Both Parties Mull Raising Retirement Age

[TMC]

You do realize, do you not, that raising the cap on SS taxes lowers the benefits to all but the highest paid? Maybe that’s acceptable for some reason, but it should be recognized that that is one result of raising the cap. That’s because the benefits relative to the maximum are directly related to the percentage of the maximum tax one paid in.

We already have early retirement provisions for some. They’re called Social Security Disability and Permanent Total Disability under workers’ compensation laws. But one has to question whether those are really good alternatives for an aging population.

It seems to me that it would not be terribly difficult leave the retirement age at 65, 66 and 67 (currently the case) yet to “means test” SS benefits in order to bring the outlay down. No reason to pay SS to someone making, say, $70,000/year or more from wages or investments.

Something else that might help a great deal. Since workers’ compensation benefits for permanent disability supposedly compensate for reduction in future earnings, why not simply require that those benefits be paid into the social security system, giving the worker credit for those sums paid in. Might reduce malingering a bit as well if one can’t put his award or settlement up his nose or buy a new car with it. One could also do that with personal injury claims based in whole or in part on (largely speculative) loss of future earnings.

Of course, the trial lawyers (and therefore the Democrat party) would fight those measures like a wolverine on a three-day-old deer carcass.

I think that you have it backwards - raising or eliminating the cap would raise benefits at the top end, because benefits are calcluated based on average monthly income up to the cap amount, not lower them at the low end. Even if you are correct (and I acknowledge you might be, I’m not sure) changing the cap amount does not have to result in lower payments at the low end or higher payments at the high end. If the cap was raised in a significant way, or eliminated, we could also change the benefits are calculated to avoid that kind of disparity.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s important to note that what is being considered would not adversely affect anyone who is currently within about 15 years of retirement, unless measures are also passed that affect distribution amounts based on (other) income, which could affect anyone.

The danger in some of the arguments above is to assume that what one experiences as an employee is duplicated in the perception of the employer. It’s all well and good to have the intention, as an older employee, or working until at least age 70 (or beyond). But whether one is actually retained at those ages, let alone hired at those ages, is something else entirely. If you are a vigrous-looking 66-year-old who passes for 55, maybe. But even then, an employer may assume that you are not that great of a hiring risk (investment risk), due to unexpected but statistically probable health issues, energy levels, and simply being near legal retirement age, if that’s, say, 70. The employer may put a lot of staff time into assimilating you into his organization, only to realize you have disappeared within a few years.

It really depends on the type of job. There are retail employees who are perfectly fine working a part-time or full-time week after age 65. But there are some management jobs, and other jobs involving considerable responsibility and energy, for which most over-65-yr old workers are not ideal. And if one is already in those industries – trained for those, and not for more lightweight kinds of positions, it’s not just a matter of downgrading your job category. The reason I know is that I hire, as part of my position. People who are used to 6-figure salaries come to us, laid off from prime positions because of businesses who overextended or have experienced a hit due to the investment crisis, and we simply are not prepared to offer them nearly what they earned before, nor nearly the responsibility & prestige. We can offer them one-tenth of what they earned, and very little respect in terms of position. We hesitate to hire such people when it’s so obvious that they are overqualified, and there are better matches also applying, who will see this job as a match, not a downgrade.

With age comes (often) greater experience, greater skill, higher responsibility, seniority, privilege, expectation. That’s why an older candidate is not necessarily as employable as a younger one – depending on the position and the salary.

 

[stinkcat_14]

who the heck are YOU to tell me it makes no sense to give me my money back. (Not that I currently expect to see much of it.)

FDR was a genius when he came up with the idea of the payroll tax to fund social security. He actually found a way to make people think that they are entitled to welfare. And let’s be honest about it, Social Security is welfare plain and simple. It has encouraged laziness. There are so many able bodied people who proudly take the dole. Someone needs to be cut from the dole if we are going to get the beast of government off our backs. Who better than the able bodied who are too lazy to work?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

It’s important to note that what is being considered would not adversely affect anyone who is currently within about 15 years of retirement, unless measures are also passed that affect distribution amounts based on (other) income, which could affect anyone.

The danger in some of the arguments above is to assume that what one experiences as an employee is duplicated in the perception of the employer. It’s all well and good to have the intention, as an older employee, or working until at least age 70 (or beyond). But whether one is actually retained at those ages, let alone hired at those ages, is something else entirely. If you are a vigrous-looking 66-year-old who passes for 55, maybe. But even then, an employer may assume that you are not that great of a hiring risk (investment risk), due to unexpected but statistically probable health issues, energy levels, and simply being near legal retirement age, if that’s, say, 70. The employer may put a lot of staff time into assimilating you into his organization, only to realize you have disappeared within a few years.

It really depends on the type of job. There are retail employees who are perfectly fine working a part-time or full-time week after age 65. But there are some management jobs, and other jobs involving considerable responsibility and energy, for which most over-65-yr old workers are not ideal. And if one is already in those industries – trained for those, and not for more lightweight kinds of positions, it’s not just a matter of downgrading your job category. The reason I know is that I hire, as part of my position. People who are used to 6-figure salaries come to us, laid off from prime positions because of businesses who overextended or have experienced a hit due to the investment crisis, and we simply are not prepared to offer them nearly what they earned before, nor nearly the responsibility & prestige. We can offer them one-tenth of what they earned, and very little respect in terms of position. We hesitate to hire such people when it’s so obvious that they are overqualified, and there are better matches also applying, who will see this job as a match, not a downgrade.

With age comes (often) greater experience, greater skill, higher responsibility, seniority, privilege, expectation. That’s why an older candidate is not necessarily as employable as a younger one – depending on the position and the salary.

Nice point. As person who was fired without notice or cause by a major French company (at age 53) to they could avoid having to pay my retirement benefits, I certainly agree. Thank God I had professional skills that allow me to continue to earn a living as an independent contract consultant. (The French company even hired me back for a while as a contractor) Regular job opportunities for us gray haired folks are scarce.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

FDR was a genius when he came up with the idea of the payroll tax to fund social security. He actually found a way to make people think that they are entitled to welfare. And let’s be honest about it, Social Security is welfare plain and simple. It has encouraged laziness. There are so many able bodied people who proudly take the dole. Someone needs to be cut from the dole if we are going to get the beast of government off our backs. Who better than the able bodied who are too lazy to work?

He may have been a genius, but he was also a clever socialist.

 

[cecilia97]

Works for me. I’m 34 and don’t expect any SS benefits, anyway. Besides, studies have shown that people who work longer live longer.

 

[timotheos]

One of my priest friends is of the opinion that there is no grace or charity in all of your tax money that the government takes and then redistributes. There is only grace in those resources that you have and freely give. If so, the government is actually reducing the opportunity for true charity; to do what is pleasing to God.

I do not plan to retire. I may need to change occupations, but I will work as long as I can, or longer.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and now render unto corrupt Caesar what additional goods Caesar decides he wants.

I have full confidence that God will judge fairly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have had to put an enormous amount of money into SS. It was supposed to pay for my retirement at age 65, now 67. If I have planned my life around that, and decide to continue to work…who the heck are YOU to tell me it makes no sense to give me my money back. (Not that I currently expect to see much of it.)

I’d have strongly preferred to be able to put my and my employers 15% per year into the stock market starting in 1972. Heck I could probably retire the note on the local church with that money. But no…its all gone!!! What did the government do with my money???

I have had about all the redistribution this country can stand. Aside from the genuinely disadvantaged…our system now takes care of the irresponsible. That is shortsighted and rewards sloth.

Sorry if I offended you. But I was not the one who lied to you all these years, telling you it was YOUR money, being held in trust for YOU, while spending it the whole time, adding people to get YOUR benefits and operating what amounts to a ponzi scheme.

I think it’s time for Americans to face the truth about all this. The money isn’t there. What is your expectation? I don’t know how much you make, but let’s imagine a person age 65 making, let’s say, $70,000/year from earnings and/or investments, with no debts. Are you seriously saying some 30 year old making, say, $35,000, who is struggling to make house payments and raise a family ought to be paying the person who is making the $70,000 just because the latter is older and was fooled by politicians into thinking he was building up some kind of trust fund notwithstanding that everybody has known for years that they spent it up and it was unsound from the beginning?

Social Security is a welfare program, pure and simple. Just because it’s a clumsy one that pays the wealthy more than the poor, doesn’t make it any less a welfare program.

I’m no longer young. I imagine I’m a lot closer to 65 than you are. But I have known since I was in my early twenties that the whole SS system is a sham. Because of that knowledge, I have worked my tail off and gone without lots and lots of things so I could provide for myself and my wife when we can no longer work, if that day comes. I do not plan to ever retire if I can avoid it.

Nor do I consider any of that heroic. It’s just realistic. At some point the government is going to have to admit that the whole SS system is a wreck, though I doubt it will ever admit that it’s just a disguised welfare program.

But I don’t see the propriety in raising the retirement age for, say, industrial workers who have half-frozen shoulders, a spine riddled with osteophytes and who have had ulnar transfers because their jobs were physically demanding. Better to simply admit to people that the cupboard is bare, and to tell people the free lunch counter for the prosperous is closed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Works for me. I’m 34 and don’t expect any SS benefits, anyway. Besides, studies have shown that people who work longer live longer.

For many of us, it takes most of a lifetime to get really good at what we do. It has never seemed to make sense to me that a person who has finally mastered his trade, occupation or profession, would, simply because of age, drop it, usually to undertake activities at which he is no good at all.

 

[cecilia97]

For many of us, it takes most of a lifetime to get really good at what we do. It has never seemed to make sense to me that a person who has finally mastered his trade, occupation or profession, would, simply because of age, drop it, usually to undertake activities at which he is no good at all.

Many of us do not know or remember that, when SS was enacted, the retirement age was set deliberately in order to get older workers to vacate jobs that younger workers could fill…so unemployment would go down. It’s a disgusting example of government meddling in the free market, if you ask me. I’m doing much better saving for retirement on my own, thanks very much, Washington!

Those older workers didn’t want to leave their jobs, they were forced and/or enticed into leaving. Retirement is a modern idea. You won’t find it in the bible (as Dave Ramsey is fond of saying), and you won’t find it in most societies until the industrial revolution.

Quite frankly, retirement KILLS people! I pray God I’m able to work till the day I fall over dead.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Sorry if I offended you. But I was not the one who lied to you all these years, telling you it was YOUR money, being held in trust for YOU, while spending it the whole time, adding people to get YOUR benefits and operating what amounts to a ponzi scheme.

I think it’s time for Americans to face the truth about all this. The money isn’t there. What is your expectation? I don’t know how much you make, but let’s imagine a person age 65 making, let’s say, $70,000/year from earnings and/or investments, with no debts. Are you seriously saying some 30 year old making, say, $35,000, who is struggling to make house payments and raise a family ought to be paying the person who is making the $70,000 just because the latter is older and was fooled by politicians into thinking he was building up some kind of trust fund notwithstanding that everybody has known for years that they spent it up and it was unsound from the beginning?

Social Security is a welfare program, pure and simple. Just because it’s a clumsy one that pays the wealthy more than the poor, doesn’t make it any less a welfare program.

I’m no longer young. I imagine I’m a lot closer to 65 than you are. But I have known since I was in my early twenties that the whole SS system is a sham. Because of that knowledge, I have worked my tail off and gone without lots and lots of things so I could provide for myself and my wife when we can no longer work, if that day comes. I do not plan to ever retire if I can avoid it.

Nor do I consider any of that heroic. It’s just realistic. At some point the government is going to have to admit that the whole SS system is a wreck, though I doubt it will ever admit that it’s just a disguised welfare program.

But I don’t see the propriety in raising the retirement age for, say, industrial workers who have half-frozen shoulders, a spine riddled with osteophytes and who have had ulnar transfers because their jobs were physically demanding. Better to simply admit to people that the cupboard is bare, and to tell people the free lunch counter for the prosperous is closed.

Well I’m 59 and I don’t disagree with anything you said, except, that the SS system was at one time, known as the social security trust. We need to increase the ability of youngsters to put some of their SS money into K accounts they own and wean the US off the SS system. Ditto health care.

 

[stinkcat_14]

For many of us, it takes most of a lifetime to get really good at what we do. It has never seemed to make sense to me that a person who has finally mastered his trade, occupation or profession, would, simply because of age, drop it, usually to undertake activities at which he is no good at all.

However, in some cases, people really start losing it after a certain age. For example, most college professors really start to degrade after age 70. While there are some exceptions obviously, many of them are not that good. And of course, because of tenure it allows them to slide by on very little work and often times make a hefty salary too. In that type of profession you need to plan when you are young for the time when you won’t be able to work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I pray God I’m able to work till the day I fall over dead.

I was tickled at your statement because it reminded me of something.

I’m sure you have had the experience of hearing something surprising come out of your own mouth. This reminds me of a time when an insurance salesman who had bugged me for months finally got in to see me. It was at the end of the work day. I listened patiently, but no, I didn’t see a need for life insurance at that time. No, I didn’t think disability insurance would serve a useful purpose because it would be hard to disable me to the extent the insurer would admit I was totally disabled.

So, he then started talking about one of their retirement plans. I told him I didn’t intend to retire. “WHAT?” he exclaimed. I truly think he was surprised to hear that. Then he asked, in a somber tone: “Do you want them to find you someday slumped over your desk here in this office?!?”

Then I heard myself say “Well, it’s better than them finding me slumped over with my face buried in my oatmeal at the nursing home.”

The insurance guy packed up his papers and left.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well I’m 59 and I don’t disagree with anything you said, except, that the SS system was at one time, known as the social security trust. We need to increase the ability of youngsters to put some of their SS money into K accounts they own and wean the US off the SS system. Ditto health care.

I agree. It’s also more consistent with the Popes’ Social Encyclicals if people own their own retirement programs instead of being dependent on the government’s largesse. I was astonished when the USCCB opposed Bush’s partial, voluntary, privatization of SS proposal. I wondered if the bureaucrats working for the USCCB had ever read the social encyclicals or whether, having read them, they simply ignored them.

 

[cecilia97]

I was tickled at your statement because it reminded me of something.

I’m sure you have had the experience of hearing something surprising come out of your own mouth. This reminds me of a time when an insurance salesman who had bugged me for months finally got in to see me. It was at the end of the work day. I listened patiently, but no, I didn’t see a need for life insurance at that time. No, I didn’t think disability insurance would serve a useful purpose because it would be hard to disable me to the extent the insurer would admit I was totally disabled.

So, he then started talking about one of their retirement plans. I told him I didn’t intend to retire. “WHAT?” he exclaimed. I truly think he was surprised to hear that. Then he asked, in a somber tone: “Do you want them to find you someday slumped over your desk here in this office?!?”

Then I heard myself say “Well, it’s better than them finding me slumped over with my face buried in my oatmeal at the nursing home.”

The insurance guy packed up his papers and left.

 

[timotheos]

I was tickled at your statement because it reminded me of something.

I’m sure you have had the experience of hearing something surprising come out of your own mouth. This reminds me of a time when an insurance salesman who had bugged me for months finally got in to see me. It was at the end of the work day. I listened patiently, but no, I didn’t see a need for life insurance at that time. No, I didn’t think disability insurance would serve a useful purpose because it would be hard to disable me to the extent the insurer would admit I was totally disabled.

So, he then started talking about one of their retirement plans. I told him I didn’t intend to retire. “WHAT?” he exclaimed. I truly think he was surprised to hear that. Then he asked, in a somber tone: “Do you want them to find you someday slumped over your desk here in this office?!?”

Then I heard myself say “Well, it’s better than them finding me slumped over with my face buried in my oatmeal at the nursing home.”

The insurance guy packed up his papers and left.

 

[sidbrown]

They have no choice since the social security program is in trouble and as well, many of the state’s pension programs are running at a great loss.

 

[mary_bobo]

For many of us, it takes most of a lifetime to get really good at what we do. It has never seemed to make sense to me that a person who has finally mastered his trade, occupation or profession, would, simply because of age, drop it, usually to undertake activities at which he is no good at all.

Let’s not include the members of Congress in this. Many of them should have retired long ago. We need to institute a retirement age for the old codgers.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Let’s not include the members of Congress in this. Many of them should have retired long ago. We need to institute a retirement age for the old codgers.

I think we need to remove all of our age discrimination laws since they are often abused by the old and incompetent.

 

[gamewell45]

I can see raising the age to 70; I do have a problem with limiting benefits to those who only need them. Reason being that if a person has paid into the system for all these years, she/he should be able to draw on what they’ve put into the system at the appropriate age.