Should the U.S. Raise the Age For Social Security Recipients?

Capitol Confidential ^ | 11/15/2010 | Tom Gantert

[MichCapCon]

When Social Security payments for retirees started in 1935, payments began at age 65. However, back in 1935 the life expectancy was an average of 61.7 years for men and women.

The U.S. Deficit Commission recommended raising the age to receive full benefits to age 68 by 2050 and age 69 by 2075 as a way to cut the deficit.

Currently the full retirement age is 67 for those born in 1960 and later.

Ray Holman, legislative liaison at Michigan's UAW Local 6000, acknowledged that people are living longer, but was against raising the age to receive full benefits.

"People who do rely on those benefits are the working poor and the middle class," Holman said.

He said a better to reduce the deficit was to tax people in higher income brackets...

[winodog]

We have effectively destroyed the family unit and outsourced care to profit centers.

Dam them and their social engineering. Our Founding Fathers gave us a reset button but when we sold our souls to the company store, they took our testicles too.

[ZULU]

I said EMPLOYEES.Businesses need tax breaks.

We should institute a tax break for businesses which relocate manufacturing facilities into the U.S.

We don’t need ANY more mandates or taxes on businesses in the U.S.

[ZULU]

Can’t argue with ANY of that.

Its all correct.

The only way it will happen is to derail the gravey trail by voting out of office carrer politicians. On OUR side, Hatch and Grassley would be a good start, along with Snowe and Collins and Graham.

Speaking of that little weasel Graham, I haven’t heard much from him lately. Guess he is re-assessing his political views in light of the recent election.

[Vermont Lt]

What do you think the reaction would be to a rise in the minimum retirement age from the mil? To say, 45?

I completely appreciate the points you make, and you really are not getting a big argument from me. I am just curious to a reaction.

I think the point we ALL have to make is that we ALL have to sacrifice financially to make this work. Rich, poor, old, young, private employment, public employment.

If we start from that point and make the pain comparable for everyone (financially) it is the only way we will make this work.

[roving]

I don’t get to sit in an office all day. My job is physical labor. Age 65-70 would make my job difficult and more dangerous.

[sportutegrl]

Didn’t they already raise the age? Apparently my retirement age is 67, not 65, so I already took a hit. Cuts need to go to people who have never paid in or who have paid in for only a few years. Save SS for people who have paid in for 25 or more years, full time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Doesn't matter.

If you contributed to social security, you should not be allowed to collect from it.

That money is for black people, and black people alone.

You aren't black, are you?

</sarcasm>

[GOPJ]

Liberals want to pin this on us... we just need to STOP Obama and dems from QE 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

[heylady]

“My question is how many people can do their current job at 60 years of age, let alone 68”

I couldn’t. I worked at my job for 43 years as a Medical Technologist. At 61 years old I found I could no longer do the job. My job required extensive microscope work and after over 40 years of looking into a scope my eyes were shot. I quit, moved in with my daughter and started collecting SS at 62.

[GailA]

Naw, just lying low...as soon as amnesty comes up, he’ll come crawling out of his hole.

[ZULU]

I just can’t understand how a creep like that gets re-elected in a State like South Carolina. Here in New Jersey, well, he would fit right in with the rest of the pack.

[gogogodzilla]

Well, right now the starting point that people can collect retirement from the military is after 20 years of service... which concidently is generally the limit of how long the military will let enlisted member stay.

If you want to up the retirement age from the military, all we’d need to do is allow for people to stay in past 20 years.

As for me, I’ve reached a rank where I’m currently allowed to serve 24 years. And that’s how long I’m planning on staying in the military.

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

No! The aid for dependent children, disability payments, etc. are what should be eliminated.

Sorry, but I disagree with regards to the disability payments.

I was diagnosed with a primary form of Multiple Sclerosis while I was only in my 20's but continued to work full time for another 10 years until I was simply no longer able to continue, at which time I applied for and was granted SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). For the record and as I understand it, the amount I was awarded is soley based on my work record.

And yes; I'm aware that the amount of money SS will pay out to me over the course of my lifetime will in fact, exceed the actual amount which I myself contributed. However. I do continue to work minimal hours, health permitting, thus in a small way, I also continue to contribute to society at large.

To take away the allotment I receive from Social Security would immediately place me into the poverty catagory at the young age of 38, and at which time, I would actually have no other choice but to turn to welfare programs simply in order to *survive*.

Currently though, the SSDI I receive is soley based on my work record and is not, to the best of my knowledge, a 'welfare program'.

(if it turns out I am incorrect in my understanding re: SSDI/welfare program, I certainly would appreciate clarification.)