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.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul said Sunday the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare may need to be raised for future recipients.
But Paul, speaking during the first televised debate of the general election season with Democratic opponent Jack Conway, said he doesn't want to change those benefits for older people already receiving them.
I think it's inevitable, not only in light of the anticipated number of retirees drawing on SS in the future, but the increase in life expectancy.
It won't be the first time the "full retirement age" for SS has been raised. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 included a phased-in raising of the retirement age for people born after 1937. If you were born prior to 1938, your Social Security full retirement age is 65; if you were born after 1959, the retirement age is 67 (with a sliding scale for those born between 1938-1959).
It wouldn't surprise me if they raised the earliest age at which a person can apply for SS - now 62 - by a year or two, as well as raising the full retirement age by the same amount of time.
I'm not saying I like it or support it, but it may be necessary.
I thought I heard recently that they were thinking of having a 10 year grace period. So those from age 56-66 (full retirement age) would still collect as per the current system. I have no doubt they will increase the 62 early retirement age, or eliminate it entirely.
The original thought on early retirement was to save the system money because they would be paying out less, but that has kind of backfired I think because so many people have taken advantage of it, or plan to do so. I read they want to do away with the "pay back" system too.
Personally, I think the best solution is to raise the cap on earnings that you pay SS on. I know it does hurt the high wage earners but that seems to be most painless solution, IMO. And, from what I understand,the SS deficit would easily be caught up (if they don't go and steal it again).
Yes, any such change would likely have a grace period.
All prior changes of this sort were phased in with plenty of notice so that people who were within 10 years or so of Social Security retirement decisions were not affected. It is difficult to imagine it being any different now because otherwise it would never fly politically. Even so it will be somewhat of a difficult sell; the young will see it as proof that Social Security "will not be there for them", whereas in actuality it will be proof of the opposite. That is, by making some relatively modest changes the solvency of the system will be assured going forward. I will start to worry if no changes have been enacted three or four years from now (even if the changes do not take effect three of four years from now) because the longer we put off making some decisions the more painful things will be at the point of reckoning.
its a ponzi scheme it cant work,I advise my grand kids to invest in a roth IRA and dont even expect ss.
the govt plan is raise the age and hope people will die before collecting.
my mother paid into ss her entire life ,died at 57 and not one family member collected a cent of her ss money. this is a great idea that cant work.
its a ponzi scheme it cant work,I advise my grand kids to invest in a roth IRA and dont even expect ss.
the govt plan is raise the age and hope people will die before collecting.
my mother paid into ss her entire life ,died at 57 and not one family member collected a cent of her ss money. this is a great idea that cant work.
Your mother's example does not show the system doesn't work. After all, it is called insurance. It has actually worked pretty damn well for 75 years now, it continues to work pretty damn well as we speak, and it will probably continue to work.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul said Sunday the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare may need to be raised for future recipients.
But Paul, speaking during the first televised debate of the general election season with Democratic opponent Jack Conway, said he doesn't want to change those benefits for older people already receiving them.
The problem is the We have paid into SS, We Expect to get it, If a insurance company had set this up it would be actuality sound. The $'s paid into (Tax) it would Be required to pay the contracted benefits. Insurance companies can not change the rules on the contract as they goes along. The Government set up a scheme that is not actuality sound, and keep wanting to change the rules as it goes along to fix the problem it creates, fixes, then has to fix the fixes.....
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.
Yes, any such change would likely have a grace period.
