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.
It's at 67 now, how much more would you suggest raising it? 70? 75?
What makes you think that living longer automatically equals being capable of working longer?
Correct, not everyone is capable of working longer. For some 62 is a stretch.
What they should do is turn the top end (later retirees) inside out like they did for the lower end (early retirees).
Instead of capping benefits at 100% at 67 allow them to grow each year a worker stays on the job and doesn't take SS. Let someone that can work til 75 collect more than 100%. Heck, if you're productive to 80 what wrong with paying them a bonus for 60 years of work, knowing their benefit years would be few...
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the begin paying 100% at 67 and the tax penalties also vanish???
Instead of a one size fits all they should reworked both ends of the age table. If you cannot work at 50 you should be able to take reduced benefits (do away with that cumbersome SSDI program). And if you can work at 55 again, you should be able to go back to work and build to a higher benefit.
It's at 67 now, how much more would you suggest raising it? 70? 75?
What makes you think that living longer automatically equals being capable of working longer?
The average life expectancy is 78 years old in the us today.
Simpson Bowles would fix ssi by simply raising the retirement age to 70 on people under 18 now. Since their life expectancy will be 80 or higher, that's not unrealistic.
And if you can't work, then you can draw disability.
Correct, not everyone is capable of working longer. For some 62 is a stretch.
What they should do is turn the top end (later retirees) inside out like they did for the lower end (early retirees).
Instead of capping benefits at 100% at 67 allow them to grow each year a worker stays on the job and doesn't take SS. Let someone that can work til 75 collect more than 100%. Heck, if you're productive to 80 what wrong with paying them a bonus for 60 years of work, knowing their benefit years would be few...
I can agree with this.
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the begin paying 100% at 67 and the tax penalties also vanish???
Instead of a one size fits all they should reworked both ends of the age table. If you cannot work at 50 you should be able to take reduced benefits (do away with that cumbersome SSDI program). And if you can work at 55 again, you should be able to go back to work and build to a higher benefit.
Not sure what you mean by tax penalties - my husband and I will always be taxed on our SS benefits due to our income level.
As for collecting benefits and then returning to work. If you do that before your full retirement age, your SS benefit is reduced when you reach a pre-determined income level.
Quote:
We use a formula to determine how much your benefit must be reduced:
If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit.
For 2012, that limit is $14,640.
In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age.
If you will reach full retirement age in 2012, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $38,880. (If you were born in 1946 or 1947, your full retirement age is 66 years.)
Also, if you retire before full retirement age, it is already possible to return to the work force, repay SS income received, and then proceed to contribute to a higher benefit at full retirement age.
In Montgomery County MD where the mean income per household is S106,000 a person making half of that is a low income person! Everything is relative you know. Also unemployment in our county is less than 4%.
Federal tax policy is national. Nice try. Someone making $34k a year pays zero taxes on their SS benefits. A couple, $44k.
And, no, someone making $56k anywhere in this country isn't considered low income earner, if they're living in a high income area they're just living beyond their means. Where you live $48k is the average per capita income and 6% are poor, so no, someone making $56k isn't anything close to poor.
I agree with you on the retirement age problem. It should be raised to match the life expectancy that we have today.
Except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the income distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.
Not sure what you mean by tax penalties - my husband and I will always be taxed on our SS benefits due to our income level.
As for collecting benefits and then returning to work. If you do that before your full retirement age, your SS benefit is reduced when you reach a pre-determined income level.
Also, if you retire before full retirement age, it is already possible to return to the work force, repay SS income received, and then proceed to contribute to a higher benefit at full retirement age.
Unfortunately, you're talking about a policy that doesn't exist anymore. You can no longer "repay" your benefits and upgrade your benefit %.
So tired of the whining from folks who made life choices that didn't turn out as well for them as the life choices of others (in this case Kaiser employees) turned out.
The retirement package, vacation time, and salary increases are the ways that Kaiser attracts and keeps good employees for which there is a high demand. If YOU want those benefits, instead of whining, do what it takes to become qualified for one of those "cushy" Kaiser jobs.
Such a violent reaction, and person attack, could have only come from one who is benfitting from the sytem that provides free health care at the expense of others.
Such a violent reaction, and person attack, could have only come from one who is benfitting from the sytem that provides free health care at the expense of others.
Such a knee jerk reaction to a message board response could only have come from one who made a poor life choice and wants everyone else to suffer along with her.
Quote:
Definition of VIOLENT
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity <a violent attack>
Except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the income distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.
What you're suggesting is that a great deal of people are living well into their 80s only if they have a easier working life. This simply isn't true.
First, I support Simpson Bowles, which says people under the age of 18. So they can plan for early retirement, and they'll be living more productive lives, into their 70s because they will be living into their 80s.
Secondly, most people are living longer, regardless of working life.
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.
