Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be affected by this, and not only fully agree, but believe 69 is not old enough. SS retirement age should be going up 1 to 1 with median longevity.
Actually just scrap the entire program.
Give us back the money we put in and let us figure out how to save for retirement.
FYI..over $2.5 TRILLION in the Fund in Treasuries from when Congress "borrowed" the surplus.
Exactly, this country should have a high percentage of elderly homeless and elderly living in deep poverty. It would help this country because it would reduce how long we live thanks to more elderly people dying of starvation and poor health care. Sounds like a great idea to go back to.
I doubt Christie is the candidate either, but I have mixed feelings about Christie's proposal.
A responsible person who worked and saved all their lives, turning 55 this year, probably has a plan to retire and when. Having the goalposts moved at this point doesn't really seem fair.
Means testing isn't exactly fair to the people who invested the most in the program either. No, they don't technically "need it" if they have income from other sources totally 200,000, but they will pay income taxes on it, so it's not like there isn't already a penalty for being responsible and self-supporting in your old age.
For people in high COL areas, 80K isn't all that much. But they have a choice to move or not.
I'm far more interested in a plan that actually secures the payments people are already vested in, so that it's not used to hide deficit spending on other issues. I'd also like people to be able to opt out if they choose.
When I was 20, I never thought I'd see a dime of social security, because the system wasn't sustainable then. It's still not, with lower birth rates and longer life spans, although I guess if I live long enough, I might collect, which is a surprise to my younger self.
I agree with your assessment, (your last sentence, bolded). It is a balanced proposal, which would 'cost' me some, but that I could get behind. No demagoguery, nor partisanship. Just simple and direct changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Spelling out his plans in detail for the first time, Christie proposed:
-- Raising the retirement age for Social Security to 69 from 67, for those born in 1960 or later;
-- Raising the age to qualify for Medicare by one month per year until it reaches 67 from the current 65.
-- Eliminating payroll taxes for seniors who remain in the workforce.
He also called for phasing out retirement payments to those with more than $200,000 a year in other income and smaller reductions for those earning $80,000. Together, he said, the overhaul would save $1 trillion over a decade.
Bloomberg, "Chris Christie Pushes Means Test for Social Security in New Hampshire"
Apr 14, 2015
“We spend over 56 percent of the income per every worker on seniors, while spending only 8 percent on children,” said Christie. (This sentence didn't make much sense to me. Maybe he was misquoted.)
I'd like to hear more, but his start to this discussion seems sensible so far.
Dang. Bipartisanship breaking out, all over. I never agree with you. Your and happy's suggestions are the very best, but that is not doable in DC, then Christie's proposal is a reasonable proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
I'll go for that, pay back what they took and I would be fine with it, some interest should be included, I believe there is no reason they should not pay at least the going interest rate, thing is that will not happen.
Dang. Bipartisanship breaking out, all over. I never agree with you. Your and happy's suggestions are the very best, but that is not doable in DC, then Christie's proposal is a reasonable proposal.
Eventually everyone can find something they agree on. I agree it will never happen in DC, to kill SS is to kill ones political career on the spot. Here is another insight for ya, if it comes down to Christie verses Clinton I will vote for Christie.
"When the Social Security program was initiated in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61 years old. Considering that the average age for retirement has remained consistently around 65, beneficiaries in the early years of the program were receiving payment for a much shorter time."
I don't see why he's receiving flak for this. Common sense says that with SS/Medicare deficits looming hugely in the future, something needs to be done as Americans are living much longer.
I agree, I have long advocated raising the early retirement age to 65 and the full retirement age to 70. I don't see what the problem is, if someone is working a manual labor job they can quit that at whatever age they desire and then work part time somewhere else/work another occupation until they hit 70. My parents recently hired a carpenter to redo the flooring in our living room and the guy is a retired NYPD cop in late 60s who did this part time because he "wants to keep busy" .... he dident seem to have much trouble doing manual labor.
Another proposal I have is pegging the SS retirement age to 5 years of the average life expectancy ... so currently it would be 73.
Back in 1935 it was intended that the average person would receive benefits for 5 years ... assuming they lived long enough (as you mentioned, the average life expectancy was just 61). Today we have a good number of people living as over 20+ years beyond the retirement age. I would venture to guess that the average person today receives benefits for somewhere between 10 and 15 years.
I'd like to point out that CFRB has a great little interactive tool you can play around with based on the revenue and spending projections. Also, that life expectancy argument is partly a myth, because although life expectancy at birth has increased quite a bit it's mainly due to declines in infant mortality. Life expectancy at age 65, which is when one would first start collecting benefits, has increased only five years since the program's inception (source). 57% of those aged 21 in 1896 survived to age 65 in 1940, compared to 78% of those aged 21 in 1946 surviving to age 65 in 1990.
So the chances of a contributor living long enough to receive benefits have increased significantly, but not by as much as what is commonly suggested; the length of time receiving benefits once on them hasn't changed by much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Exactly, this country should have a high percentage of elderly homeless and elderly living in deep poverty. It would help this country because it would reduce how long we live thanks to more elderly people dying of starvation and poor health care. Sounds like a great idea to go back to.
Perhaps you should consider the impoverishment these government entitlements are imposing upon the young population who are paying for it - the single greatest redistribution of wealth there is in America is from young people to old people, i.e. from people who have far less economic security (jobs, earnings, capital, etc.), notably worse position in life, and have bright possibilities ahead of them to people who have far more economic security, notably better position in life, and whose future is the twilight of man's (earthly) existence. Does that sound like a great idea to you?
If it does, we can chalk it up as another of the party of compassion's lovely machinations. After all, between Obamacare, monstrous student loans, and bankrupt entitlements can't you just feel the compassion towards the youth? A favorite saying of those on the "compassion" track is that you can tell a nation's priorities from its government budget; well, what does Pell Grants* amounting to a whopping 2% of the SS+Medicare budget mean in that context?
It tells me that that's a nation that at best neglects and at worst despises the people with the least security and the most promise**. Almost all entitlements in the American system of government go towards old and/or sick people and it is paid for by draining the earnings, future capital, and quality of life of young and/or healthy people. This system is the largest single instance of ageism in all of Western history, and those that want to stack the deck even further against the youth than it already is should search their souls for signs of ageism.
*Pell Grants are the only entitlement program for youth, besides loans which have to be paid back with interest. Medicaid estate recovery, usually for nursing home expenses, is the only seniors' program that's like student loans, but since it only affects people after they're dead it drains money and future prospects from their heirs, who just happen to be younger people.
**This extends not just to youth, but to gifted children. Federal funding for gifted education is $7 million, compared to $12 billion for special education, which means that the federal government spends 1700 times more money on the bottom students than the top students. That's just nuts.
I doubt Christie is the candidate either, but I have mixed feelings about Christie's proposal.
A responsible person who worked and saved all their lives, turning 55 this year, probably has a plan to retire and when. Having the goalposts moved at this point doesn't really seem fair.
Means testing isn't exactly fair to the people who invested the most in the program either. No, they don't technically "need it" if they have income from other sources totally 200,000, but they will pay income taxes on it, so it's not like there isn't already a penalty for being responsible and self-supporting in your old age.
For people in high COL areas, 80K isn't all that much. But they have a choice to move or not.
Excellent post. I can negotiate on this but telling folks born in 1960 that suddenly they have to work longer, and they cant count on SS income, is not right. That is not time enough to plan.
And how are they going to address COL? I can certainly live well on 80k in the midwest, but that wont fly in Christies home state, and a lot of other places. Moving is very expensive. Not everyone can pick up and move.
I'm now done with Christie as he turns to socialism. Hey!!! Christie, whether I need the money or not, it's mine..Keep your hands off it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Gov. Chris Christie was in New Hampshire on Tuesday to unveil a package of national proposals aimed at reforming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and disability insurance — or so-called “entitlements.”
On Social Security, the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate proposed gradually raising the national retirement age to 69, hiking the early retirement age to 64 and imposing income caps on payments. Under Christie’s plan, future retirees making $80,000 annually in income exclusive of Social Security will see benefits gradually phased out and those making in excess of $200,000 annually will see them eliminated entirely.
This will mark the end of his political career. Anger the conservatives and Republicans by calling for means testing and income redistribution. Anger the liberals and Democrats by calling for benefit cuts and making seniors wait even longer for Medicare coverage.
The only people that can possibly think this is a good idea would be the anarchist leaning libertarians after a few bong hits.
His plan must be to get a job at a think tank like the Heritage Foundation or Americans for Prosperity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A favorite saying of those on the "compassion" track is that you can tell a nation's priorities from its government budget; well, what does Pell Grants* amounting to a whopping 2% of the SS+Medicare budget mean in that context?
