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.
Are you actually suggesting that people who are mandated by law to pay into social security each week for their entire working lives ... which according to this new retirement age of 75, would amount to roughly 50-55 years of payments, should do so to recieve benefits for ONLY those 5 remaining years of their life expectancy? That’s insane.
The more logical and reasonable approach (which is why you NEVER hear anyone mutter a word about it) is to treat Social Security as an insurance policy, rather than an entitlement or retirement account.
Therefore, a means test would be established to determine who would qualify to recieve benefits. Right now, we have wealthy Americans with net worth of a million and much more .... others with very lucrative pensions whose retirement checks exceed most working family incomes, collecting SS checks who don’t need them, nor should be receiving them.
Just be example .... a fellow, 66 years old ... State of Nevada pension of $6,200/m ... his home is paid for ... owns three late model vehicles .... is also collecting over $3,000 in SS (combination of his SS, and SS death benefit from his wife). Compare that to the 70 year old who has no pension, and must make due with $1200 per month SS, $600 going to rent, and barely able to pay the electric bill and afford food.
The system is totally screwed up .... and it cannot be fixed by continuing to raise the eligibility age, because that’s not the problem.
So, just because someone made a good decision with their career and working life, you get to decide what is “too much” for them to receive? Even though he contributed just like anyone else to SS?
I think it’s very telling when people think they are the judge of what another person deserves to receive.
As a person who hits the SS cap each year, naturally, I'm not in favor of having the caps lifted with no real return on that for me. Essentially, that leaves me paying for someone else's retirement. And while I'm fortunate enough to hit the cap, I do so because I live in an area with a high cost of living. So while my pay looks high on paper, much of it goes to housing and transportation costs just to get to my job.
Like everyone else, I am pinching pennies to save as much as I can for my retirement on my own. I'm not going to be one of those rich retirees discussed upthread. So, yeah, I kind of resent having to pay more.
Who wants to work until they are 75? The reality is Fortune 500 ain't gonna let anyone work till 75 and blue collar workers might wear out their body before then.
No. Raise the caps on SS tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
If you have any kind of job the chances are very, very low that you will have it at 75.
The way corporations are these days you'll be lucky to be working for them at age 55-60. And age discrimination is a major factor today.
Bingo. Companies today will rid themselves of older workers who are more expensive and might be having some healthcare costs as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
If the cap was dropped on wages above $128,400 it would be funded forever.
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
Because companies don't keep people over 60 in well paying jobs. They are replaced. Then you are taking throwing people into poverty when they are most vulnerable. Maybe you do not care. I think America is better than that.
I hope so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
No, you don't work with a company for 20-30 years and automatically get a pension starting immediately as military retirement does. Generally, the private pensions start their payments usually at age 65. Some will let you start earlier down to say age 55 with a drastic reduction in your pension. OTOH, private company pensions are becoming very rare these days.
I don't know that much about fed civil service pensions but I think even they have an age/service requirement. I know that agencies like the FBI have (a minimum) 20 years service/age 50 option to draw full retirement. And their accumulation is 1,7% for 1st 20 years, 1% after that. Sure not the 2.5% like the Army, is it? But a lot (if not most) fed civil service do not have that option.
So, to make a proper alignment with everyone else, why not start all military retirements at age 60? Its logical, it would save money.
My father retired from the military at 40 with a full pension. And he then was able to finish college on the GI bill. He became a teacher; retired from teaching at 60 and probably made more retired than I do working! He retired better than anyone I know. But he and my Mom weren't big, huge spenders either - though we lived well.
Where I work - you can start drawing your pension I think at 59 1/2 depending on how many years you have worked there.
They shouldn't have raided the fund to begin with. Age needs to be raised to 70 and caps have to be removed.
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.
