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 think its a bad idea, no... a HORRIBLE idea... sure we are living twice as long as we were suppose to right now... Our social security taxes have gone up a LOT since when it started as well... so why the shortage on SS funds? It seems "pay" didn't keep up... so whose at fault? The government wants to increase the retirement age so you'll die faster before you can collect and I think that is wrong... just because we are living longer does not mean our bodies and mind are getting better... when you are 62, you are the same 62 back then as well.. you can't expect someone to work longer when their body and mind doesn't get better with age... I think its wrong, I think SS should of been privatized so government can't keep raising the taxes, raising the retirement age, and at the same time use SS funds for their own corrupt purposes... what say you? Do you agree with the government to raise the retirement age and punish you for THEIR mistakes and greed...
Sixty two year olds are healthier today thanks to medical science. People are dying today from illnesses that rarely occurred 100 years ago since they are diseases of the elderly.
The retirement age has already been raised. One can still collect SS at 62 but full retirement is cycling in to 67.
Social security was intended as a safety net for the elderly, not a permanent vacation for a perfectly healthy adult. Therefore adjusting the age as demographics/health/science dictates makes perfect sense.
For my point of view and my husband's, the government can do whatever they want. We utilize 401k's and IRA's. We aren't anticipating any social security for retirement (in about 30 years). I don't think that anyone can count on the government to fund their retirement. I know that there are people who live paycheck to paycheck and legitimately don't have the money to fund their own retirements. I do, however, feel that this number is smaller than most people think. I think that a lot of people waste money on cable, internet, netflix, entertainment, clothes, new cars, etc. instead of investing that money. It's not the government's job (or ours as taxpayers) to pay for folks' social security because they wanted shoes instead of funding an IRA. Frankly, that does irk me. I don't have a problem helping those who legitimately can't afford to contribute to IRA's, but those who can but don't - well, they won't find sympathy here.
Your post is simply at odds with reality. You acknowledge that life expectancy has increased. Well how do you propose we pay for those extra years than? I'm sure there are some people who really can't work past age 62 or 65. Social security does offer a disability benefits program and perhaps that is the answer for those who are worst off.
In answer to your question, your social security taxes have gone up. However, they have not gone up by nearly enough to pay for the increased number of years the average American is living now.
Look, sometimes you have to face reality in life. That reality is that if we are going to save social security from destruction as a program that changes have got to me made. I think the eligibility age for receiving benefits ought to be raised rather quickly to age 70. We may also want to take a look at increasing the payroll tax by 1%. I wouldn't do this now because raising taxes when a country is in a recession is a bad idea. However, when the recession ends, we might want to take a look at increasing the payroll tax by .25% every year for four years.
I think there are people outh there who believe things like: 1. Its alright if social security bankrupts as long as I get my benefits until I die; 2. Its alright if the whole program fails or is discontinued because I don't believe in it; or 3. Our generation can use up all the money in the trust fund and other generations need to plan on saving for their own retirement.
I don't find any of the above statements morally acceptable. The program needs to be kept for all generations. If the retirement age needs to be raised or if there needs to be a modest increase in payroll taxes than those things should be done.
I also think we need to focus more in our society on the concept of work and productive labor and less on the concept of retirement. There are people out there who believe that life is a "big party" and that they ought to be able to retire at age 60 and anyone who doesn't share this view is "mean". Unless people are independently wealthy they have no business thinking they should retire at such a comparatively young age. Publicly funded pension programs simply cannot afford paying benefits to people for thirty years.
We've certainly become a spoiled country. We went from an era where almost everyone died before they were sixty and there were no pensions at all, to an era where the average life expectancy is in the eighties and all we do is whine that we should still be able to retire in our sixties. It isn't rocket science to see that change needs to be made and where it needs to be made either.
Great post markg91359. Many don't realize that some relatively minor adjustments impact largely on social security projections as far more viable in funding. I saw some article somewhere that attempted to quantify the various methods including raising min age, reducing bennies, raising payroll taxes, eliminating the salary cap, etc. and many had a surprising impact from small change.
I see these people in France protesting today (yeah I know what else is new) about the proposals to raise their retirement age past 60 to be closer to inline with other European countries, but those leading the protests can offer no solution. They are pretty much saying don't take away our retirement, even if that means it's an even more impossible endgame coming for the funding, that is someone else's problem 40 years from now.
The OP speaks of the government's "mistakes and greed" in connection to Social Security but he doesn't spell out what those are. It seems like the greed is all his. The OP also advocates privatization. I would like him to explain how that would make things better. Sure, better for Wall Street because of the increased money that would be flowing to them. But anyone who thinks it would be better for the average wage-earner just needs to consider our economic meltdown of 2008-2009.
Things are more complicated than just increased longevity. Population demographics are another cause of financial pressure on Social Security. As people have had fewer and fewer children over the years, there are fewer workers paying in compared to retirees taking their benefits.
As a remedy, several modest changes would be better than one or two bigger changes. One change not yet mentioned in this thread is eliminating the earnings cap on wages subject to Soc. Sec. payroll tax. The current cap is $106,000 and change per year. People making that much money are not going to miss the payroll deductions on amounts over $106,000 per year! The full retirement age could be gradually raised in increments to 68, and the minimum retirement age could be gradually raised in increments to 63. (This latter has never been changed).
Why is there so much emotionality connected with Social Security? Perhaps it is serving as a scapegoat for people's frustrations, which are many in this present economic climate. We need more rationality and logic in this area.
Okay here is my two cents: (correct me if I am wrong) Social Security was brought about so women who lost thier husbands could still receive a paycheck because at the time women did not work. That is the way it should have stayed regardless of sex.
I think its a bad idea, no... a HORRIBLE idea... sure we are living twice as long as we were suppose to right now... Our social security taxes have gone up a LOT since when it started as well... so why the shortage on SS funds? It seems "pay" didn't keep up... so whose at fault? The government wants to increase the retirement age so you'll die faster before you can collect and I think that is wrong... just because we are living longer does not mean our bodies and mind are getting better... when you are 62, you are the same 62 back then as well.. you can't expect someone to work longer when their body and mind doesn't get better with age... I think its wrong, I think SS should of been privatized so government can't keep raising the taxes, raising the retirement age, and at the same time use SS funds for their own corrupt purposes... what say you? Do you agree with the government to raise the retirement age and punish you for THEIR mistakes and greed...
1) I think it is a great idea to provide support to our elderly - it is a simple fact that you cannot work forever and sometimes things happen which can wipe out even the most built up financial portfolios meant for savings.
That stated, I think the concept of social security is ridiculous. There is simply no legitimate reason to tax everyone on a blanket basis while they are working in the attempt to save up enough money for our elderly's unemployment. There's too many unknowns in the process. What we're seeing today is just one of the unknown's worst-case scenarios actually happening... Congress went in an accessed the Social Security trust fund account to use for their own needs and they wiped it out. What we probably would have seen anyway, would be the boomer generation retiring and needing more money than would be available in the next few years. In any case, I don't believe the 3 legged stool concept ever made much sense (people retiring on: pension, social security, and 401k/savings) frankly because business owners should not be held responsible for their employee's after they leave the company.
2) If you're going to provide free government services to anyone for anything I believe there needs to be loophole-less and rational requirements to receive them. Free money, healthcare, etc... it all needs to be doled out carefully and frugally. I believe real multimillionaires or billionaires receiving social security checks or free healthcare is a joke... likewise people who came into the US late in life and who have never paid taxes (or something considered a "fair share" of taxes) shouldn't receive the benefits, and likewise those who have screwed up their own health without regard of future health care or other costs should be penalized in some justifiable way. There's a lot here to figure out and of course it isn't all straight-forward; a lot of it is subjectively determined.
In any case, I don't believe the 3 legged stool concept ever made much sense (people retiring on: pension, social security, and 401k/savings) frankly because business owners should not be held responsible for their employee's after they leave the company.
Are you talking about 401ks? Just in case, employers don't contribute to an employee's 401k after the employee quits, resigns or is fired/laid off. The employer contributes while the employee is actively employed. When the employee leaves, the contributed money goes with them. Is that what you mean? Just curious.
Back to the OP, yes, there are a lot of issues. Small changes, as mentioned above, probably would make a big impact. Something will have to be done. There are more (or will be more) retirees than workers if the population continues to drop.
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.
What "mistakes and greed"?
