Both parties mull raising retirement age, House leaders get frank about Social Security cost

washington times ^ | 7/13/10 | By Patrice Hill

[Nachum]

In a rare departure from this year's intense political posturing over the soaring budget deficit, House leaders of both parties recently signaled that they are prepared to tackle a leading long-term liability — Social Security — by raising the retirement age.

Politicians often talk in generalities about cutting the deficit, but discussing specifics about how Congress may curb the growth of the biggest and most popular programs such as Social Security and defense is controversial and usually taboo in an election year.

[Atlas Sneezed]

1. Who says social security retirement will remain at 70?

---

It shouldn’t. If SS is to be sustained (not my first choice) the retirement age should be floated annually to maintain year to year solvency.

[NTHockey]

How about they give up their yearly increases they get without voting for it?

$172,000 X 535 X 3% = $2,760,600/year plus earmarks

[Parmy]

The same place where they get all the other money. They need to fess' up and admit their thievery. They need to say to the people that we have been stealing from you for all of these years. They need to say that the SS system never was in trouble, except for the fact they took the money because it was easy to get.

I could go on and on.

[Deagle]

Let me give you a hypothetical life discussion on retirement (or maybe just life in the real world).

Eight years ago, He was a millionaire via stock prices and assets. Then things changed...

He had 17,000 shares of stock at 140.00 a share (normal for a qualified and important worker) - and as things tend to happen, they fell all the way to 2.00 a share. Well, you can imagine the disappointment - to say the least. Now, the big money makers took their share, but by the time he knew about the collapse, it was too late (Hey, only those with insider information can make the right decisions).

These shares were all in 401K plans and were to insure his future retirement. Well, things did not work out so well. He also had 401K’s in several other things which also did not pan out during the collapse.

Sooo... He went from a millionaire to a pauper overnight. Since he was 55 at the time, and newly laid off due to the collapse of the telecommunications industry, He was in real trouble. He had both experience and know how - but that did not seem to work when you are over 55. I’m guessing that the health care costs rise over that age...

Well, he had to retire early (so to speak) and cash in some of his 401K’s just to get by. Hiring practices for this industry did not improve (except for the imported labor from China and India). The end result is that he went from a bright future to a very dim one having to expend his savings just to get by. By the time he was 62, he had to apply for early Social Security benefits to survive. So, this well meaning individual - with planning, ended up barely getting by because of the markets.

Now of course if I had been working for the Government, I would still be in great shape - living high on the hog and taking money from the workers so that I could live the high life!

Of course, the age of Social Security should be raised! But, before you do that, raise the retirement age and amounts afforded to government workers! You can NOT continue to place the burden of retirement on the young - either Social Security or especially those that are allowed to retire at such a young age!

STOP the funds transfer!