Posted on 11/15/2010 6:18:44 AM PST by MichCapCon
No. The government should put back what it stole from the fund, and keep it’s grubby big hands off of Social Security. Or, give us a full re-fund with intererst.
Only if I get the option to OPT OUT, I want the freedom to retire when I want to retire. Leave me and my money alone and I will leave you alone.
Yes, the age(s) to collect various levels of (non-disability) Social Security should rise. I propose doing it gradually: pass a law raising the age to receive each level of benefit by one month for each year the future recipient is currently under the age of 61. (And interpret this so, for instance it’s 65 months for folks born five years after the law is enacted.)
In the long run, this come close to phasing the program out entirely, while keeping faith with those told by the government that they would receive benefits toward their retirement.
If this isn’t enough, add the gradual increase to a one-off increase of somewhere between one and two years.
Ummm, YES?
IIRC, most people didn’t live to the “retirment age” of Social Security when it was first started. Maybe we should up the age to same level today?
Don’t like that idea, ‘cause I’m gettin’ old, but I expect to drop dead working, anyway.
Raise the age. I expect that I will never see my SS contributions and I am decades from retirement.
There will be nothing left of Social Security by 2050, so this discussion is moot (or “mute” as half the TV newsreaders say:). With about 17 million unemployed presently putting no money in, (the experts saying that this high level of umemployment will be “the new normal”) and with the baby boomers signing up by the hundreds of thousands now, it will collapse long before 2050.
And what did they spend your Social Security money on??? THEMSELVES!!!!! PRIVATE JETS! EXPENSIVE BOONDOGGLES! LAVISH OFFICES! AND GETTING RE-ELECTED!
Some of The Morons might be able to grasp this...uh... Maybe? Uh... No? They're all to stupid...?
I guess you're right.
I don’t see that as a problem at all. You already have to wait until you are 66 or 67 (depending on the year you were born). I think they should completely eliminate early retirement claims and if you do not have at least a 10 year work history you are not eligible and your payment should be based solely on YOUR work history.
I filed at 62. It’s a reduced rate but at least I’ll get something...
We (hubby and I) have no problem raising it, we’d just continue to work (didn’t really ever plan on retiring in the truest sense of the word anyway.) But this will affect younger workers as well, because there will be less jobs due to less people retiring.
Another problem I see is insurance, it’ll skyrocket because the pool will be slanted toward older folks, not younger (same problem, fewer retirements, less people on medicare, fewer young people employed makes the insurance costs higher because older people require more medical care than 20 somethings.)
And the folks at the upper range that are unemployed, or underemployed and expecting to go on SS at 65 or whatever, could have this problem. They have no savings. I can’t tell you how many people I know who have absolutely no retirement savings. Don’t know what they were thinking, maybe the expected SS to last forever, so they didn’t save. But with that situation, you’ll have more people on welfare and Medicaid because they’ll have no income, and no savings...so they’ll qualify for them so you’re just shifting the entitlement from one program to another.
I think the age does need to be raised, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!!!
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
No problem raising it for those who are 20 or so years out, leave the folks in it alone and let those who wish cash out at any age and be done with it... when you cash out, no more contributions.
No. The U.S. should END Socialist Security altogether.
66-67 is old enough. We don’t need to raise the age limit. If the Congress had not raided the Social Security fund for 50 years to pay for other things it would be completely solvent. Now its just an IOU.
Bring the troops home from 2 useless wars, stop funding the defunct UN and tell the world we cannot afford foreign aid anymore and Social Security will be more than paid for.
Or, better yet, stop spending all the money coming in from Socialist Security on non-Socialist Security programs.
AT my company, people who retire prior to age 62 can effectively do the same thing, through an option called "Social Security Leveling". They get a larger pensions prior to age 62 and then at age 62 it drops by the amount of your expected SS payment at age 62. Of course, my company hasn't offered defined benefit pensions to new employees for years, just 401k. I may be in the luckiest of luckiest groups: I've had a 401k for 26 years, a pretty good defined benefits plan and can collect SS at age 66. Of course, I violently oppose "means testing" of SS, since I feel that I made tangible sacrifices to be in the position I am with respect to pension and 401k.
PUT CONGRESS and all government both state, local and fed on the same system...and see how much the fund increases. And return the income taxes paid on SS back to the SS fund instead of the ‘general’ fund. LOCK the box, NO more dipping into it NO more IOU’s. Toss out the illegals, stop the abortions...you will have a work force that pays into SS then.
***Social Security was intended to keep retiring folks from poverty...***
It was a mandatory program - imposed by the Federal socialists, on workers and employers; with the expectation that retirees would not live beyond age 65 to make withdrawals (of their own money).
The ‘trust fund’ was actuarially solvent for many years and raided for General Revenue shortfalls.
Blame our exceptional US medical care for extending lives and keeping the elderly healthy.
Obamacare will reduce the SS numbers in a few years. Problem solved.
Yes ‘means testing’ would be not only a punishment to those who have saved but a disincentive to those still working.
Of course if the cutoff were ridiculously high, like the top 5%, it would not be. But there would always be pressure to lower it until it became counter-productive.
Better just to keep the politicians’ hands away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.