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 looked at some figures. In 1940 a 65-year-old could expect to live 15.3 years. A 65-year-old today, 19.6 years. So raising the age to 70 seems fair. Of course a 65-year-old today would have paid much more in SS taxes. Now they just have to create an economy strong enough that people will be able to find jobs at 65. Congress has fallen down on this goal.
Here is the big problem. Look at the chart for the life expenctancies in 1935 vs today.
Again, when SS was instituted, the "retirement age" was higher than the average life expectancy. That was by design.
To be consistent, we should increase the eligibility for SS to at least 70, perhaps 80.
I'm sure there are. And why does it bother you so much? The program was started for people who would not have an income at retirement age. It should be no surprise to you that a system designed as a safety net is operating as one for some people.
SS is not a free handout. That's what welfare and foodstamps are for.
And it's not a general "safety net" for all; there are other programs for that.
SS was to be a protection and supplement to "old age".
Out of near 59 million beneficiaries, only 35 million are SS only and over 65.
Being 50ish I've grown up hearing that SS would not be there when I hit retirement age. As it stands it probably will, in some form or another, but it really wasn't expected. I think most people my age have known the score for a long time. This wouldn't surprise me.
The problem today is that there are fewer and fewer people that have the ability to retire on their own dime. That is an inherent problem with transferring wealth to the upper "class".
There is no right to retire. If you cannot afford to retire, it should not be up to the gov't (ie us taxpayers) to make up for it.
I fall into the bracket that will subject to the age 70 provision, if it passes. I think it will pass. Of course by the time I get there, it will be 90. I believe I am paying into a system that I will not get one dime of in return. IMO, it's a sham, and what I wouldn't give to be able to opt out of the damn thing all together..
SS is not a free handout. That's what welfare and foodstamps are for.
And it's not a general "safety net" for all; there are other programs for that.
SS was to be a protection and supplement to "old age".
Out of near 59 million beneficiaries, only 35 million are SS only and over 65.
So, let me get this straight - you want disabled people dumpster diving rather than getting assistance? My first husband was disabled; he was legally blind and had crippling asthma. His medical bills would have been astronomical and he would have been completely uninsurable but for the Medicaid that came with his SSI benefits. And, let me tell you, SSI is not a windfall. In 1983-86, we got the minimum federal benefit of $276 to (I think) $325 a month. Any work that either of us did counted against the benefit, which was fine, but if we worked enough to eliminate it completely, he lost his medical coverage.
Add to that the fact that no one would hire a disabled person at that time (and, I dare say, many do not want to hire them now), and what exactly do you expect a disabled person to do?
Additionally, survivor's benefits for children and spouses are a result of the wage earner's having paid into the system.
I think those who have paid in to SS should be able to draw on it at any time. When what you have paid into it is gone, it is gone. No more draw until/unless it is recontributed. People who have paid into SS and may be facing a terminal illness should be able to withdraw those funds they've paid in regardless of their age. Why should there be a government required participation retirement program that benefits from people not living long enough to reap the rewards of their own contributions?
Actually, you have to know how to understand that stuff, which I think you would know as a doctor.
This article was in my local paper today:
No full Social Security benefits until age 70? - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/11/1725272/no-full-social-security-benefits.html - broken link)
Social Security was created in 1935 with a retirement age of 65, but since then life expectancy at that age has increased by about six years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
"Life expectancy" at birth is affected by neonatal and childhood deaths, and also by increasing years at the end of life.
If you live to age 65, you will live, on average, six years longer now than you would have in 1935.
But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
There is no right to retire. If you cannot afford to retire, it should not be up to the gov't (ie us taxpayers) to make up for it.
I fall into the bracket that will subject to the age 70 provision, if it passes. I think it will pass. Of course by the time I get there, it will be 90. I believe I am paying into a system that I will not get one dime of in return. IMO, it's a sham, and what I wouldn't give to be able to opt out of the damn thing all together..
I hate to muddy the waters with facts but I will anyway.
Paul Ryan's solution to raise the SS age limit is nothing more than another money grab to loot the SS system as have so many other politicians. He wants to collect more money from it and then take that money to pay down the deficit. Basicly have the old people of this country pay down the debt. He is doing this as the ranking republican on the House Budget Committee and is a member of the deficit commission.
Not one taxpayer dollar has ever gone to SS. The Employer and employee split a payment of 12.4% towards the SS trust fund.
It pays benefits to 53 million americans many who are not retired but spouses.
For 25 years it has been taking in more than it has been paying out and now has 2.5 trillion(yes that's trillion) reserve fund invested in government bonds. refCBO
This year with the recession and high unemployment, less money has come in than anticipated and the system has been drawing on the reserves. The CBO estimates that the reserve fund and payroll taxes will cover full payment of benefits for 33 more years without any changes whatsoever.
Dont let Paul Ryan and the repubs. put the deficit burden on the retirees.
Here is the big problem. Look at the chart for the life expenctancies in 1935 vs today. Again, when SS was instituted, the "retirement age" was higher than the average life expectancy. That was by design. To be consistent, we should increase the eligibility for SS to at least 70, perhaps 80. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2005 — Infoplease.com
Life expectancy numbers are skewed because there was very high infant mortality in 1935. When large numbers of children die during childhood, it reduces the number for "average life expectancy." Today, very few children die during childhood, therefore the "average life expectancy" appears to be much higher.
Since all of us who paid the high, post-1983 Social Security rates (15.3% now due to the accounting scam called the "employee match") for most of our working lives had survived infancy, we should get appropriate benefits in return for what we contributed. To do this, of course, the Feds would have to return all the money stolen from Social Security, which they could do by stopping the idiotic senseless wars that benefit nobody and hurt everyone.
Additionally, we should immediately stop paying any retirement or medical benefits for all Federal elected officials who were in office and did not actively fight the annual theft of Social Security taxes.
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.
