Influential group of CEOs calls for raising retirement age to 70 for Social Security, Medicare
WASHINGTON — An influential group of business CEOs is pushing a plan to gradually increase the full retirement age to 70 for both Social Security and Medicare and to partially privatize the health insurance program for older Americans.
The Business Roundtable’s plan would protect those 55 and older from cuts but younger workers would face significant changes. The plan unveiled Wednesday would result in smaller annual benefit increases for all Social Security recipients. Initial benefits for wealthy retirees would also be smaller.
Medicare recipients would be able to enroll in the traditional program or in private plans that could adjust premiums based on age and health status.
“America can preserve the health and retirement safety net and rein in long-term spending growth by modernizing Medicare and Social Security in a way that addresses America’s new fiscal and demographic realities,” said Gary Loveman, chairman, president and chief executive of casino giant Caesars Entertainment Corp.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||01/17/2013|
I think I will still be wanting to work when I'm 70, actually.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||01/16/2013|
Greedy motherfuckers. They want every last cent.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||01/16/2013|
These idiots are ... idiots.
It makes me wonder if all CEOs are this ignorant.
If you want to save money, you need to LOWER the age, not raise it.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||01/16/2013|
Tax breaks and special rules for the rich.
And the middle class and poor keep paying for the enrichment of the rich, as we get poorer.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||01/16/2013|
I think Anonymous needs to get the names, addresses, phone numbers of these CEO's and put it out on the internet along with letting us know what companies they are with. Also a picture might be nice. These fuckers step on us from behind a wall of privacy. Let us see how they like showing their faces and being exposed.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||01/16/2013|
Fuck them with hot pokers. How about means testing benefits?
|by Anonymous||reply 6||01/16/2013|
How about if we lower the retirement age to 64 and start confiscating wealth from the greedy fuckers?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||01/16/2013|
Why don't we just call welfare welfare ( or call it something else, I don't care) and means-test things that are supposed to be a "safety net." If everyone's worried about elders falling through the the cracks, instead of creating special groups of people with special entitlements, let's take care of those who need it. A millionaire won't miss his $2000/mo for a few extra years, but he also wouldn't miss it in the first place.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||01/16/2013|
Social Security isn't in danger.
If I were a younger person, I'd be outraged.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||01/16/2013|
It's nearly impossible for anyone over 60 to find a job. It's also very likely 50 and 60-somethings will be let go in favor of cheaper, faster 20-somethings. There's not much job security out there, especially the older you get.
Raising the retirement age is just going to hurt a lot of people.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||01/16/2013|
Mean sons of bitches! If you CHOOSE to work to age 70 older, fine. That's great!
Forcing people to stay on because they can't afford to retire is cruel, plus, it ties up jobs for younger people who want to work but can't find jobs.
Sure, it's wonderful if you can afford to retire at the age of your choosing because you were wise enough, or lucky enough, to be able to afford it, but some people, through no fault of their own, lost their savings and pensions to greedy management or poor health or a myriad of other reasons that were beyond their control.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||01/16/2013|
R1, I used to think that. Now that I'm aging, it's kind of amazing how your body changes.
Mind you, I love working. It is just...different.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||01/16/2013|
How many of these asshole CEO's companies will even hire anybody over 40?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||01/16/2013|
Do a google search: social security fully funded
The results should be informative, esp. the fact that Forbes and the National Review --not exactly sources I give much credence to--are the dissenters from the consensus.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||01/16/2013|
What exactly do CEOs know about macroeconomic and social welfare policy? It is one of the great lies in American politics, one that almost got Romney into the White House (and almost gave Herman Cain the GOP nomination), that businessman are by nature knowledgeable about economics. Actually, they are knowledgeable about business, which is a completely different discipline from economics. We should be looking to academics, not some asshole Wharton grads, to enact public policy.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||01/16/2013|
I cringe when I am served by a 60+ waitress, or see an old man still working at a physically demanding job. Not everyone is able to salt away hundreds of thousands in a retirement fund. These people may have to work till they drop.
Great idea, let them hobble around till they are 70+. Deny them the small cushion of SS. Whilst these CEOs continue to sit on executive boards and consult well into their 70s, waited upon, driven around, living in incredible comfort.
Fuck them all.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||01/16/2013|
It's about taking the public's tax dollars for decades, then working them to death as frail seniors, with the CEOs hoping you will drop dead before you are allowed to retire and not collect a cent of what you paid into the system. (The CEO billionaires want that money for themselves only).
This is what this is about and nothing else.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||01/16/2013|
They don't seem to realize we have a problem with unemployment, not a labor shortage.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||01/17/2013|
I wonder what George Carlin would say...
|by Anonymous||reply 19||01/17/2013|
Ridiculous anti human behavior. Sociopath thinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||01/17/2013|
They need to change the requirements for Social Security and Medicare. My aunt only had to work/ make contributions for 10 yrs in order to collect social security. It should be 20 or 25 yrs. I'm sorry, but stay at home moms and other people who have only worked for 10 yrs don't deserve these benefits. I don't think they have earned them. Do the math, it's a losing situation when people only have to work/make contributions for 10 yrs in order to collect these benefits
|by Anonymous||reply 21||01/17/2013|
R21, you're an ignorant judgmental ass. Go to hell.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||01/17/2013|
How about if we tax the CEOs wealth at 70% instead?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||01/17/2013|
In Canada it has been raised to 67
|by Anonymous||reply 25||01/17/2013|
R21 is whacked, this is what social security is structured for. It's to help people manage their retirement. It's a perfect system for helping the nation's regular folks contribute to their own retirement.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||01/17/2013|