS. Why is it alright for a rich person to not pay the same 7%.

Also another reason that SS is in trouble is not because some poor old person lived a few years longer then convenient for us but because people with literally millions of dollars put away or invested at the time of their retirement get to pick from the SS fund at the same or higher rate then a person that is just barely making ends meet. They don't need it they already have more than enough money to last their lives, yet, they can and do still collect it. What for..to buy sun bonnets for their race houses.

Before anyone goes off on me about those statements, let me make it clear. I have nothing against people with money, but I do have something against people who are able to, but unwilling to, either pay their EQUAL percentage into the fund or then take from it's dwindling pot for themselves when it is totally unnecessary. Since they can retire whenever they want because of their wealth they feel that the proper answer is to make the working poor work a little longer, perhaps serving them coffee at the club.

FICA max is $106,800. I, too, hit the max already this year. Should I keep paying all year? If that was the way it was set up, I would, without complaint. However, you should also keep in mind that there is a cap on the amount of social security I will draw. So if the laws were to change and I paid in all year with no cap, I would then expect to have no cap on the amount I am able to draw at retirement. The door would swing both ways.

I had previously posted that I did not think raising the age was a good idea. It has nothing to do with my personal financial situation; I'm 55 and I can tell that I'm not as sharp at my job as I used to be. If I had to do a physical job, I'd be in a world of hurt. It would not matter if I had enough money in the bank; my body is only physically capable of doing so much.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Maybe they need to stop giving the outragious amounts of retirement to former legistlators for little time spent in office. Put that money instead into Social Security to rebuild the funds.

The average worker now has to work 45 years before they are eligible to retire which I feel is long enough.

You may have an interesting point about retirement paid to some legislators (not all collect or accept it), but the amount we are talking about compared to the SS deficit is so tiny that it is insignificant in the equation

 

[mefordis]

What do you think about a Social Security retraining program, where you could retrain to do something, collect Social Security perhaps but work part time for it, so people are not just collecting without doing anything at all. Not sure how this would work, but it seems like there should be a transition to Social Security for a few years. Sitting around for 30 years collecting seems like a lot of time. I know a lot of people in their 60's could handle some kind of job.

FICA max is $106,800. I, too, hit the max already this year. Should I keep paying all year? If that was the way it was set up, I would, without complaint. However, you should also keep in mind that there is a cap on the amount of social security I will draw. So if the laws were to change and I paid in all year with no cap, I would then expect to have no cap on the amount I am able to draw at retirement. The door would swing both ways.

I had previously posted that I did not think raising the age was a good idea. It has nothing to do with my personal financial situation; I'm 55 and I can tell that I'm not as sharp at my job as I used to be. If I had to do a physical job, I'd be in a world of hurt. It would not matter if I had enough money in the bank; my body is only physically capable of doing so much.

 

[eliza61]

The real reason to raise the age is because SS has no money, it has nothing to do with life expectancy. Poor people don't have to save to retire early or to retire at all, they are paid monthly through many different means and will continue to be cared for.

Myth #1: By the time I retire, Social Security will be broke.

If you believe this, you are not alone. More and more Americans have become convinced that the Social Security system won't be there when they need it. In an AARP survey released last year, only 35 percent of adults said they were very or somewhat confident about Social Security's future.

It's true that Social Security's finances need work, because over the long term there will not be enough money to fully cover promised benefits. But radical changes aren't needed. In 2010 a number of different proposals were put forward that, taken in combination, would put the program back on firm financial ground for the future, including changes such as raising the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax (now capped at $106,800) and benefit changes based on longer life expectancy

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2011/social-security-fears.html

Even without any changes, Social Security can continue paying full benefits through 2037. After that, the revenue from payroll taxes will still cover about 75 percent of promised benefits

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2011/social-security-fears.2.html

 

[golfgal]

Ummm, they have raised the age over the years....

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

I fully expect another bump in the full retirement years sometime in the next few years as a way to balance the SS funds though. The big issue now is the number of baby boomers retiring and fewer people in the workforce behind them.

 

[mefordis]

I don't think a substantial raise in the cap would ever go through. No president would want to touch that, I don't think. It does get raised slightly each year, though.

Myth #1: By the time I retire, Social Security will be broke.

If you believe this, you are not alone. More and more Americans have become convinced that the Social Security system won't be there when they need it. In an AARP survey released last year, only 35 percent of adults said they were very or somewhat confident about Social Security's future.

It's true that Social Security's finances need work, because over the long term there will not be enough money to fully cover promised benefits. But radical changes aren't needed. In 2010 a number of different proposals were put forward that, taken in combination, would put the program back on firm financial ground for the future, including changes such as raising the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax (now capped at $106,800) and benefit changes based on longer life expectancy

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2011/social-security-fears.html

Even without any changes, Social Security can continue paying full benefits through 2037. After that, the revenue from payroll taxes will still cover about 75 percent of promised benefits

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2011/social-security-fears.2.html