GOP Wants To Raise Social Security To Age 70 To Tackle The Deficit

Yes, OP, *everyone* on DL supports this.

[quote] Yes, OP, *everyone* on DL supports this.

Really, WOW

I'm close enough to early retirement (62) that I would likely be grandfathered in despite the new full retirement age.

So yes, please raise the social security full retirement age to 70, that that MY social security lasts for a few more years before being cut because of the Republicans' social security trust fund ransacking/depletion.

[quote] the Republicans' social security trust fund ransacking/depletion.

But the GOP says it is to pay down the deficit. Doesn't the deficit concern you?

I personally don't care because (1) I'm already 70, and (2) I'm not eligible for Social Security.

r4 - no you CUNT we don't.

No, R4, the deficit doesn't concern me at all. Rethuglicans proved to everyone years and years ago that deficits don't matter. I don't care about deficits and neither does anyone else. It's just another thing that Rethuglican MAGATs pretend to care about when a Democrat is the president. When it's a Rethuglican president, they don't care about deficits one little bit.

I would like the dumbass, scumsucking MAGATs and Qloons to push this idea super-heavily for the election.

Everyone hates it, it's a huge loser. Rhonda and Donald and the rest of the seven dwarves will have to eat it.

Good times.

If they do anything SS should be means-tested before the retirement age is raised.

What about the National Debt R7 ?

Provisionally, yes. It really depends on for what year they raise it.

[quote]Congress took no steps to increase the eligibility age for Social Security pensions until 1983, when it raised the normal retirement age from 65 (for persons born in 1937 and earlier years) to 67 (for persons born in 1960 and later years).

As long as they raise it to 70 for people born in 1998 or later (they're 25 right now, so would have 45 more years, rather than 42 years). In 1983, the oldest people it affected were 23 years old, so would have 44 years, rather than 42 years. If you were born in 1960, you'd be coming up on retirement in 4 years under the old rules.

The absolute earliest they should change it is for people born in 1988 or later.

Also, they really need to raise the cap on taxable income. It's $160K, up from $128K five years ago. At the time they change the age, they need to raise the cap, but there absolutely needs to be a cap.

Republicans are basically responsible for the national debt over the past 4 decades. Look it up.

And Social Security can be easily saved if we removed the income cap. Have all people pay a percentage into it no matter what your income. Poof - we will have more money for social security than you could ever imagine.

The economy has been slanted toward the rich for several decades by Republicans, leaving everyone else with stagnant or lower wages. Let them pay their share like every other developed country.

Stop attacking seniors as the problem - it's not.

OP, why are *you* so concerned about the National debt?

Repeal every big tax cut since George W Bush, then we'll talk.

The Federal deficit has nothing to do with SS. Typical GOP obfuscation.

Clinton, Obama and now Biden have all slowed or decreased the deficit. Every Republican starting with Reagan increased the deficit. Reagan, Bush 2 and Trump exploded the deficit.

But being alive at 70 doesn't automatically mean a person is in any condition to work at that age.

Agree. The age needs to raise to mitigate the demographic crisis and ensure there's at least some elder care available for future generations.

Many older people leave the workforce due to age discrimination.

Think about this. In France a few weeks ago, 1 million people were in the streets protesting because the government wanted to raise transit workers' retirement age from 62 to 64. In America, all people do is go online and complain about it. In the US they raised the retirement age for anyone born after 1960 from 65 to 67 and no one took to the streets. I'm sure they'll eventually raise the age to 70 and no one will protest that, either, because apparently no one in this country has any guts.

Yeah, this idea that employers are all just fighting to hire old people is just so idiotic. Will these jobs be guaranteed? Will there be a rule to hire people over 60 first, and only then can you hire the 20-somethings you actually want? It is all so half-assed and bullshit. But of course, we all know what the Republican plan will be: throw people into poverty and fuck 'em. Tell 'em to get a non-existent job, or just die already.

That’s the point, r16. Seniors will have to provide their own resources until 70. Rich people will be fine, thoughts and prayers to the rest.

Despite the Republicans’ disingenuous approach to the debt, we face a real problem. Americans want more benefits than they pay taxes to support, especially after high defense spending and big tax cuts to the rich and modest tax cuts to everyone else.

We now spend nearly $500 billion each year on interest. It’s going up because of higher internet rates and higher total debt. This has been a problem since the Reagan administration, though some policy changes and demographic good fortune helped in Clinton’s presidency.

Things are going to get rough. My hope is that public anger finally pushes the US to develop a real safety net and dumps the expense on the 1 percent.

Isn’t everyone already bitching that boomers aren’t retiring soon enough to make room for younger people’s employment needs?

The deficit is such a phony-baloney issue with the Repubs, who do nothing but swell the deficit whenever they’re in power.

True r23. It is ONLY ever Democratic Presidents that actually do anything to bring down the deficit. Republicans always explode it with massive tax cuts for the rich. It's always job one every time they get into power: Give money to the rich and ignore any deficit fears.

Why won’t the MAGATs wake up? Do they actually want to have to work til they drop? Yet they keep voting republican every time.

I'm sure in their dumbass minds it will just apply to black people and hispanics r25.

I'm not depending on SS, I do not pay into the system, so I do not qualify. I have cash reserves and other investments for when I get "old", I'm already 59 lol. I'm an LMT cash only,, I have several Rental properties with good cash flow, maintain online auctions, I'm comfortable and don't waste money. If I live into my mid 80s like most in my family, I'll be fine. Fuck the Republicans on this issue, which is screwing over working people...

My SS is set to be age 67. Why should I care what age people who are now in their 20s will retire? I won't even be alive.

How typical Boomer Gen X of you

They are still trying to drive a stake through FDR's heart.

How about this…Lower Representatives’s salaries, eliminate the existing cap on paying into it so high earners pay their share, and lower full retirement age back to 65 where it should be. Fuck that shit on full retirement at 70.

R31, it’s a swing but it would probably miss.

Lowering representatives’ salaries would likely create more millionaire class members of Congress and fewer who rely on the salary.

Eliminating the cap would help close the gap. However, high income earners and their employers would likely shift their compensation to help avoid this tax.

Returning full retirement age to 65 would strain the system further.

These dilemmas are the result of our country’s extended dalliance with Ronald Reagan politics. They were not writing in pencil.

They don’t understand how tenuous employment tends to be for people in their mid-50s onward.

Those folks are among the first to be laid off because they tend to earn more (more experience, institutional knowledge).

Employers aren’t eager to hire them because they’re averse to investing in training someone with a shorter time horizon.

Honestly, if you lose your job in your 60s, the chances of finding another decent job aren’t that great.

What Republican bullshit. How about scrapping the Trump Tax Hoax and voila,

SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS SAVED!

"GOP Wants" are not really at the top of my list.

Reagan negotiated a SS deal with the democrats which is why people are still getting it today. All the other Republicans did everything they could to hurt it and if you look at many of their Wikipedia pages have always been if favor of abolishing it (Medicare, too)

There’s several issues- that when we hit 70, they turn around and raise it to 75, and that SO many people are filing questionable permanent disability claims. The other issue is the wealthy aren’t paying into the system anymore AND that the gig generation isn’t paying adequate tax because they file all sorts of deductions to avoid doing so!

These are all bipartisan issues towards an impending collapse.

Reagan’s deal significantly raised the SS payroll tax and also made benefits taxable for the first time. Worse. the increased revenue didn’t get set aside, it just got spent. It’s going to be rough, regardless of the blame.

[quote] They don’t understand how tenuous employment tends to be for people in their mid-50s onward.

Shouldn’t that issue be fixed no matter what? Then it would no longer be able to be used as an excuse for blocking Social Security reform.

[quote] Reagan’s deal significantly raised the SS payroll tax and also made benefits taxable for the first time. Worse. the increased revenue didn’t get set aside, it just got spent.

That’s a big reason that the GOP wanted to get Social Security money away from the government, and Gore wanted a “lockbox”. They both understand that when the extra tax money comes in, Congress can’t resist the temptation to immediately spend it on something else.

SS doesn’t add to the national debt. What goes in, goes out—nothing more.

The GOP has lumped it in with the national debt because it knows that scared people.

Currently income up to $160k gets taxed for SS—so it’s a tax specifically on the middle class. Raising it to $250k will keep it solvent for another 50 years—enough for us to get over the baby boomer hump.

The GOP’s whole point is to stop the rich from being taxed, which is why it’s solution is to raise the retirement age

[Quote] My SS is set to be age 67. Why should I care what age people who are now in their 20s will retire? I won't even be alive

Because we should want the best for the world we leave behind.

R28, this is the same argument young people make, insisting that they are healthy and don’t need health insurance, ultimately driving up costs for all of us by being uninsured.

I agree with R42

And, yet, voters over 65 are now overwhelmingly Republican. It's an "I got mine, so screw you" attitude. Can you teach boomers to be empathetic? To care about people and interests which may not directly impact them?

[quote] Because we should want the best for the world we leave behind.

The best would be Social Security made more secure by having a later retirement age, so clearly wanting the best is not the reason people are opposed to fixing the system this way.

Is there a link to this?

If deficits don't matter when the rich need a tax cut, they sure as fuck don't matter when people who actually work want to retire at a decent age.

R41, you’re right that what goes in is what goes out. What do you propose doing in 2030, when what comes in is less than we have told seniors will go out to them?

[quote]The other issue is the wealthy aren’t paying into the system anymore AND that the gig generation isn’t paying adequate tax because they file all sorts of deductions to avoid doing so!

The gig worker trap isn't taken seriously enough by the media, which likes to frame it as a debate. Financial literacy in this country is terrible by design; it benefits Republicans to keep people poor and resentful. When you adopt a childishly cynical pose of "The system is bullshit" and decide that Social Security, health insurance and marriage are all scams you're rejecting, you play right into their hands. It's a flowchart that leads to GoFundMe.

[quote] The best would be Social Security made more secure by having a later retirement age

That is an assertion without evidence.

R48 raise the income cap. Problem solved.

[quote]Isn’t everyone already bitching that boomers aren’t retiring soon enough to make room for younger people’s employment needs?

If they'd LOWER the Medicare and SS age, I'd gladly retire.

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

THis is complete bullshit. All you have to do to insure the solvency is remove the fucking cap. Right now workers pay into the Social Security Trust Fund part of the year. Byt the Fall you have reached your cap. But if the cap were removed people would pay in to it longer.

[Quote] The best would be Social Security made more secure by having a later retirement age, so clearly wanting the best is not the reason people are opposed to fixing the system this way.

Social security was kept millions out of poverty. In a world created by the GOP without pensions, millions of retired people depend on it.

The best would be to raise the income at which it’s taxed. Keeping it at $160k is a travesty

[Quote] All you have to do to insure the solvency is remove the fucking cap. Right now workers pay into the Social Security Trust Fund part of the year. Byt the Fall you have reached your cap. But if the cap were removed people would pay in to it longer.

Of course, but the GOP opposes anything that would tax the rich, including Medicare and Obamacare

Sunday last NYT had an Op-ed piece on state of SS as both political parties currently see things. Link provided below and *NO* article isn't paywalled. If you cannot find way to read or open tough cheddar; am not cutting and pasting entire copyrighted material.

Basically what it comes down to far as NYT is concerned ideas from either party have a any basis in reality. Regardless of democrats gaining super majority in senate, House and a democrat POTUS much or all of what is being suggested simply won't happen. First and foremost is due to what it always comes down to in USA; cost and who would be responsible for paying.

Similarly much of the GOP agenda is dead in water as well for various other reasons.

Inhabitants of red states and or working classes that are moving into GOP camp are more likely to be less well off during their working careers and that carries into old age. As such they are and will be more dependent upon SS and Medicare with cuts or changes in benefits felt more keenly.

[Quote] Inhabitants of red states and or working classes that are moving into GOP camp are more likely to be less well off during their working careers and that carries into old age. As such they are and will be more dependent upon SS and Medicare with cuts or changes in benefits felt more keenly.

They don’t care. They will still keep voting GOP because it’s the white supremacy partt

Another piece from NYT, this time an Op-ed from Manhattan Institute.

I'll throw Luddites on this forum a bone:

"Over the next three decades, the Social Security system is scheduled to pay benefits $21 trillion greater than its trust fund will collect in payroll taxes and related revenues. The Medicare system is projected to run a $48 trillion shortfall. These deficits are projected to, in turn, produce $47 trillion in interest payments to the national debt. That is a combined shortfall of $116 trillion, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office. (To inflation-adjust these figures, trim by roughly one-third.)"

"These unsustainable figures result from demographics, rising health care costs and program design. The ratio of workers supporting each retiree, which was about five to one back in 1960, will fall to just over two to one by the next decade. People who live until age 90, a fast-growing group, will spend one-third of their adult life collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Today’s typical retiring couple will receive Medicare benefits three times as large as their lifetime contributions to the system, and also will come out ahead on Social Security (adjusted into present value), according to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution."

/quote

NYTimes insisting on both sides bullshit even when it has no basis in reality, and then giving unchecked space to conservative spin? Color me shocked.

R59, actually the NYT article makes the odd assumption that SS payments will stay the same as the trust fund goes down. If that were the case, we’d be in deficit of $21 trillion.

BUT, even if the trust fund ends around 2033, SS can still pay 75% of what it pays now without incurring any deficit problems for a long while.

Too many people depend on SS for it to change. People in heavy labor jobs tend to retire by 65 so need the money.

Yes, the Medicare trust fund will deplete quickly— the solution, like nearly every other developed country is a single payer healthcare system—it covers everyone, offers more benefits, has better outcomes, and costs 1/3rd less. People just don’t make alot of profit over those systems.

The GOP wants to get rid of Medicare so the GOP’s rich funders don’t get taxed—but it offers nothing else to replace it except a vague “market forces will fix healthcare.” Single payer is the only answer as proved by the world’s experience. The GOP will fight that tooth and nail.

R62, not every country with universal healthcare has a single-payer system. That's the NHS model in the UK, which has huge problems. Countries like Germany have a multi-payer system. It's a misunderstanding to think that universal healthcare = single-payer system.

Any conversation around single payer healthcare or Medicare with my Libertarian friend always ends with him saying none of that should exist because “free markets, baby!. He doesn’t believe insurance companies and medical providers would take advantage of people because competition would mean things are always in check. I’d one company is gouging customers they’re free to so to another. Simple, isn’t it.

I’d=if

France doesn't have "single payer' system either; well not as what many Americans consider such.

What is true in France and many other European countries is a vast and bewildering array of taxes and other charges that pay into healthcare schemes.

And then there are those voices in the wilderness.

Social Security is a tax on labor. As posters have pointed out, the wealthy don't have to pay in past a certain salary level which means SS is funded primarily by the working poor. With due respect to FDR, SS was always a paltry benefit for hard-working people.

R64, is your friend able to shop around from a hospital bed? When his mind is addled from dementia? Is he going to compare prices for chemo after a cancer diagnosis?

Free markets work when the consumer has freedom. Not so much when they are compelled to purchase something, or when they have to buy something that cannot be assigned value. Like their life.

More about healthcare system in France:

R67, most working people will get back more from SS and Medicare than they put in. A man with average earnings turning 65 in 2020 will get $615,000 in benefits after paying in $405,000.

Average working or middle class married couple gets back what they paid into SS within few years of beginning benefits. Everything after that is gravy with most on average receiving vastly more from SS and Medicare than they paid into scheme.

Indeed married persons (or divorced in some instances) do far better with SS and Medicare on average than single or never married .

Spousal and survivor benefits aren't means tested and are granted regardless if spouse (presumed to be female) did what plan wanted them to; have and raise children.

Expected Present Value of Lifetime Social Security and Medicare Benefits and Taxes

Brookings Institution

[Quote] not every country with universal healthcare has a single-payer system. That's the NHS model in the UK, which has huge problems. Countries like Germany have a multi-payer system. It's a misunderstanding to think that universal healthcare = single-payer system.

Which is why the post you’re responding to says “nearly every other developed country”

[quote]The best would be Social Security made more secure by having a later retirement age

Yeah that's not a guarantee either. Most young people these days are barely paying into SS because they can't find jobs, boomers are still not leaving the workforce fast enough to free up jobs for the following generations. If you can't find a decent good job until you are 30 years old (yes that's the reality most young people are facing) then there is no guarantee that moving the retirement age to 70 would solve anything. You are pushing everything later and later.

[Quote] not every country with universal healthcare has a single-payer system. That's the NHS model in the UK, which has huge problems. Countries like Germany have a multi-payer system. It's a misunderstanding to think that universal healthcare = single-payer system.

My God, no system is perfect. Yes NHS has problems and they’re nearly all caused by politicians underfunding it. We all know single payer doesn’t equal universal healthcare.

[Quote] I personally don't care because (1) I'm already 70, and (2) I'm not eligible for Social Security.

And, sadly, at age 70, no one caress about you

[Quote] Countries like Germany have a multi-payer system

Sort of. Everyone qualified for a basic single payer system in Germany. You can opt out and pay into a private system which may get you quicker access and a single hospital room but that’s for the wealthy only.

The majority stay in the single payer system

Essentially, we have bribed most Americans to accept wealth inequality. The bribe is a pittance individually, even if it costs a lot across the society.

We gave up pensions. affordable housing and healthcare, good education, and so much more. So Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk could play billionaire Star Wars and Goldman Sachs villains could live in compounds.

For those interested a primer on French pension system.

[quote]That’s a big reason that the GOP wanted to get Social Security money away from the government, and Gore wanted a “lockbox”. They both understand that when the extra tax money comes in, Congress can’t resist the temptation to immediately spend it on something else.

Are you just completely ignorant R40? Just read the f'n article below and learn something.

Social Security benefits are a perennial target for cuts because the program faces a long-run shortfall. Some lawmakers and opinion leaders mistakenly portray the program’s benefits as lavish. The fact is, benefits are modest and workers have earned them by paying into Social Security — protecting themselves and their families if they retire, become disabled, or die leaving family members to support. Here are five key facts that policymakers need to keep in mind:

Social Security benefits are modest. Most beneficiaries rely on Social Security for most of their income.

For most seniors, Social Security is the only income they receive that’s guaranteed to last as long as they live and to provide full inflation protection.

Social Security benefits in the United States are lower than many other developed countries.

Future retirees already face lower benefits (relative to their past earnings) than current retirees because of a rising Social Security retirement age and escalating Medicare premiums.

Social Security is funded directly from funds taken from a workers' pay via the SS tax.

This is not a gift but a fund paid into it directly by most of us. It is our savings.

The monies from SS have been diverted and plundered for years.

SS needs a thorough audit and the funds accounted for.

I have not worked my ass off all these years so MTG and pigs like her can get forgivable Covid loans and travel upgrades.

R81 and r82, this is all true. However, it doesn’t address that you (and the vast majority of people) put in less in taxes than your benefits are worth. The Urban Institute does an annual report analyzing this.

I don’t say this to suggest people don’t deserve the paltry amounts. As a society, we allowed this by focusing on the needs of large profits and concentrated wealth. Anyone paying attention since 1980 could see it in real time.

[quote]What about the National Debt [R7] ?

Not losing sleep over it, no.

Except during part of the period between 1835-1837, there's always been a national debt.

People work most of their lives for that money and they shouldn't have to work longer. Fuck the GOP, make them take a pay cut.

I think the Social Security Administration is regularly audited r82, but maybe you have some evidence it isn't.

It is kind of interesting that the Defense Department has never been successfully audited. If you want to divert funds to mysterious purposes, always best to call it "defense spending."

DoD auditing is nearly impossible. It’s a lot of assets and raw materials and properties and classified operations - accumulated over 200 plus years. Government contractors like KPMG and Deloitte have made a ton of money on the shell game of audit readiness.

[quote]The monies from SS have been diverted and plundered for years.

Where is your evidence for this? Oh. That's right. You don't have any. Why do I know this? See link below.

No SS funds cannot be plundered. What goes in goes out. If there are excess funds leftover, it goes into a trust.

It’s an urban myth that SS funds have been used for other purposes

From Wiki:

"Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of December 2022 (estimated), the intragovernmental debt was $6.18 trillion of the $31.4 trillion national debt.[6] Of this $6.18 trillion, $2.7 trillion is an obligation to the Social Security Administration."

Recent article by "The Hill" lays things out pretty well IMHO.

Long story short SS and Medicare won't be fixed without some sort of bipartisan hard work in Congress.

Super majority power on either side of political fence won't be a solution and time is growing short to address the matter.

For those who click on the link provided by R90, be sure to read it all for context.

Most older Republicans happily accept and need Social Security benefits, so I don’t see how they can get rid of it without causing complete havoc in this country.

There seems to be a belief that every American should be financially independent, even though most Americans don’t have $1,000 in savings.

They are crazy on this issue because it doesn’t comport with reality.

"Most older Republicans happily accept and need Social Security benefits.."

Don't for a moment believe that applies to straight republicans either...

All those older gay men having children can secure for them same SS benefit Trump likely got for having Barron as an old man.

Ditto for spousal and survivor benefits.

Full FRA is already 67 for tail end Boomers and those born afterwards. This is one of the oldest in western world especially when you factor in large parts of Europe such as France.

Making it 70 is bit of a stretch, but could and perhaps should be done long as there are exceptions for those whose working careers largely involved employment that is hard on the body. Bedside nursing, construction trades, those sort of things.

OTOH managerial and above who sit behind desks all day should and could be made to wait until 69 or 70.

I’ll have to work forever anyway, so makes no difference to me.

I think the only thing people who want to save Social Security can do is just document that they they tried to get fixes like extending the retirement age passed, and then when the system collapses, show that they tried to fix it. If something as simple and as painless as changing the age for recipients decades from now can’t be accomplished, then nothing is possible.

Several friends began receiving those SS letters regarding estimate benefits ( they all turned 60 in 2022), with more than a few totally shocked at how little they will be receiving. Long story short like yourself they will be working at some level late into their 60's and into their 70's.

To be fair many are self-employed and or became so after enduring various upheavals in economy that resulted in losing current job. Pile on racial and discrimination (gay and trans), making matters worse.

Have no sympathy OTOH for those who earned money but didn't file taxes. Tried telling them that all those years of "zeros" will harm averages used to calculate SS benefits, but they wouldn't be told. Now they've received estimate benefit award letters showing year after year of "0".

Best those in such situation can do is keep on working, reporting income and paying taxes. Each year of something will take a bite out of those zeros.

[quote] If something as simple and as painless as changing the age for recipients decades from now

It's not simple and painless for somebody forced to work past the point they reasonably can or should be working, or do you mean it feels painless now to pass some bill designed to kick in in 25 years or so, knowing it will probably be changed. That sounds like the lies people tell when they pass big tax cuts but announce that they will "sunset" in 10 or 15 years or so, to hide the long-term cost, while fully intending to extend the tax cuts permanently when the time comes.

It may be good politics, but it's shitty policy.

[quote]If something as simple and as painless as changing the age for recipients decades from now can’t be accomplished, then nothing is possible.

That's not a fix, and even if it were it's a terrible one. That has larger, mostly negative, repercussions on the makeup and health of the workforce.

The simplest fix is raise the cap. The reason we can't pursue the simplest fix is squarely on conservative assholes.

"The simplest fix is raise the cap. The reason we can't pursue the simplest fix is squarely on conservative assholes."

See linked articles above; raising cap alone won't fully address issues with SS and Medicare.

First out of gate persons will do more of what many do already, switch larger parts of their compensation from cash to other benefits that aren't taxed much if at all.

Next regardless of what many here and elsewhere believe such increase in SS and Medicare taxation would likely fall directly upon middle and upper middle classes. European nations have already increased their rates and that is exactly who got hit.

SS and Medicare basically tax only earned income. Many well off to wealthy earn little to none of their annual income from actual employment income; but from passive things such as interest, investments, gains, etc...

Currently max total income for SS purposes is $160k annual, which surprisingly falls into that construct of "middle class" in USA.

If a Republican is talking about Social Security, he's planning to channel its monies to private wealth.

I really don't care what his actual words are.

[quote] Currently max total income for SS purposes is $160k annual, which surprisingly falls into that construct of "middle class" in USA.

I'd say that's pretty "upper middle" at least. But aside from that, it actually goes against your point. What you are saying there is that Social Security taxes already fall squarely on the middle class, much more than the upper class. Somebody making a million, or two million, or five million a year doesn't much care about that tax that cuts off at $160,000. Eliminating that cap would, for the first time, actually tax the rich at the same rate as the middle class, in this particular area. (they are taxed in other ways, of course, but they're kind of irrelavant for social security solvency.)

But overall, I agree, Social Security may not be able to completely pay for itself in the way it has previously. We may have to move more toward making it in part, whatever part is needed, come from the general budget or the general GDP of society.

I actually think Medicare is a different subject, and actually a more difficult one, because it gets into the absolutely insane way the U.S. has decided to finance health care itself. That will require a much bigger overhaul than Social Security will.

R101, Medicare is a whole other ballgame. R97 has been going on in this thread about how raising the retirement age is the best if not only solution to fixing SS. You can't just add Medicare into the discussion when it's convenient.

Medicare has different (although largely overlapping) eligibility requirements than SS. Its costs are separate and distinct from SS, and it's funded differently--unlike SS, Medicare is funded with money appropriated by Congress and premiums on top of payroll taxes. You can't just lump them together as if they have the same problems or solutions.

^ Forgot to add, if Congress decided to create a general revenue SS fund to cover any shortfalls they way they did when they created Medicare Parts B & D, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So if the cap is raised, does that also mean wealthy could collect more when they retire? If so, it's basically a wash.

^ Depends how it's structured.

That's a fair point r106. There needs to be a cutoff for total income from Social Security, even if you paid in more, or we need to move toward some kind of more generalized structure based on total GDP or something, rather than matching individual contributions to actual payments.

They absolutely don’t give a fuck about people or any ounce of decency

Nancy and I managed quite nicely without relying on Social Security and so can the rest of you if you're true Americans.

People have worked hard all their lives. Give them their piddly SS retirement funds so they can avoid being elderly and impoverished.

Let them retire at 65 rather forcing them to work until 70. How much more are we going to exploit our workers??

[quote]How much more are we going to exploit our workers??

We’ll keep pushing for more as long as they keep electing us!

R112, That is THE essential insight.

A little more work and it would have been a perfect Alexander Pope couplet: witty; pithy; trenchant; and true.

[quote]Nancy and I managed quite nicely without relying on Social Security and so can the rest of you if you're true Americans.

We should all be so lucky as Ron and Nancy to have friends reward our retirement with a gift of a $2.5M house in 1989 money ($6M+ today.)

My Dad always tells me that the SSA would be one of the richest funds ever if politicians didn't take from it to fund other political endeavours. So many people pay into it and die before collecting the pension - that kind of thing adds up. As a young guy in my mid-20s, the likeliness is very low that the old age pension will even be Social Security. I can imagine the next government after the US (it's gonna collapse in our lifetime) is gonna figure something out that is better than this. I feel sad for the early MIllenials and late boomers, they're stuck with a broken government, healthcare, and retirement!

The average person is now dying at 76. It's only going to decrease too if we don't get the environment under control. 70 is way too old, especially for certain careers hard on the body. I love how we can lament over million dollar football players still playing after 40, but expect a laborer to work until 70. That's insane.

With damage from reoccurring covid, roundup, and microplastics, there's no way younger people will live to retire at 70. Our chemical output since the 90s has jumped to 300x what it was in previous decades. Now, eating one fish from the waterways I'm NYS, is the same as drinking contaminated water for 30 days straight. One fish.

Sigh, I just don't see a way out for us younger generations. We're getting so fucked over.

[quote]Sigh, I just don't see a way out for us younger generations.

You could try voting.

[quote]No, [R4], the deficit doesn't concern me at all. Rethuglicans proved to everyone years and years ago that deficits don't matter. I don't care about deficits and neither does anyone else. It's just another thing that Rethuglican MAGATs pretend to care about when a Democrat is the president. When it's a Rethuglican president, they don't care about deficits one little bit.

R7 is spot; none of these people gave a shit about this when they were handing out tax cuts to the rich.

That said, people are living longer & while I don't necessarily think it's unreasonable to raise it a couple of years, the readiness for retirement for a white collar employee (largely sitting on your ass for years) versus blue collar works (physical work) is much different. But hey, those blue collar Americans support MAGA, so I guess they're okay with this!

[quote]That said, people are living longer

Since 2015, the United States has seen a historic decline in life expectancy, in large part driven by the opioid epidemic and then the COVID-19 pandemic. The last two years marked the biggest drop in a century.

People are living much longer, so raising the age for FULL benefits to 70 could make sense.

The first thing to do, though, is to eliminate the cap on SS taxes. Let's see how far that gets us.

I don't understand why people have to be punished for living longer.

What's the point of all these medical advancements if we'd be better off dying at 75 so we don't have to spend an extra 10 to 15 years with horrible health and either working or becoming increasingly destitute.

It's not a punishment, hun. That's a derogatory, value-laden term that unmasks you as a troll.

The other side of this nobody seems to be discussing is that many people are unable to work to age 70. Either because of age discrimination or because it becomes more difficult for them.

^ there are help wanted signs everywhere and unemployment is at a historic low

if people are physically or mentally unable to work, they can qualify for SSDI

R124, SSDI cuts off at 65. I’m trying to imagine the work available for my 79 year old mom who can’t remember what she had for lunch or who is in her house.

R106 [quote]So if the cap is raised, does that also mean wealthy could collect more when they retire? If so, it's basically a wash.

That's not how Social Security works. Basically, the more you earn, the less you get back.

Social Security benefits (or PIA; Primary Insurance Amount) are based on percentage returns (with a couple of bend points) of your inflation adjusted average monthly income as follows:

90% of the first $1,115 of your average indexed monthly earnings + 32% of any average indexed monthly earnings between $1,115 and through $6,721 + 15% of any average indexed monthly earnings over $6,721

So the more you put in, the "less" you get back.

I can't help but wonder how many of the people on this thread discussing Social Security, have an SSA.gov account or have reviewed their annual SSA benefits letters?

In simple terms yes, if cap is raised those who contribute more can expect increase in benefits down the line. However nothing is written in stone, and Congress could fuck with that logic four thousand ways from Sunday.

Cap could be raised to say $500k, but only earnings up to $250k are counted towards benefits.

Or there could be more of what happens already; lower amounts contributed are weighted more heavily than higher.

R124 So I'm supposed to go from a $140K salary to being a Walmart greeter for the last working years of my life.

Humble brag^.

[quote] ^ there are help wanted signs everywhere and unemployment is at a historic low

First we don't know that that will be some permanent situation, whereas changing the retirement age is a permanent "fix." In other words, there may not be low unemployment when you retire.

But also, I still think a lot of employers, even with help wanted signs, etc, still would much prefer to hire younger workers. Partly because of the weird and silly way we do health care financing in this country, linking it idiotically to employment, but also because they're just more likely to have the skills that current employers are looking for, more flexibility and eagerness, they're just quicker and more desirable as employees. There are actually good societal reasons to get older people out of the workforce and into retirement.

"So I'm supposed to go from a $140K salary to being a Walmart greeter for the last working years of my life."

Actually many retirees welcomed those Walmart greeter gigs. Good number weren't that bothered by the compensation, they just wanted to get out of the house and interact with people.

[quote]Actually many retirees welcomed those Walmart greeter gigs. Good number weren't that bothered by the compensation, they just wanted to get out of the house and interact with people.

Um-hmm. Next I expect you will tell us that many Walmart greeters and 90-something-year-old Wendy's tray collectors/table wipers are actually the millionaires next door. They just fucking love to work!

Why don't they ditch social security, and enslave us? We can live on master's generosity until we drop dead of exhaustion.

Totally predictable. Republicans only care about the National Debt when there is a Democrat in the White House.

They were fine when The Orange Menace gave a big fat tax break to the rich and his policies ADDED to that debt.

[quote]I can't help but wonder how many of the people on this thread discussing Social Security, have an SSA.gov account or have reviewed their annual SSA benefits letters?

Or understand how Social Security actually works.

The SSA benefits letter estimates how much you will receive when you retire if you continue to contribute at the same rate at each of the milestone dates. You will get considerably less if you stop paying in to SSDI beforehand.

I find it hard to believe that even conservative voters would support this.

You failed to tell the whole story R125. If one still meets the eligibility requirements for Social Security, the payment amount under SSDI becomes the Social Security payment amount at age 65.

I have two ways to reduce the deficit:

1. Have Trump and all of his dirtball relatives and associates who grifted and outright stole billions of dollars from the US Treasury while he was in office return the money under penalty of death.

2. Make Republican member of Congress work the current session without pay or benefits. Won't save a whole lot of money but it's the "optics" of it.

I’ll never again take any politician seriously who says we can’t afford something after the billions they’ve sent to Ukraine.

We can afford anything. If they cut Social Security, it’s because they don’t want to pay for it.

Republicans have been trying to eliminate Social Security and Medicare since both were enacted. They are only in favor of socialism for corporations, not for individuals who have spent most of the lives paying into it.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism. That’s propaganda to call them that. People who lie and say they are examples of socialism do so in order to falsely say, see, we already have socialism and people like it.

Look at all these old cunts whinging for themselves here yet lecturing everyone else on student loans and financial responsibility

Anyone who favors this "extended working-age" crap is someone who works in an air-conditioned office; count on it.

Oh, sure; they might also gripe about their cubicle, boss, co-workers, emails, phone calls, and paperwork.

But the fact is: They sit. Their main physical effort is sitting. Their main physical danger is sitting.

Imposing a 70-year full-benefits age is simply asking them to sit more.

HOWEVER, millions of Americans do not have such sedentary work in comfortable conditions.

They walk, stand, lift, carry, dig, fix, operate, clean, maintain, grow, assemble, sustain, deliver, build. They care for the physical needs of others, from homes to hospitals to hospice. They produce our food, clothing, shelter, transportation. They also teach.

These Americans ought not be asked to work to the age which the Bible says marks "the days of our years."

You can’t have a legitimate discussion about raising the retirement age with anyone who talks about what age 70 is like in 2023 or what jobs are like in 2023, instead of considering what life may be like decades from now when such a change would take effect. It’s a straw man to point to the 2023 condition of the elderly or what conditions people currently work under.

I'm honestly not sure your proposed discussion topics would significantly change the outcome, R145.

they need to lower the retirement age. Republicans are fucking evil.

R145 would prefer to have NO discussion.

If my post of r144 is irrelevant, r145, pray tell what you suggest our politicians consider in order to make decisions NOW about the FUTURE. A crystal ball?

I have to work until I’m 70? I’m only 53 and already I am being aged out of my field by Gen Z kids, how am I going to hold on til I’m 70? No seriously, who wants a 70 year old on their payroll?

companies just fired a bunch of people in their 50s, and of course 60s. This is way you lower the age you can collect pension. Also, increase pension.

Social Security does not add one cent to the deficit. And this fund created by taxes specially for this purpose has been routinely raided to pay for other things.

R149: In the unlikely event that Congress increases SS age to 70, it would go from 67 to 68 for those age 35. Next year the age would go from 68 to 69 for those age 35. And so on.

Also, one can currently start SS early at age 62 if they're willing to receive a reduced benefit.

Raising it to 70 seems disconnected from reality. Way too many young men are not even working now, so won’t get a benefit if they even make it to 70.

Raising the age doesn’t address the shortfalls projected starting in 2034, unless it were applied yo people now in their fifties. We’re going yo pay a hefty price for all these years of polarized politics.

R149 I dunno! Maybe try telling people your age TO STOP VOTING REPUBLICAN.

Right now your age group is the largest one VOTING REPUBLICAN.

Datalounge centerfold Macron in France came to the same conclusion about their retirement age

No, r156, France is trying to raise retirement from 62 to 65. Republicans are trying to raise from 67 to 70. French life expectancy is also 6 years longer than the US.

R157, it would be better for the people of France long-term if their system did break because they didn’t raise the retirement age. It will teach them a valuable lesson.

[quote] But the GOP says it is to pay down the deficit.

You mean the deficit THEY caused by cutting taxes on their real constituents, the ultra-rich?

Forgot to add, Matt-fatso, that it’s typical of them to pamper the ultra rich and then punish the poor for that.

How many times does it have to be said? Social Security doesn't add even a single dime to the deficit, so cutting it does nothing to make the deficit smaller.

Jesus Christ, this isn't rocket science.

Why don't they just tax the wealthy? These political types are ridiculous. It shows who they are working for, corrupts bastards.

Personally, 70(+) doesn't make sense for me just because there's so few careers that will accept 70+ year olds continuing to work there, and we shouldn't demand people (regardless of their aptitude or lack of it, for retirement savings) to lower down to something completely different and likely much lower paid, for their final years just to qualify for max social security.

If we get into a future with widely accessible and effective longevity technologies, turning 70 into 50-60, that's when I'm open to the discussion. Until then, its just a cynical ploy.

This is all besides the point that its just another thing that encourages a societal depression. Once there was more than the glimmer of a dream that anyone could retire before 60 or even 50, with an embrace of futurism and automation. Jetsons being an exaggerated cartoon version of this, but still reflective of the hopes many had of decades+ in their future. Instead, its slash and burn, underfund, and push workers (even in physically intensive fields) to strain their lives towards 70+ (and possibly part-time work after that) just to feel anywhere secure. This is just one of the things that disinvests a populace from national unity, and that has all sorts of toxic splinter effects. When people don't feel their authorities are for them, they eventually do things about that.

People are living older but it's not because they are healthier. If anything people are getting sicker and aging faster due to bad choice lifestyles such as bad nutrition/processed foods/diabetic-pre-diabetic, lack of physical activity, bad sleeping habits, environmental toxins. So we are basically being kept alive longer artificially and in poor health.

R163 Is correct that few employers are willing to keep people on the payroll until age 70 and longer. It's all most older workers can do today to make it to 62/65/67 before they are "laid-off" due to a variety of reasons. How is the workforce going to accommodate people working 3-5 years longer?

to reduce unemployment, ones LOWERS the retirement age. Let the young and the middle aged work.

[quote]Is correct that few employers are willing to keep people on the payroll until age 70 and longer.

That’s an issue that must be dealt with regardless of whether or not the Social Security age is appropriately set to be 70. If the government does its job then there’s no issue.

The same people demanding we work until 70 are the same people running businesses that won't hire you after age 50

It looks like senators are at least doing the right thing by trying to convince people not to make the mistake of taking Social Security early, but instead wait as long as possible. That could help to get people to choose to wait until 70.

[quote] My Dad always tells me that the SSA would be one of the richest funds ever if politicians didn't take from it to fund other political endeavours.

That's a myth. Politicians can't take from the SS fund.

[quote] How many times does it have to be said? Social Security doesn't add even a single dime to the deficit, so cutting it does nothing to make the deficit smaller.

EXACTLY!!

The GOP has lumped SS with the deficit to scare us all into trying to reduce it.

If nothing changes, the amount that each person gets reduced to 75% of what they get now (starting in 2033), but it doesn't take from borrowed money.

[quote] Why don't they just tax the wealthy?

HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT??! The wealthy are the job creators so should pay no taxes!!

[quote] But the GOP says it is to pay down the deficit.

The GOP is lying.

Imagine that.

Raising the salary level taxed to $250k, will keep SS fine for another 50 years. By then, we'll get over the baby boomer hump

R173 That has been suggested at least 20 years ago but Republicans always veto the bill.

R1734, yes because the GOP only protects the wealthy.

The country will have to experience some retirement pain before they pressure the GOP to back down

The GQP repeatedly lower taxes on the wealthy every time they have the opportunity in order to reward their wealthy donors. They realize that it blows up the deficit, but they don’t care because they will use those huge deficits as a weapon to beat up the Democrats the next time the Dems are in charge and want to do anything. They only become deficit hawks when there is a Democrat in the WH. When there is a Rethug, not so much.

R168 Screw that. I don't want "paper statements" and my break even point is 81 years old. Only after then will it be more beneficial to have waited until 70 to start SS.

I won't mind missing out on a few extra hundred dollars a month in my 80s.

r171 remember that when you buy your lotto tickets and zima

Bernie Sanders on Social Security:

Also, you have to remove the cap and make wealthy people pay into Social Security.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Social Security has NOTHING to do with the debt. Linking the two is a lie

Screw the Olds. They don't want to help anybody else out. Let them suffer.