Do you favor raising the age for receiving Social Security?

[CTyankee]

This continues to be suggested as a major way to keep SS solvent.

If you do, at what age would you favor?

[The Straight Story]

1. No, lower it

Help people retire earlier and create more jobs :)

[G_j]

4. agreed nt

[Better Believe It]

16. Bingo! Social Security Is Solvent. But they think they can now cut benefits with Democratic help

Some "bi-partisan" Democrats want to work with Republicans to cut so-called "entitlements" such as Social Security!

That's on the agenda.

It's coming this fall.

Hold on!

All we have to do is increse the CAP.

But, the bi-partisans want to increase the retirement age and reduce benefits by changing the formula for cost of living increases.

They think they can pass it. The so-called "private accounts" is really dead because of the Wall Street crash so they will propose the above measure to "curb entitlements".

[avaistheone1]

167. Thank you for cutting the b.s. - Social Security is solvent.

There is no need to up the retirement age.

[MajorChode]

22. SS isn't a retirement plan

And I don't know anyone who can live very well on what SS pays, so I doubt that it would encourage too many people to retire.

[The Straight Story]

27. Even if they did not retire

They would be pumping that money into the economy.

[Better Believe It]

36. Well let's increase the benefits so that it's a meaningful retirement plan!

They have much better government run retirement plans in Europe.

[MercutioATC]

49. That'd break the system in a heartbeat.

As said above, SS is not a retirement plan...it's a safety net.

If one wants to retire someday, one had better be putting money away.

[Better Believe It]

80. Not at all. Just take the limits off the CAP

Shall we put away our money in 401K's?

Millions have been there and done that scam.

So what money are you talking about?

I guess if you have a living income six figure job and haven't been laid off you might be able to save some money .... under the mattress, 401K, almost non-interest bearing CD's or bank savings account, how about derivatives!!!???

[MercutioATC]

103. That won't come even close to doing what you propose...and 401k's are not a scam.

They're an investment vehicle.

If one doesn't understand investing, one shouldn't have money in equities.

[Better Believe It]

105. So how's your 401K investment vehicle doing? May we compare it to a Yugo?

:)

The 401K's were a poor substitute and scam by employers who either wanted to get rid of defined benefit pension programs or just didn't want a defined benefit program to begin with.


People, including my wife, who have 401K's have been hammered in this crash.

[MercutioATC]

110. I'm up about 8% since January 2007.

...which is when I took the years of 20%-30% gains I was getting and gave them up for the security of government treasuries (still in the 401k).

I got divorced 11 years ago and zeroed out my 401k to buy my wife out of my retirement plan. I'm back to a little over $250k.

401k's can be great, but if you get greedy or don't pay attention you can lose a lot of money.


(To be clear, my 401k's performance had nothing to do with lucky timing. I saw the crash coming and got out of equities. Anybody could have done the same and not lost a penny.)

[CTyankee]

112. My mother had a similar philosophy. She didn't get greedy and she paid attention.

She was a conservative investor and the bonds I have inherited from her are paying very nicely into my "retirement" living. I thank her every day for her wonderful philosophy (I can hear her say "everybody needs electricity) or whatever utility she was boosting. She knew where basic needs lay. She was a young woman in the Depression and learned things the hard way...

[MercutioATC]

129. Your mother sounds like a wise woman.

One doesn't always have to be overly-conservative, but being sensible usually pays off well.

[Better Believe It]

136. I'm happy that you're so smart and sorry that the rest of us are so stupid.

"I saw the crash coming and got out of equities. Anybody could have done the same and not lost a penny."

So my wife and millions of others who had 401K's are stupid because we didn't see the crash coming?

And do you know anything at all about how 401K's actually operate or is spreading b.s. your real area of expertise?

People can't just withdraw all or even most of her money out of the 401K at anytime without severe penalties.

Right .... working people just "got greedy" by putting money in 401K plans.

Gee .... we must be as bad as the Wall Street sharks and banksters who pushed 401K's.

Perhaps you should start a lead post directed to current holders of 401K plans and explain to them how smart you are and how stupid they are for not cashing out their 401K's without quiting their jobs.

[MercutioATC]

137. Not stupid, willfully ignorant.

....and I mean that in the true sense of the word..."lacking in knowledge".

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: I'm not talking about the small minority that don't have a non-equity investment option available in their 401k...I'm talking about the overwhelming majority who do.

Whether it be politics or the economy or current events or investing, most people willfully choose to have their information prechewed, predigested, and regurgitated into their mouths. They don't want to do the work required, but they want to reap the benefits.

As that translates to personal finances and investing, the unsustainable model of the last 10-15 years facilitated that thinking. Money was cheap, anybody could get a loan...you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a profitable investment. It didn't really matter what the talking heads advised because it was almost impossible to lose money. People saw 20% and 30% growth in their portfolios and thought it would go on forever.

The problem is that it was based, to a large degree, on an unsustainable model.

For years, the average American has been spending OVER 100% of their income each year. People bought widgets with borrowed money and the companies that made widgets did well. That allowed the companies that made widgets to hire more people...who now had income. That, in turn, allowed a lot of people to buy houses...driving up the value of housing. Lenders were willing to give money to almost anybody, because the skyrocketing value of housing protected the collateral on the loans. The consumers then had more equity to borrow against and bought even more widgets with that borrowed money...which perpetuated the cycle.

It was an unsustainable model from the beginning.

...and the "willfully ignorant" response to the inevitable outcome has been "The bankers screwed us."

All one had to do is use a little common sense to absolutely know that this outcome was inevitable and protect themselves.


That said, I'll deal with your post piece by piece:

1) Your wife and millions of others weren't stupid, they were willfully ignorant (unless they were part of that small minority that didn't have a non-equity option as part of their plan).

2) Yes, I know something about 401k's.

3) With rare exceptions, people don't have to withdraw their funds from a 401k and incur penalties to avoid equity investments...there are non-equity options available in most plans.

4) People didn't get greedy by investing in 401k's. The option to invest in a 401k is a good thing. However, their greed was the reason for holding equity positions. Actually, I believe that most people were too willfully ignorant to really appreciate the risk, but greed drove the choice.

5) "Wall Street sharks" push 401k's for a completely different reason...because the equity funds in 401k's involve trading stocks and "Wall Street sharks" make money when institutions trade stocks. There's nothing inherently sinister in this, however. They make money whether you make money or lose money on the trade. They're just pushing the trading.

6) I'm no smarter than everybody else, I just take responsibility for my investments and I stay aware. Credit default swaps and sub prime loans and "predatory lending" and bogus ratings and lack of regulation all hastened this crash...but they didn't cause it. People spending money they didn't have caused this. The data showing that people, for years, have been spending more than they make is available for anybody who takes the time to look. A 12-year-old could have foreseen this crash. And, again, I'm not talking about anybody cashing in their 401k's.


My points are these:

1) Most people today choose to be ignorant...and that choice exposes them to risk.

2) This crash has been a long time coming and anybody who chose to remain ignorant really has nobody to blame but themselves.

3) 401k's are a great financial device..but, like all investments, they have to be monitored.

[Better Believe It]

158. Another apologist for the Wall Street sharks and banksters who caused this economic collapse

You write as if you're their public spokesman or woman!

Blame the people!

We caused the crash.

It's all our fault for being so greedy!

I've read enough of your lame excuses in defense of the Wall Street crooks and corporate tycoons who created this crisis.

If I wanted to read such crap I'd visit a Wall Street discussion board.

I'm surprised to see such bull shit and nonsense posted on DU.

This is a progressive website. No corporate or Wall Street funding is accepted here.

[avaistheone1]

166. Bravo. I am so sick ot the revisionist history around here.

It was Wall Street's greed that tanked the system. They knew that the subprime mortgages would be a big money maker for them. They ignored all the risks. Wall Street created tranches mingling good mortgage paper with bad and sold them for huge profits. They bet on derivatives that paid them big money if Americans went upside down on their mortgages. Wall Street knew exactly what it was doing and they knew Washington would bail them out if Wall Street failed.

Disgusting.

[BzaDem]

192. As usual, people like you who can't criticize substance will just go off with lame personal attacks.

The poster you replied to is exactly right. Almost everyone has the option of investing in zero-risk Treasuries (or other non-equity funds) in their 401k. Investing part or all of a 401k into the stock market is a choice. You can try to change the subject and/or attack arguments the poster wasn't actually making all you want. You can certainly pretend the poster said that people caused the crash, or that the poster is defending Wall Street.

But to any knowledgable observer, resorting to changing the subject and attacking strawmen just shows that you really have no response to what the poster actually said, because the poster was 100% correct.

[foo_bar]

201. whoa, did you really predict this?

4) People didn't get greedy by investing in 401k's. The option to invest in a 401k is a good thing. However, their greed was the reason for holding equity positions. Actually, I believe that most people were too willfully ignorant to really appreciate the risk, but greed drove the choice. <...>

The data showing that people, for years, have been spending more than they make is available for anybody who takes the time to look. A 12-year-old could have foreseen this crash. And, again, I'm not talking about anybody cashing in their 401k's.

I'm already 70% in an international stock fund.

10% in a fund that tracks the S&P 500.

20% in a small-cap stock fund.

I don't know if I completely buy into the "sky is falling" hype, but this strategy is working so far...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2856010#2856038 (2004)

MercutioATC

Not a recommendation, just a report...

My 401k is 60% in a fund that tracks the Morgan Stanley Capital International EAFE Index (international stocks) and 40% in a fund that tracks the DJW 4500 Index (U.S. small-cap stocks). Both indices are up about 25% over the last 12 months.

It's volatile, but I have 10 years until I retire and I need to maximize gains. It seems to be working for the time being.

http://www.avianflutalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6089&PN=1 (2006)

[Hannah Bell]

206. heh. so when *did* he cash out into those safe investments?

i guess it's not *greed* if you just want to "maximize gains". *greed* must be something else. something only *other people* do.

[MercutioATC]

220. It's not "greed" when the market is steaming along without a cloud in the sky.

...but when the storm clouds on the horizon turn really black, the only reasons not to head for port are greed and/or ignorance.

[Hannah Bell]

222. pot kettle. baloney, you just timed the fraudulent bubble market for, as you said,

what you figured to be "maximum gain" - & now you're patting yourself on the back & calling other people names.

[MercutioATC]

227. Of COURSE I "timed" it. That's one of the fundamentals of investing.

The issue is that staying informed allowed me to time it correctly (or nearly so). I'm hardly "patting myself on the back"...I'm clearly stating that it didn't take any luck or skill to do what I did, one just had to pay attention.

...and I have not called anybody names.

[Hannah Bell]

253. it's only greed if you lose, is that it?

[MercutioATC]

261. No, but if you lost, it was because of ignorance or greed.

Anybody who stayed informed and didn't get greedy could have easily avoided losing money.

There's nothing wrong with a little "greed", but you can hardly blame others if it leads you to loss.

[Hannah Bell]

263. BS.

[MercutioATC]

264. Which part is "BS"?

The idea that a little "greed" can be good or the statement that anybody who stayed informed and prudent could have avoided losing money?

[Hannah Bell]

266. your claim that everyone who lost was either greedy or ignorant, as

well as your implicity claim that getting out before the crash shows one was neither greedy nor ignorant.

[MercutioATC]

267. Ok, so if one was informed and prudent, how could they have possible lost money?

As I explained above, there were very clear signs that a crash was coming. I'm no economist and even I could see them.

...but your claim that the logic works in reverse doesn't hold water. I've never claimed that getting out in time is proof that one was neither greedy nor ignorant.

Show me ONE person that had a personal stake in this that was 1) well informed and 2) not trying to squeeze every dime out of the last few years' bear run. Hell, I was a little "greedy" and even I got out well before the crash.

I'm not omniscient. I'm not especially lucky. I don't have any insider sources or psychic advisers. What I am is an informed consumer of financial products. Absolutely anybody who was paying attention could have seen this coming.

[Hannah Bell]

276. there were clear signs the market was a fraud ten years ago, clear signs

the housing market was a fraud years ago too.

you kept "investing" to get your share of those phoney profits.

other folks timed it different - but only they are "greedy" or "ignorant".

your rationalizations don't hold up to scrutiny.

[MercutioATC]

215. Yep, and in January 2007, I moved everything to a fund that invests in government treasuries.

I was a little early (missed the runup from February to October), but I missed the crash, too.


"My 401k is all in treasuries (for the past year). It's not quite keeping up with inflation, but it's making a steady 3.6% or so. I planned to jump back into stocks when the DOW hit 10,000...but I'm not so sure we'll find a bottom there any more."

The RBS warning of a global credit and stock market crisis by September is beginning to look possible.


(July 01, 2008)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3548478#3548538

[blindpig]

272. Lemme tell you a story about investing, Mr Investor.

An Imaginary Conversation....
anaxarchos
(2008)

A modern fellow of genus Homo protests his innocence. "I don't work because I worked much harder before", says he. "I labored for ten years at a crap job earning $30,000 per year and that earned me the right to live in miserable conditions in which the loss of my job would have made me destitute in weeks. But, I was not content to labor as my fellows. I got a second job at $20,000 per year and I was so thrifty that I spent not a penny of it but banked it all so that at the end of my time I had $300,000, a princely sum. I invested it wisely at 10% and now I can live for the rest of my life, if modestly, off the proceeds of only my own sweat, my own thriftiness, and my own discipline. And, if there was any luck to it - in my not facing misfortune or ill health or any other calamity - that was the product of my own luck too. I owe nothing to anyone. What I have is due to myself alone, and those who have much more than I, it seems to me that they must have arrived at it the same as I, perhaps over generations. What is this social power you speak of when it is only individual labor and individual property that stems from it? It seems to me that you merely envy that which you are too lazy to earn for yourself."

"My dear independent fellow" says we, "let us understand the simple arithmetic of your claims. If your story is as you say and we ignore all else that you report, still at the end of ten years, we see only $200,000. And, if you continue to live at this admittedly low level, nevertheless, you will have run through your entire accumulated proceeds in only 6 years and eight months. More than this, by your accounting, it would take one and a third lifetimes to create a single lifetime without labor, and this at the exceedingly low standards and exceptionally favorable circumstances that you assume. How then are we to explain those who live without labor for generations, and this at a thousand or ten thousand times times the level that you report? How many generations of 'thrift' and 'hard work' would this require? What you claim is impossible for you and beyond impossibility for those who live above you. Where is this magic of 'individual labor and individual property' that you speak of?"

"But you forget interest", protests our friend. "My money makes money, and simply by the act of having some which is not consumed in day to day living, that which I save is augmented. It is this which grants me my independence."

"We forget as much as your money 'makes'," answers we, "which is nothing at all. Set your money on the table and leave it there for as long as you like. Nothing happens to it. It remains the same. It is only by setting it in motion as capital that anything whatever is 'made' and that 'making' is the product of labor, the same as your own. Your interest comes from the command of the labor of others, just as your own was once commanded and after 6 years and eight months not a speck of 'hard work', 'thrift', 'good luck' or 'wisdom' is left. Neither is there any trace of 'independence' or 'personal property' You now live by the labor of others... by the transformation of your pitiful 'savings' into Capital, no matter how small the sum. It is your ability to command the labor of others as a social power that gives you your ability and that you have a poor man's caricature of that process changes nothing other than to lay fraudulent your claims to the right. You might as well claim innate superiority or the right of the sword as did the slave master or the god-given hierarchy of obligations of the lord or even the phases of the moon, if you like. You eat without working because you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which others work to feed you. You are the opposite of what you claim."

"You're just trying to make me feel bad.", says our friend.

"We don't give a shit how you feel", says we. "It is modest enough what you do... just as you claim. It is your willingness to ignore what is closer to your face than your nose that we tire of. "

Our friend orders another beer and pretends to watch the hockey game though he would be hard pressed to name two players on either team.

http://socialistindependent.org/anax02.htm

[truebrit71]

269. I'm up 12% since the beginning of the year...

...and lost 4 % last year overall...I went to cash in April of 2008 so I missed the lion's share of the crash...

Slowly stepping back in now...

They need constant vigilance on the employee's part to be successful and cannot really be seen as a passive retirement vehicle such as the pensions they replaced...on that we agree..but a scam? Hardly.

[Hekate]

145. "If one doesn't understand investing..." There are so many blue collar workers ...

... who have the education and background to understand investing. :eyes: When they had unions, the unions helped them get company pension plans (a trade-off -- less in hourly wages now, payroll deductions, more in pension later), and then when the companies started to go belly up it turned out their pensions were gone G O N E.

Preaching 401Ks to the vast majority of the population is like government giving parents a little public school money and telling them they can put their kid in a private school: it's a bad joke on the average person.

No one expects Social Security to be more than a safety net, but by gods the workers need that safety net. Which they paid for.

Hekate

[MercutioATC]

148. You're essentially claiming that workers are just trained monkeys.

(I know that's not what you mean to say, but you're saying it)

"Understanding investing" in its purest form is something a 12-year-old can understand. It's apparent that there are plenty of white-collar workers...and rich-ass retired people...who made poor choices, too. It's not about the "simple man" being duped by some "wealthy man's" conspiracy. ANYBODY can invest pre-tax money to their advantage...they just have to use some common sense.


It's hardly rocket science.

[Hekate]

151. Interesting. How many 12 year olds are taught this? How many high schools teach this? ...

Is it a core requirement in college? Does the average manager set aside time to train his or her administrative assistant pool in these matters? Word processing and office spreadsheets are not rocket science either, but surely no one who has never been exposed to it or systematically taught it can be called willfully ignorant.

I applaud your (rare) childhood education in finance from your mom. You have been fortunate in more ways than one.

In the back and forth of this thread, one person who responded to you got the impression that you think everybody else is stupid, so you recast your earlier judgment on the average citizen as "willful ignorance". I came along to make the case that not everyone has your advantages (and having a mother like yours is a distinct advantage in priming you to pick up vital information in this area), so you recast my populist (as I thought of it) endeavor as "essentially claiming that workers are just trained monkeys."

Who is the person who has the impression that Average Joe or Jane is willfully ignorant or a trained monkey? There have been a few discussions at DU prior to this about whether high schools should be teaching money management to students and whether it should be a required course. I come down on the side of requiring such classes along with English, math, and civics. Financial literacy, like any sort of literacy, does not just happen. It has to be taught.

Hekate

edited for typo

[MercutioATC]

226. I completely agree. Personal finance should be taught in high school

...if not earlier.

I didn't "recast" my original statement as willful ignorance, that's always been my contention....and I'm not "recasting" your claim as anything either, I'm stating that this isn't a "rich vs. working class" thing.


Oh, and you're confusing me with another poster with the whole mother thing. My mother knows absolutely nothing about investing.

[truebrit71]

270. ..with BIG focus on Credit Cards, debts and credit ratings..

..there are simply too many pitfalls for the young to fall into these days...

[MercutioATC]

271. Absolutely.

I wonder what would happen to rampant consumerism after a couple of generations of giving straight personal finance info to kids...

[LWolf]

79. Agreed. nt

[w4rma]

101. Agreed. Lower it and eliminate the payroll tax cap. (nt)

[ccinamon]

172. I agree for lowering it...

with people living longer, and companies insisting on "laying off" those at 50 or more, it is hard for us to find decent payingjobs until we are 65.

[tabatha]

2. There is a much better way.

Make the % contribution the same for everyone.

[question everything]

6. No. Eliminate it as a separate item

and incorporate the tax to our income tax - this way this, too, is progressive. Many pay more in payroll taxes than in income tax.

And distribute SS payments on as need basis. All these CEOs who have been paid multi million dollars in salary do not need SS payments when they retire.

[Hekate]

147. Please do not use means testing for receipt of Social Security or Medicaid: it becomes "welfare"...

... in every one else's mind. One reason Social Security has been such a raving success with all classes of the American people is that EVERYone gets something back.

We don't have a socialist form of government (you knew that) and we don't have a public mentality that says that EVERYone deserves to be taken care of. A lot of Americans resent putting in money for programs that they don't see a personal return on -- they resent welfare programs, and are all-too-easily persuaded that Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs are rampant in the system.

This is a perennial problem with this country, and the Repubs have been outstanding at manipulating it. The average American does not resent Social Security and Medicaid because they know they personally will eventually get some return on their taxes, and they know for a fact that they are not now and never will be Welfare Queens. If certain politicians get their way and start using means testing for these programs the resentment level will start to rise to a manipulatable level very soon after. Just look at how easy it was to convince many voters that their personal salary of $45K/year for men or $35K/year for women was going to see a "tax increase" from an Obama presidency -- not the quarter million dollars per year income that Obama was talking about. (median income -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

Hekate

[Yupster]

194. Social Security is already means tested

That happens in two ways.

1. Your social security is taxed if you make a certain amount of income and not taxed if you don't.

2. The payout formula is based upon bendpoints which are incredibly progressive. If one person put 10 times more than another person into social security over a lifetime, they don't get anywhere near 10 times the return. They get more like 2 times the return for 10 times the contribution.

[Hannah Bell]

279. 1. the taxation began with the same reagan-era scam, & is part of the same rip-off.

2. i said it's progressive in its payout.

3. the things you list are not "means-testing". you apparently don't understand the meaning of means-testing.

[Yupster]

294. If you make above a certain amount

then 85 % of your benefit is subject to income tax. If you make below that amount, your benefit is not subject to income tax. To me that's a form of means testing.

We both agree the payout formula is incredibly progressive. Whenever someone mentions that the tax is regressive, they never mention that the payout is progressive.

[Hannah Bell]

295. agreed on the progressivity issue. i don't like the tax, it's more reagan bullshit,

but it's not means testing. you get the money. you just get taxed on it like any other income.

[Hannah Bell]

207. it is. everyone who works pays the same percent on their first $102K of income.

[MercutioATC]

217. That was last year. $106,800 this year.

[Hannah Bell]

219. yes.

[kentuck]

3. Most folks under 62 might think so?

Because they think they will feel like they do now once they get 62. Let me assure you, you will not.

[Greyhound]

5. No, remove the cap, (manufactured) problem solved. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

67. if the problem is manufactured, why increase the cap?

[Greyhound]

119. To take the issue away from those that covet the SS trust. This is a bi-partisan desire to loot. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

154. no, that just caps the looting.

SS was originally set up pay-go.

SS taxes were collected from waged employees & transferred to retirees, aside from a reserve fund equal to about 1 year's payout or less. The 1937 law mandated that the reserves be invested in US securities, i.e. borrowed by the gov't in exchange for securities.

Nothing much changed until 1983 when the reserves were low, & instead of just raising SS taxes enough to bring the reserve back into balance, the Greenspan commission raised taxes enough to create 30 years of continually increasing surpluses.

The increased surpluses, borrowed into the general budget, helped grease the skids for tax cuts for the upper brackets.

The upper brackets are more likely to get higher percents of their income from non-wage sources. Stock dividends, capital gains, trust funds. SS taxes aren't taken out of this income.

So they've gotten 30 years of tax cuts on the back of working people.

Now, instead of raising their income taxes & the capital gains tax & making them pay it back (& simply rescinding Bush's tax cuts to the TOP 1% of the income distribution would pay off the ENTIRE trust fund in under 10 years), they've conned a lot of people into raising the cap on SS taxes.

So they'd never have to pay back what they took.

And by increasing SS taxes on the top 10% of wage workers, who'd never get any return from SS vaguely comparable to what they paid in, and who are already the highest-taxed sector of the polity (total percent tax burden higher than the super-rich folks like warren buffet) does two things:

1. It creates a bigger surplus for rich non-workers to "borrow".
2. It creates a powerful constituency actively opposed to SS who will lobby to reduce your payout or to destroy SS altogether.

And in fact, this is exactly why this "solution" to a non-existent "problem" is being pushed.

You "take the issue away" by publicizing the fact that THERE'S NO ISSUE, not by agreeing to the "solutions" of the freaking liars.

[sarcasmo]

7. No, my wife is Disabled and having a hard time getting it and she has fully paid into the system.

[CTyankee]

14. Disability is a whole other problem and needs to be addressed.

I am talking about non-disabled people, since we are living longer now than back in the 30s when SS was created.

[Bluenorthwest]

160. But by not talking about disabled people

you are leaving 1/3 of Social Security recipients out of the loop. That is a big chunk of folks.

[Hannah Bell]

280. people over 65 live 5 years longer (on average) than they did in the 30s, & the retirement

age has already been raised 2 years. the average disguises the fact that the wealthier groups get the biggest share of the increased life expectancy, & that the middle & lower earners live more of their increase in disability.

raising the retirement age = condemning more of them to work til they drop.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Uncap FICA.

Solved.

[Hannah Bell]

191. fictitious problem: "solved;" real problem: created.

[comtec]

225. what "real problems" are created>?

it's not right that people who make over 100k are not paying their fare share.
fica is a BRUTAL tax for those of us who make well under 70k.
Why should it be LESS of a burden for the crazy rich? those asshole who make well over 1 MILLION dollars a year for banging their secretaries and otherwise sitting around LOOKING important but do dick!?

IF I ever get to the 105k income bracket, you can be sure i will be HAPPY to pay MY FULL SHARE of taxes!

it's insane that bill gates pays as much for his fica, as does an upper manager making 102k. and it's unconscionable imho.

Bill Gates is probably a bad example because he does very good things with his money in general, but he is still a working man, pulling a salary, and it is disgusting that he's not paying his fair share.

making the rich pay their share is NOT UNFAIR, IT'S RIGHT!

They are doing better than all of us lower 95% COMBINED!

HOW can anyone on this board still believe the fairy tale that "you too will become rich if you work hard enough!"

seriously, we're all democrats, and liberal to one extent or another.

I really don't understand how you can vote dem, and think the rich are entitled to NOT pay their fair share?

[Hannah Bell]

231. "The rich" are not, for the most part, going to be touched if you raise the cap,

because the rich don't get most of their income in wages. and if they do get wages, they can arrange to get paid other ways.

SS only covers wage income. Raising the cap will increase taxes on those who already pay more, as a percentage of their total incomes, in combined income & SS taxes than any other segment of society - including "the rich".

Those people will get *nothing* for their increased tax burden. They already pay a large share of SS taxes; raising the cap will mean they'll be paying the majority of them, i.e. it turns the system into welfare, & it creates an interest group to lobby for reduction of benefits, dismantlement, individual accounts, more controls & restrictions on beneficiaries, more welfare-like surveillance of beneficiaries - lots of possibilities.

Meanwhile, the truly rich, who make most of their income in dividends, capital gains, & profits, continue to get the same low INCOME TAX rates they've been getting - partly paid for by the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in SS money they effectively stole - SS funded part of the federal budget, & they got lower taxes.

If you want them to get away with it, keep buying into the solution THEY are selling to you, & never talk about RAISING THEIR INCOME & CAPITAL GAINS TAXES. If you want them to pocket your two trillion dollars while they double tax you to pay it back, just keep buying into their phoney "crisis" & their phoney "solution".

[dana_b]

9. no

what is it... 62 and full benefits at 65?? Sorry but the average life span is 75-77. If we change it then what's the point of ss except for the disabled or folks who inherit their deceased loved one's benefits. Otherwise we will just work until we die and leave the benefits to our family. Yes, some live longer and will receive ss but more may never receive it if it's changed.

Alternatives?? Hmmm.... let's think. Less wars? Spend more on ss and health care.

[Lugnut]

83. Full benefits are at 67 for those born after 1960. n/t

[jbnow]

146. Family doesn't get benefits unless there are minor children.

Otherwise family gets $225 for burial expenses. (That would be nice if it cost $225 to bury someone)

[Hannah Bell]

208. Wrong. survivor's benefits:

Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:

- A widow or widower -- full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60

- A disabled widow or widower -- as early as age 50

- A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased's child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits

- Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.

- Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.

- Dependent parents age 62 or older

http://www.ssa.gov/ww&os2.htm

[tabbycat31]

10. there's a much better way to fix it

there's currently a cap on the amount of salary that one pays into the system. It's around 100K right now (not sure the exact number).
Remove the cap and make a CEO pay the same percentage into the system as his employees do.

Problem solved.

[stray cat]

11. yes along with raising the cap. However, be more generous with disability

to cover those who are unable to work.

[Warpy]

12. I think it's BULLSHIT

but maybe type of work should be considered. People who have worked in offices all their lives, keeping their hands clean and their bodies from being wrecked could retire later.

People who do hard physical work or work on their feet, from waitresses through teachers, coal miners, construction workers, nurses, cashiers, and all the other people who don't work sitting down in air conditioned comfort, should retain the earlier retirement age.

All careers are not equivalent in terms of stress on the physical body and few of us can work physically demanding jobs through our 60s.

[RC]

116. And if you have done both as I have?

I mostly control a desk now, but am sometimes still racked up from previous manual labor jobs.

[ContinentalOp]

138. That's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard.

As if people working at desk jobs have no stress at all in their work environments? As though sitting at a computer all day is somehow good for your body?

[Warpy]

163. No, it's not

but look at the geriatric club known as Congress. Those old boys just keep coming back, election after election, still able to waddle back and forth from office to Congressional seat.

Office work is as mind numbing as assembly line work most of the time but it doesn't wreck your body, and that was the point.

[MercutioATC]

13. I get SS as soon as I retire (at 48) so I'm refraining from voting.

I will say, however, that removing the FICA cap seems to be the most equitable way to gain additional funds for the system if needed,

[CTyankee]

17. Do you mind my asking how you get SS benefits at age 48?

I never heard of that (except for disabled folks)...

[MercutioATC]

21. Air traffic controller retirement.

We get a SS supplement (only about $1k/month) beginning as soon as we retire and we have 25-and-out retirement.

I started when I was 23, so I'll be retiring at 48.

[CTyankee]

34. Do you know what you want to do after early retirement?

nt

[MercutioATC]

Costa Rica.

A beach, a hammock, a book and a drink......maybe some fishing :)

Some controllers stay past their eligibility date (but not past 56 when they kick you out) for the money. I'm downscaling my retirement plans so I can leave as soon as I'm eligible.

[Born_A_Truman]

169. My teacher husband is affected by the SS offset

The $$ he paid into SS will be offset by his teacher retirement when he retires. Why? He paid in starting in HS and his Navy years and since he decided to become a teacher his SS benefits are subject to an offset.

[Yupster]

186. But your husband will make way more

from the teacher retirement system than he would have had he been a social security worker like the rest of us.

[Born_A_Truman]

277. Really?

He hasn't taught school for 30 years. He was in the Navy until he got custody of his son and resigned his commission to be home and raise him. So his teacher's retirement isn't going to be that big when he does retire.

[Yupster]

293. He can fold his navy retirement into buying

years in the teacher retirement system. That would help him tremendously. Call your state system and they'll give you the details and numbers.

[Born_A_Truman]

308. Navy retirement?

As I said in my post, he resigned his commission in order to raise his son. He didn't stay in the Navy to retirement so he could be home. He was a single father and went back to school for his teacher's credential and started teaching.

[MercutioATC]

218. Actually, federal law enforcement and federal firefighters have similar retirement benefits

(to mine)

We're the three groups of federal employees that have mandatory retirement ages, so we also have some retirement supplements to make up for not being able to earn income for as long as everybody else.

[Zavulon]

15. Fuck, no. Just raise the cap. Do NOT raise the age. (NT)

[CTyankee]

28. Do you think a lot of people would agree to the raise in the age of eligibility

if they made good money and loved their jobs?

I hear from some people in their 40s that they would like to be on SS! That surprises me in a way because that's the decade where you should be hitting your stride professionally and making good money. So I conclude that Americans are sick and tired of working and not getting ahead and hating what they do. They look to SS as a way of helping them financially w/o the stress and low pay of their current jobs.

JMHO.

[Zavulon]

40. What percentage of people under your idea would

have to make good money and love their jobs for you to consider it acceptable to raise the age? For me, it would have to be 90% or so, which we both know is unrealistic.

If it were only 55%, for instance, that would mean telling the other 45% of the country - which had no choice but to "contribute" to SS during a lifetime of work - "Sorry, we know you don't like your job and want to retire, but you're outvoted by the people who are happy, so suck it up and keep kicking in money for a few more years, you hapless assholes. Your desires mean nothing to us."

BTW, I'm one of those fortysomethings who would like to be on SS now. I was making good money until Bush's economy cost me my job; now I'm working for a lot less and fucking hate it. I plan to retire as soon as humanly possible, and if the age is raised the party which does it will never get my vote again. I hope it doesn't happen during a Dem administration, because then I'd have to leave DU. I'd also probably never vote again, because voting Repug isn't an option, either.

[CTyankee]

48. Hey, I agree with YOU. It's screwed up that 40 year olds can't do what they

love to do and for a living wage, that's all I was saying.

It's been a long time since I heard anyone saying "I LOVE my job!" and not be lying. I hated my job for several years before I retired. I sweated it out til 65 but now that I look back I realize the health costs of all that stress. It's unbelievable what it can do to the human body.

[Zavulon]

58. Actually, I'm not even sure I'll make to 62.

I certainly won't live long enough to get my forced "investment" back or even half of it. I smoke too much to threaten longevity records.

Truth be told, I'm not a fan of SS at all. In my case, it will turn out to be a screwing. Since I am not married and never will be (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8757650&mesg_id=8757910), ditto for kids, I have nobody to leave the money to - the government will just keep it. Fucking pisses me off. In the meantime, the government has been pissing away the surplus and we're all getting screwed.

I'm not kidding when I say that I won't ever vote for anyone who raises the age. If Obama does it in his first term, I'll have to stop coming to DU and I WILL vote for someone other than him for president (someone like Nader, not a Repug).

[Hekate]

149. Chill about the government keeping your money: it only goes to widows and underage orphans as it is

You can't leave your SS in your will, regardless. I don't see why that would irritate you any more than any other tax you pay -- and if you have greater longevity than you currently imagine, you will indeed get a monthly check from Uncle Sam for the rest of your life.

If you and your girlfriend (I read your link) choose to not sign the federally-recognized contract with each other called marriage then she's excluded from that part of the contract that entitles her to choose between a spousal portion and her own earned SS. If over a lifetime your earnings are far greater than hers (as is usually the case even if a woman maintains a full time career instead of taking time off to raise children or be a caregiver to elderly relatives) then her spousal portion would be greater than her own earned portion. But that's a choice you two are making, and like other choices in life it has certain consequences. That's why it's called a choice.

Hekate

[dysfunctional press]

84. actually, they can...

but- it helps if they figure out what they 'love' a little earlier on, and make the sacrifices they'd need to, in order to make a career out of what they love to do.

[CTyankee]

111. If it were "actually" easy, I don't think we'd have a problem here.

But Capitalism isn't set up that way. It is a basically exploitative system so the average worker truly gets screwed.

I don't know the answer. While he had a job at the city, my husband made a decent living and had great health insurance benefits (plus pension). But that was a union job (AFSME). The give backs demanded from the unions have been brutal. AT any rate he was laid off in March.

[monmouth]

18. I retired at 64 and that was about right for me physically. I enjoy good

health and am active, but I started to notice the last six months before retiring my energy and focus were not what they used to be. I required more sleep, I had to write down far more than usual. It was a high stress job and there were no problems but I was glad I retired when I did. The slip is slow (at least for me) but is still there..

[CTyankee]

42. I retired at 65 since I had a high stress job, an elderly frail mother, a disabled brother

and a 4th grandchild on the way. I did take a part time job with a small nonprofit. My spouse had excellent health insurance at his union job. Within 6 months of retiring both my brother and my mother died. I was the sole inheritor of her estate and I could quit the part time job and do some traveling. If I had not had the inheritance I would probably still be working part time.

[monmouth]

78. I would love to work part-time. The younger more recently laid off need

those jobs though so I'm not even called to come for an interview. Last person told me he advertised for a receptionist, about $10-11, 230 resumes he received...

[CTyankee]

95. I got the part time job at Literacy Volunteers locally because I was (and still am) a volunteer

ESOL tutor. I was right there when an opening occurred. I got $18 per hour, 15 hours a week, coordinating volunteers and testing ESOL students. It was a wonderful experience in diversity. I worked with refugees from AFghanistan and African countries as well as a significant group of Hispanics from Mexico, Central America and South America.

Try volunteering at an organization you really love. There's always turnover and there you are!

[MajorChode]

19. SS is not in danger of not being solvent

However, I'm still in favor of raising the SS eligibility age, which hasn't changed since inception even though people are living much longer. I'm also in favor of doing away with the income cap and the exemption of investment income.

If all those changes were made, the FICA tax could be cut by at least half. This would give a family making $50K per year an instant $125 more per month of income AND would give businesses the same benefit. It's good for working people AND it's good for business. The only people who lose are those who HAVEN'T been funding SS for the past 60 years.

[sinkingfeeling]

92. Uh, the retirement age was changed in 1983. To collect full benefits, you may have to wait until 67.

It depends on the year you were born. Prior to 1983, everybody's age was 65.

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/1998/0715saving_burtless.aspx

[MajorChode]

98. Actually they went the other way with it

When the Social Security Act was first implemented, the age at which you could receive benefits was 65. When the SS Act was changed in the 80's, the "normal" age was changed to a maximum of 67, but you could still draw a reduced benefit anytime after age 62. Even the reduced benefit at age 62 is a greater amount than what was first paid back in 1942. In 1942, you could only draw a maximum of 6% of your wages. Today you can draw as much as 25%. Even with a 30% reduction at age 62, that's still a lot more than you got when the program first started paying benefits.

[Better Believe It]

106. This is not 1942. And real wages and incomes went up a lot until the 1970's.

So what's your point?

We should reduce the retirement age to 55 and increase benefits.

If European nations can afford a better federal retirement plan we can afford one.

Just tax the rich and stop giving trillions to the banksters and military contractors.

Cut their entitlements!

[MajorChode]

127. I have no problem with a federal retirement program

In fact, I think it's a great idea. However, SS is NOT a retirement program. It was and always has been a supplement to insure at least some income if other plans fall through.

The problem I have with SS right now is the worker chips in 6.2% and the employer chips in the same amount. This is a huge amount of money and the return from that is small. SS should either be scaled back to it's original goals with ALL income contributing (not just the wage income of the lower classes) so that everyone pays less, or it should be expanded into a meaningful federal retirement program. What we have no is something in the middle which serves no one very well and is a huge resource hog for the lower and middle classes.

[jbnow]

143. It is all the retirement income a lot of people have. They use

their paychecks to live, raise their family, buy their house and fix it over the years, buy their car, go to the dentist, eat. They might have savings but a great many have no pension and their IRA, if any, isn't enough to live on.

It isn't a retirement program for higher income people but for many...especially those who work on their feet...it is what they have

[MajorChode]

165. "a lot" translates to about 1/5th of SS recipients

Whether this is a lot or a few depends on how you want to look at it. I would certainly say it's more than there should be, but I don't think this is the fault of SS and I don't think SS itself is going to fix that problem.

Most people realize SS should never be their sole source of income in retirement and plan accordingly. There are some that through no fault of their own have to rely on SS as their sole source of income and for them I have a great deal of sympathy. However, there are also a lot of people who piss away much of their money during their working years and don't save anything, then wonder why they are broke when they get too old to work. For them I have no sympathy.

[JonLP24]

200. What about people who 'pissed' away their money

Thru bills, food, housing, emergencies, etc. I would list vacation because people need those once in awhile but you'd probaly have a problem with that.

[MajorChode]

247. Obviously you just want to be asinine

Do you really believe there aren't people who piss away their money on material things and have nothing left at retirement, or do you just want to make silly speculations on what I have a "problem" with? Or perhaps both?

[Hannah Bell]

209. One third. we've had this discussion before.

[MajorChode]

249. Repeating fallacious claims does not give them any more validity

[Hannah Bell]

257. so why do you do it?

"for two-thirds of retirees, Social Security is the main source of income. For one-third of retirees, Social Security provides more than 90 percent of their income."

http://www.retirementthink.com/social-security/.

[MajorChode]

284. Your own comments prove your fallacy

Words mean things to most people, but apparently not to you.

Main source does not equal "all".

90% does not equal "all".

If you want to contradict me (and apparently you have a burning desire to do so), then at least try to do so from what I actually claimed and not what you wish I had claimed. Fair enough?

[TahitiNut]

20. I'd prefer a draconian crack-down on age discrimination in employment (hiring and promotion).

:shrug: I'd outlaw mandatory retirement prior to the age of 70.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. NO... RAISE THE CAP. (n/t)

[etherealtruth]

29. Exactly ... or even better

... have NO cap.

[salin]

63. scrap the cap.

[sendero]

24. It' coming..

... whether you favor it or not. It's merely a matter of "when".

[safeinOhio]

25. Yes,

starting with those born on or after 2012. It is all long range projections anyway.

[DeepBlueC]

26. raise the cap, not the age

It has already been raised once.

[MercutioATC]

30. The cap raises every year.

Last year it was $102,000

This year, it's $106,800

[Hannah Bell]

68. it's raised regularly, to cover 90% of wages.

[avaistheone1]

168. That is somewhat misleading.

I would bet that most Americans don't know that there is a limit on Social Security tax. You stop paying Social Security tax after you've earn $97,500 in a year. Most Americans don't know because they don't make that much. It doesn't apply jointly, however. If you and your spouse make $150,000 combined for example and you both make 75,000 per year, you would pay tax on all of that money. But if you alone make $150,000 per year, you pay tax only on the first $97,500 per year.
Everything above 97,500 per year is tax free for Social Security!

There is a conspiracy of confusion and silence around this issue. Barack Obama has said what Hillary has refused to say - that we ought to lift this cap.

One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/12/104059/13


Given the existing SS cap there is alot of Social Security money that could be going into the system - that is not today. Consider that the wealthiest (approx) 7% of the country make 50% of the income. Those folks are not paying their fair share. I say lift the cap altogether.

[Hannah Bell]

187. cap is currently $102K, soon to be $106K - not $97.5K.

it hasn't been $97.5K for many a moon.

because it's raised regularly to cover 90% of wages.

nothing misleading at all, except your wrong numbers.

[dem629]

31. Uncap it, then raise the age and apply the new age to people born after 1970.

[bread_and_roses]

43. And exactly why do you think people should have to work longer?

What sane arguement is there for forcing elders to work? Those who like to work and are able to do so have that option (presuming, of course, the absence of age-discrimination, which one can't presume). But just why do you think it is OK to force elders to keep working - you want to wait tables when you're 65 to survive? hammer away at blacktop? stand on heels behind some cosmetic counter?

[dem629]

51. Forced to work longer? (edited)

Are you under the impression that SS is the only way people are able to retire?

Even so, if people either want to or have to work longer, life expectancy isn't the same as it was in the 1930s, '40s, '50s, etc. People can work longer. (EDIT: I should also add that under my idea, as stated in my other post, this new age of eligibility wouldn't apply to anyone who is currently 40 years or older, so we're talking about much further down the line to begin with. Life expectancy will be higher then, medical care will be that much more advanced, etc.)

Again, your use of the word force implies no choices on the part of individuals. Also, the employment options you listed are quite narrow. False assumptions all around.

[bread_and_roses]

86. what false assumptions? you think most people working retail or casual labor

sock away enough in IRAs etc. to retire comfortably? What world are you living in? Not the one where wages have been stagnant for lo these many decades now, or not everyone has a physically un-demanding job, or where the economy and the government function to serve a small oligarchy and the accumulation of capital, not people/workers/life.

Do you seriously think most of the over-60s carrying groceries or waiting tables or cashiering are doing it for the love of it? You think that the rent and groceries don't "force" them to keep working?

And do you seriously think that expecting individuals to provide for their own retirement in order to have leisure in their elder years is the only social model that can be imagined?

And why should the possible extended life expectancy and medical care serve only to enrich our cheap-wage corporate masters, who, you can be sure, will have plenty of leisure for themselves.

If there are false assumptions here, they are not mine.

[dem629]

114. The false assumptions that I noted from your post.

The same ones you chose to answer with more questions with false-choice questions containing hyperbolic terms such as "cheap-wage corporate masters."

I'm interested in a discussion, not a tin-foil hat harangue. But I'll ask anyway: In your view, at what age should a person be eligible to receive SS? I would put it at 70, for those people who were born after 1970.

*We're excluding SS disability here, as that's a completely different matter, so let's just deal with people who do not have physical or psychological disabilities, because there should be no age restrictions on that program. I think SS disability needs to be streamlined for all, but as part of my idea on the current topic, I would expedite the process even more for those 60 and over.

What's your plan?

[ContinentalOp]

140. LOL, how old are you?

I'm guessing born before 1970 right? '69 perhaps? :shrug:

[dem629]

254. June, 1971.

[bread_and_roses]

156. LOL, you think "cheap-wage corporate masters" is hyperbole?

And here I was restraining myself. And you think the only reason not to work on a road crew or stand behind a counter all day at sixty is a "disability?" I have to ask again, what world are you living in? And you think that disability for those sixty and over should be "expedit ... even more" than for disability under sixty? What a peculiar notion. You are muddled.

I notice you chose not to answer "what false assumptions" - saying "the same ones" is not a response, since I obviously didn't get them the first time. What's my idea? We're a long way from any of my ideas, but for a first step, we should be substantially raising the SS benefit AND lowering the age of eligibility.

Your vision seems to be predicated on notions of boot-strap capitalism, every "man" for himself, and the devil (or a bare bones subsistence pittance) take the hindmost. Again, there are other social constructs than that humans should labor in near-poverty all their lives in the service of an oligarchy. Which is the model we have now, prettily disguised with a veneer of of a comfortable "middle-class" to which we all theoretically belong.

Of course, our Corporate Masters finally seem to have forgotten the necessity of maintaining the illusion of that "middle-class" (most of whom have been a few pay checks away from welfare for years) to keep the masses in la la land.

[dem629]

256. I don't know how old you are, but this is starting to remind me of

the discussion I had when I was a teenager and some people (myself included, at times) felt it necessary to broadcast how rebellious we were against The Establishment.

"Working on a road crew and standing behind a counter..." Yeah, those are the only options. Uh huh. (Here's a hint: If you have to resort to the extreme and worst scenarios to bolster your point, thus painting the most dire picture you can conjure up, you pretty much don't have a point.)

THOSE are the types of false assumptions I was talking about. But you knew that.

What should the age of eligibility be? Why won't you answer that and give your reasons for that age? Are your Corporate Masters telling you what to type while you're on a break from your job of picking strawberries for 4 cents/hour?

[NV Whino]

32. No

But corporations must stop offshoring work, hire local workers and contribute to the fund. People out of work don't contribute to the fund.

[Lyric]

33. Nope. Lower the age and raise the income cap.

Viola--problem solved, and jobs made available to younger people at the same time.

[MercutioATC]

38. I posted this above, but the income cap already increases every year.

Last year it was $102,000.....this year it's $106,800.

[Lyric]

46. I'm talking a much more substantial increase

like 250k or more.

The slight increase every year doesn't do what one big increase would do.

Another idea--lockbox Social Security. Stop allowing Congress to raid that fund at will. The only time Congress should be able to raid the SS piggybank is if there's a dire national emergency.

[MercutioATC]

47. Might as well just eliminate it, then.

[Lyric]

54. I wouldn't oppose that.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

57. Neither would I, but ONLY if it becomes necessary.

SS is currently solvent through 2041, so I'm in no hurry...

[kentuck]

35. Years ago, there was an idea for "guaranteed income" for every American..

The Social Security fund could be used to supplement this program. Every American should have a minimum amount on which to survive. At that time, it was $600.00 per month, regardless of your status.

[closeupready]

37. Absolutely not. I favor eliminating the income cap. That would keep SS solvent,

and for longer and raising the age a year or two.

[closeupready]

88. Oops - I meant, 'longer THAN' not 'longer and'

n/t

[Hannah Bell]

210. it's already solvent.

[closeupready]

255. Thanks, yes, you're correct.

n/t

[bread_and_roses]

39. NO! Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks so should try standing behind a counter

eight hours a day - it is physically demanding even for young people. Try it at 60. Or try working on a road crew, or climbing beams, or tossing garbage bags and leaping on and off the truck.

What the hell is wrong with us that anyone thinks this is OK? Goddess, we already work longer hours, weeks get paltry vacation time, insufficient sick time, fire mothers 'cause their kids get sick - what is wrong with Americans that they so willingly settle for wage-serfdom?

[JVS]

41. No. For most low-income people, advances in medical technology have not extended their ability...

to do work at a later age.

[madrchsod]

44. no ....62 or 67 is fine for now

maybe in 25-30 years it could be raised to 64-70. a lot depends on whether or not there is universal health care and the effects of climate change.


i retired at 62 this year because at my age no one will hire me.

[GKirk]

87. I'm not sure I get this

"i retired at 62 this year because at my age no one will hire me"

If you need a job why quit one that you have?

[Hekate]

153. I'm guessing that there was an involuntary lay-off and inability to find work thereafter...

If my guess is right, a person who is already 62 might just decide to make it official and start drawing SS after unemployment benefits run out and other options do too. It can be shockingly difficult for laid-off workers over 50 to find meaningful work, by which I mean jobs that aren't what we think of as teenage jobs.

Hekate

[dixiegrrrrl]

45. There imay be a misconception in this thread about the full retirement age.

The Full Retirement age was been changed, sometime ago.

The full retirement age varies between 65 and 67 depending on the year of your birth.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

[madrchsod]

50. i retired at 62 but i can not get medicare till i`m 67(?)

[CTyankee]

55. No. You can get Medicare once you reach 65.

nt

[shraby]

52. 65 is plenty old..you have to be there to appreciate

that fact. You even age a whole bunch between 65 and 67. More so than you did between 60 and 65.
A sedentary job like office work is one thing, and even then the memory is beginning to lag.
A blue collar job is horrendous after age 65. The old body just isn't up to the task in so many ways..including frequency of urinating, the ability to hold going to the bathroom for bowel movements and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Obamanaut]

117. Growing old is not for the faint of heart. But, I'm getting as much

out of it as I can.

[WI_DEM]

53. No, it already is up to 67. I'd like to enjoy some years before dying

[Toucano]

298. Because you didn't enjoy the years you were living?

Please.

It is your responsibility to pay for your "I am gonna' die soon" vacation and perpetual golf outing.

Don't visit your fantasies on the rest of society.

[dgibby]

56. Not no, but hell no.

I realize the argument for raising the age is that people are living longer; however, that doesn't mean that they are able to work longer. Lots of people fall through the cracks: not eligible for SS disability, but no longer to work, either.

[Vinca]

59. I think a less painful option would be raising the cap for income

that is subject to social security deductions. It boggles the mind that Bill Gates pays in the same amount as a school teacher.

[MercutioATC]

60. ...if the schoolteacher makes $106,800 a year...

That's the cap this year. It goes up every year.

[Vinca]

62. So it's a nice school . . .LOL. You get my point.

[Yupster]

196. Not in Texas

In Texas most schoolteachers do not pay into social security at all.

[YvonneCa]

252. How long has that sytem been in place? Who structured...

...it that way? Do teachers in Texas have any choice in the matter...they don't in California.

[Yupster]

292. I started teaching just aboutr 30 years ago

and the system was in effect then.

Teachers only have a choice in the matter as to which school district they work for. Out here we have districts 20 miles from each other where one pays into social security and the other doesn't.

If teachers would voice their opinions that they'd like to fold their TRS money into the social security system and just get the same benefit formula everyone else gets, the law could be changed very quickly and social security would be greatly relieved, though teachers would see their pensions cut in more than half -- down to the levels of everyone else in social security.

[YvonneCa]

307. So just how many teachers do you think...

...have this opinion to voice? Your words: "If teachers would voice their opinions that they'd like to fold their TRS money into the social security system..."


I'm guessing...ZERO. :)

[Hannah Bell]

258. Bill Gates doesn't take a salary anymore, so he pays ZERO. If you raise the cap,

he'll still pay ZERO.

and so will every other rich SOB, because most of their income comes from non-wage sources, & if they don't like the tax, they can arrange to shift their waged compensation to non-wage sources.

[krispos42]

61. Yes, but...

(please don't hit me)


Not as a way to keep the SSA solvent. They should just eliminate the salary cap on SSA taxes, and if they have to give everybody more money in retirement, well, gee, that's just a tragedy, isn't it?




But if we're going to be living longer lives, then we have to raise the retirement age. I can't see how working 40 years then retiring for another 40 can be done without having massive financial problems.


I know we're not there yet, but it's going to happen... people living 150 years, on average. Retiring at 70, then living 80 years on your retirement plan and Social Security?


Perhaps a multiple-retirement system... you retire at 70, relax for a decade, then you re-enter the workforce at 80 (perhaps on a 2nd career) and then have a final retirement at 110 or 115.


And now I'll don my asbestos thong and :hide:

[davekriss]

64. Absolutely not

I favor introducing progressivity into the regressive FICA tax by removing the income ceiling subject to taxation, while still capping benefits.

[old mark]

65. NO, many people are just worn out by 60 or so from dealing with

the stress of working as a wage slave for 4 decades or so and need some time at the end of life to enjoy themselves. Why does this strike some people as a terrible thing?
Remove the cap - let everyone, no matter how rich pay their fair share into the system, and make Congress keep their fucking greedy hands out of it - there is plenty for everyone.

mark

[Lars39]

70. I would wager that those people do not have a physically demanding job.

What you can do at 45 or 55 can become almost unbearable by 65. I know you know this, just wanted to add my 2 cents. :hi:

[old mark]

89. Sometimes the circumstances of making a living - the situation you are in,

the people you have to deal with, the policies of the company where you work can grind you down and create unbearable stress. Some of the more enjoyable jobs I had were more physically active.


mark

[CTyankee]

102. I raised money for nonprofits, a helluva way to earn a living.

I put in 32 years with several organizations after being a stay at home Mom for 10 years.

During the good economic times it was easier, of course. But there were bad times, too. I can't imagine doing it now.

In my last 6 years of full time work the stress was so bad that I ended up with severe diverticulitis and very bad complications from surgery for same. I'm OK but not what I was.

That's what the work world can do to you. I guess I was lucky, I have a good heart and longevity in my family.

[old mark]

150. CTY I was fortunate to survive 2 heart attacks, bypass and a pacemaker.

I went back to work, and was treated worse than ever - my union president said I was being punished for having survived and returned. Eventually, I saw the light and retired at 59. I will be 62 this summer and applying for SS online soon.
My goal now is to live as long and as well as I can and squeeze out every nickle of pension ans social security.
They couldn't kill me - so they have to pay me.

mark

[CTyankee]

162. Oh dear god, what you went through!

In my case it was age and the fact that I was highly paid (not by for profit standards, tho). There were several of us, all female, who were 60 or over, and within a couple of years none of us was left.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

199. Hell, I was worn out before I was 35.

I had a very stressful job most of the time between age 22 and 38.

I finished my bachelor's degree, and went to law school at night as well.

I was sick of my job and the stress before it dried up.

As a result I have kidney stones from not getting sufficient breaks in court to drink enough water or go to the bathroom. I also have hypertension and take three different pills every day for that. And I can't wake up to an alarm clock because it makes me jump out of my skin and makes my heart rate shoot up. The amounts of stress people are expected to endure at work is absolutely criminal.


Lower the age and raise the cap. I was burned out on my job before I was 40. I have not had a meaningful career since then, just shitty jobs. Oh, and I can't stand on my feet all day because my ankles swell up and my legs turn bright red.


:shrug:

[JimWis]

66. Hell no. It is one of the best systems the government came up

with. If they handled it like they should, it wouldn't be in trouble. I think removing the cap is a good idea also. That would probably fix it right away.

[Hannah Bell]

69. it's not broken. it doesn't need fixing.

[varelse]

71. Not while unemployment, health care, and age discrimination in the workplace continue to be issues

We need to reduce unemployment and take care of our urgent lack of universal access to quality health care first. That should help reduce age discrimination, but we would still need to work on reducing that too. Only then should we consider raising the retirement age, and even at that, the career and job qualifications of the potential retirees need to be taken into consideration.

If we're not planning to let miners, soldiers, farm workers, and retail clerks and such retire while they are still physically able to work, then we must face the fact that many of them will wind up on disability rather than retirement anyway. Let's be realistic about retirement and our work force. Encouraging and helping older people retire when they are ready also opens up opportunities for the generations behind them to move up and take the reins. Do we really want a world where stagnation is enforced upon our workplace by a combination of longevity and government policy?

[marlakay]

72. How can you fairly do that?

I am sure there are people just barely holding on who are counting the days and then we say oh, sorry you have to work 3 more years???

and remember these are people who have worked fulltime since high school most of them and because their work ethics are much better than kids now days, most of them have worked their asses off maybe 10 hrs days for 42-44 yrs...then say wait longer...

there has to be another way.

[MercutioATC]

77. The same way they did it last time...

You do a 2 or 3-tiered system where people born after a certain year get eligibility at a later age.

Nobody who's 3 years away from retirement gets the age raised on them.

[Toucano]

299. Easy.

People who received initial benefits contributed nothing.

People who die before the magic age receive nothing.

Life sucks.

Get used to it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. No

[geckosfeet]

74. I favor removing all age restrictions. If you want to retire and draw SS at 30

go ahead. You probably won't get much but why should the government tell you when to retire.

My guess is that most people will wait until they are in their 60's anyway.

[dysfunctional press]

85. i retired on SS when i was 38...10 years ago.

for me, it was due to disability. i also found out at that time that a one-time employer that was now bankrupt and gone(pre-cast concrete construction) had never paid into fica the money that it had taken from my paycheck over the 18+ months that i had worked for them. i also had NO recourse in the matter with social security, and as a result, my monthly check is 12% less tan it should be. BUT- for now, i still 'bring home' more money every month than somebody who works 40-hr. weeks at minimum wage.

[billyoc]

75. 55

Eliminate the cap on SS contributions, the system will last for centuries.

[bkkyosemite]

76. They need to put it back where it was before they raised it. I have to wait til 66 and my sister 67

what a crock..and those corporations keep getting billions and billions but we cannot make sure the SS fund is not borrowed from all these years..

[graywarrior]

81. Hell no!

They should lower it to 55. Bastards.

[Lugnut]

82. No I don't.

I favor removing the FICA cap.

[Cleita]

90. No. Most people have already worked several years too long with the age that

they retired at, which now is between 62 and 65. I would favor that those of us who have to work part time don't have to give up a portion of our Social Security to do so either. Talk about penalizing the poor for being industrious. Also, when old geezers don't retire, those jobs don't open up for the next incoming generation of workers so unemployment increases.

[bemildred]

91. Lower it to 60, eliminate the contribution cap, and tax capital gains identically to wages.

Bingo, no problem. Money out the wazoo.

[Cleita]

93. We need to look at Al Gore's lock box too. Money out the wazoo is too

tempting to the legal thieves among us to go raiding the Social Security fund. Get the lock box first and then go for the revenue.

[bemildred]

94. Well, I do agree that it would be nice if they stopped playing accounting games

with the revenue Social Security brings in. On the other hand, precisely because they are in the habit of that, it's going to be hard for them to stop paying people their social security benefits. What they want to do, as shown here, is take in more and pay back less, like a casino or Wall Street "investment" firm.

[Hannah Bell]

152. What is a "lock box"? If you take in more money than is needed to pay out in benefits,

you have to do something with the surplus.

The 1937 SS law says you have to invest it in US government securities. This = let the US government borrow the money.

There is no need to collect a surplus bigger than needed to fund current retirees & maintain the originally prescribed reserve account of about 1 year's payout.

Where the trouble comes is when you collect way more than needed to fund current retirees, as we've been doing since 1983. The surplus grows & by law it MUST be borrowed.

Gore knew this. If he'd been sincere he would have talked about how stupid it was to overtax to create the surplus in the first place, not about fraudulent "lockboxes".

[bemildred]

173. Yes, the whole thing was a racket in the first place when they jacked the rates up

to address a "future shortage", and then immediately spent it all on bubbles, wars and other crap.

[Hannah Bell]

188. zactly.

[Cleita]

176. I dunno. Lockboxes seem to work for trust fund heirs, why not the average

American's future pension? If there is a surplus, taxes can be lowered. It seems like a no brainer to me, but then I don't have that greed gene in me that makes me want to raid the Treasury for my own benefit. I say make it impossible for those pirates to do so like... oh... for instance the last administration's war profiteering.

[Yupster]

184. Don't worry about it

in a couple of years the system will start paying out more than it takes in and there won't be any surplus to put in any imaginary lockbox anyway.

And the former surpluses. They're gone, spent, looted and squandered. Can't get it back once it's been spent already.

[Hannah Bell]

190. bullshit. it can be paid back very simply, by rescinding bush's tax cuts

to the top 1% alone, within 10 years.

they saved about 2 trillion from bush's cuts, & coincidentally, the SS TF is just over that.

[Yupster]

193. We have a trillion dollar defecit

And no one has any plan to ever get close to balancing the budget again.

You want to raise taxes by $ 50 billion a year?

So then we have a $ 950 billion deficit. Doesn't have anything to do with social security.

[Hannah Bell]

203. taxes on the top 1% are nearly at an all-time low. yes, i'd gladly raise them.

as of summer 2008 about 1/4 of the us debt was owed to foreigners; the rest was various forms of internal debt.

rich people borrowed the SS TF; they have the wherewithal to easily repay it over 10 years.

i'll put you down as being in favor of letting them steal it.

[Hannah Bell]

189. lockboxes work for private savers, not for the gov't. gov'ts can't "save" -

what are they going to do, put it in citibank?

yes, the solution is, assess enough tax to fund current retirees & a minimal reserve. if need goes down, lower taxes. if it goes up, raise them.

don't make people pay an extra 1% plus for 30 years & borrow it, then tell them there's "no money" to pay it back.

[Cleita]

195. Are you for real?

My math isn't wonderful but yours defies the definition of equation.

[Hannah Bell]

204. in what sense does the federal government, the guarantor of the US money supply, "save" like a

householder with a savings account?

explain it to me.

[Cleita]

245. Apparently government can if it has the will and mandate to do so.

We are having a special election in California to do just that. Legislation is being put forth to create a "rainy day" fund requiring above average revenues to be deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and other purposes. It's Prop 1A on the May 19, 2009 ballot if you want to look it up. Of course you know about our budget problems and this is a band aid. The real solution has to come later when Arnold realizes that he's going to have to tax the fat cats who are enjoying an almost tax free existence on the backs of the rest of us. Then you will see some real rainy day funds going into the Treasury.

[Hannah Bell]

260. That is a state government. It doesn't guarantee money or regulate the money supply.

The discussion concerns the *federal* government, which does.

Yes, taxing the fat cats who own most of the money *is* the crux of all our present problems. Nothing will get better until that happens, & no one wants to do it because either they *are* the fat cats or the fat cats own them.

[Cleita]

281. Yes, it's a state government run under a constitution like our federal government.

It's only a matter of size not a difference in operation.

[Yupster]

197. The lockbox idea would work if

the government took the surplus cash and put it some where like bank cd's or insurance fixed accounts.

If the government lends the money to itself and then spends it, then it's a sham and there's nothing in the lockbox when it's needed.

Theoretically there are IOU's but if the government doesn't have the money what good are the IOU's.

The fact is that congress will decide how much to pay out to retirees by setting and changing the social security bendpoint formula. The question of whether there are IOU's in a lockbox or if there aren't any is pretty much irrelevant.

[Hannah Bell]

205. When you "save" in a CD you're simply loaning your money to a bank.

The federal gov't is the ultimate guarantor of the money you loan to the bank.

People produce goods & services which have a dollar value. Part of the dollar value of that production is skimmed off as taxes & distributed to retirees. The money gives the retirees a claim on part of the goods & services produced each year.

So long as there's sufficient production of goods & services, there's no need to "save" to take care of retirees. By skimming off part of the value of production as taxes, you *automatically* provide for them.

If there's insufficient production of goods & services, no amount of "saving" useless dollars will take care of retirees.

The government taxes us out of *today's* production for *today's* SS obligations.

If they tax more than needed for today's obligations, the only thing they can do with the excess is spend it in some fashion - i.e. put it back into today's economy. It doesn't sit in the dark & grow like a mushroom. It's put into *today's* economy & theoretically part of it will be invested to make *tomorrow's* economy bigger & better.

Tomorrow's bigger, better economy will (theoretically) produce more, have more people in more, better-paying jobs, & those people will be taxed to provide for tomorrow's retirees.

The result is little different from *you* keeping the excess, or *you* putting it into CDs: you spend the money back into the economy, or you "save" it & the bankers loan it back into the economy. Either way, it goes back into the economy to build tomorrow's economy.

There's no lockbox.

Gov'ts don't "save". They tax, spend, redistribute, & increase or decrease the money supply. They encourage or discourage production by their control over money.

It's the gov't's job to make sure tomorrow's economy *is* better so that retirees can retire. It's not the gov't's job to take your money & put it in CDs at Citibank.

The gov't has monetary & political powers it can use to increase investment & savings. There is no reason for it to tax away your present consumption to "save" for retirees 30 years down the road.

People who don't get this are easy marks.

[Yupster]

235. I agree that the lockbox was a sham

The government can't save money. It can only spend it. Even in cd's, the government is really loaning to itself since it's guaranteeing the money. But to me that would be better than just spending the surplus as soon as it comes in.

The problem will solve itself soon anyway as the surplus is scheduled to become a deficit in a few years.

[Hannah Bell]

274. the solution is not to collect trillions in surplus in the first place. there was a time

when those rigged "forecasts" predicted we'd be in deficit already, did you know that?

they've never been accurate even for the short term, let alone 30 years down the road.

It's a SCAM. And apparently a lot of people are buying it.

[Cleita]

246. The lock box is supposed to be protected from anyone borrowing from it.

Social Security was in a trust fund that functioned that way until it became eroded by various presidential orders with the assistance of Congress. It needs to be set aside in an iron clad trust with proper legislation making it illegal to borrow one penny from it in the future without dire consequences from any would be raider, even the US Treasury.

[Hannah Bell]

275. If it's not borrowed by someone, it doesn't earn interest, so what would be the point of

"saving" it anyway?

When you "save", you're loaning your money or property to someone else in return for interest or future profits. That's how it works.

The Trust Fund has ALWAYS worked the same. Surplus funds were borrowed by the gov't in exchange for securities. 1937 law MANDATES it.

If they didn't borrow the $$ it would just sit in a closet losing value.

The only think that changed was the reagan tax hikes which created steadily increasing surpluses, giving the gov't more & more money to borrow. That was unprecedented.

Al Gore & his phoney lockbox talk have done more to confuse people on SS than most conservatives. He's not a friend of the program, sorry to say.

Here are the vote tallies for the 1983 legislation that put the Reagan/Greenspan tax hikes into effect. Only 54 dem reps & 6 dem senators voted against it, v. 163 & 26 dems for it.

Gore, Conyers & Kennedy are some of our caring Dems who just didn't vote.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/tally1983.html

[Cleita]

282. Honestly your argument is ridiculous. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

283. how's that?

[Cleita]

286. You are bent on dissing Al Gore. It seems like a thing for you.

Here's a man who got cheated out of his presidency and went on to work to make the world aware of global warming and you say his lock box idea was a fraud? Who do you really work for?

[Hannah Bell]

291. I diss him specifically for his bullshit lockbox talk. It is bullshit, should I pussyfoot around

the truth?

Who would that serve, precisely? & what, exactly, does it have to do with bush's vote fraud? you're saying because bush stole the election, gore gets a pass on bullshit? why?

& btw, adding the new accusation of unfairly "dissing gore" doesn't undermine the arguments i put forth. why don't you discuss the facts instead of pretending i'm putting them out there to "diss gore"?

i voted for gore; doesn't mean i think he's above criticism. far from it.

[endarkenment]

237. Excellent answer. nt.

[bemildred]

304. Oh yeah, and adjust the rates so it's pay-as-you-go.

No fake "trust funds". If there is too much coming in, you can always apply it to national health care.

[mainer]

96. Absolutely. People now live well into their 80's.

At the least, we should raise it to 67. Otherwise there'll be nothing left for ANYONE.

[varelse]

108. The jobs just aren't there

Allowing older people to retire with dignity opens up opportunities for the next generation to come into the work force and move up. Additionally, the options of an older person are limited increasingly with age. Very few 65+ year olds can handle jobs requiring 8+ hours of physical labor. For example, a full-time position of retail clerk might be difficult for even a healthy 70+ year old, and without expanded medicare coverage, the wages from such a job would never cover their costs of living.

We need to resolve health care access and unemployment issues caused by outsourcing FIRST. And even then, the only way the retirement age should be increased again is with generous exemptions and allowances for "partial" retirement for seniors still willing to work but unable to do so fulltime due to health or family care issues (spouse requires full or part-time care due to health problems, for example).

[CTyankee]

118. Thank you for your wonderful post. You have captured the quandary of the 65+ worker perfectly.

This is a problem. Even with some openings in employment of seniors there are issues that you can't avoid, such as technology problems or even a belief system in the "work ethic." It is probably a sociological issue.

I am retired and my husband is a newly "retired" laid off employee of the city of New Haven, CT. He will have to get a part time job to afford the house we have, which is a modest one. So if he doesn't land a job we will have to sell the house and move to an apartment. It's fine with me but it could be very limiting...

[Occam Bandage]

97. Yes. To 70, with an exemption

upon a doctor's finding that the potential retiree is unable to work, and in conjunction with a battery of tougher laws protecting older workers from age discrimination. There is no reason most people cannot continue to work into their 70s (just look at the Supreme Court, whose justices have one of the most intellectually rigorous jobs in the world), and the country cannot afford to finance ever longer retirements as medicine keeps people up and healthy for ever longer periods of time.

[JonLP24]

202. Alot of people are going to die before collecting

Wealthier people generally live longer then poor people so if someone who has paid his whole life into the system will likely die before 70 or so and not recieve a dime. Talking about medicine and stuff, our health care system is in shambles and poor people have to decide between bills or a doctor visit.

I personally favor lowering it to atleast 55 because of our health care system, the advantages of staying healthy favors the rich over the poor and the idea many are going to die before collecting it even though they paid into it their whole life.

[endarkenment]

238. yeah 'cause everyone has a job just like a SC justice.

These guys each have a team of bright young eager lawyers working for them - which is why the fact that a lot of them are senile old fools is not such an issue. But put that aside, short work day, short work week, short work year, physically non-demanding, high pay, yeah - just like everyone else's job. Wait. Oh, shit, nevermind your post was obviously humor. I get it.

[timtom]

99. Absolutely NOT!!!

I favor stopping the war industry and turning those bucks toward health care and social security. The common welfare means making sure everyone has enough -- not MORE than anyone else!

[Thothmes]

122. All well and good, but who is going to pay the SS taxes

that all those in the "war industry" pay. They are going to shift from an 20 dollar an hour job at Newport News Shipyard building carriers and submarines to a 9 dollar an hour job dumping bed pans.

[timtom]

126. We need the sort of leadership

that can reorder our national priorities. We don't need fiat money that can be manipulated by a bunch of cynical economic "gurus". We need a good living wage for all. I had no trouble living in Berkeley in a rooming house on part time jobs and GI bill. That would be impossible today.

I know I'm economically naive, but I just remember how easy it was in the sixties and seventies.

[mainer]

100. What is so wrong with working longer?

My father-in-law is in his mid-80's and going strong, but being forced to retire at 70 made him feel useless. I don't get people who want to quit at 55 and spend the rest of their lives playing golf and whining about young people.

p.s.: I intend to work till I drop. But it doesn't mean I don't also enjoy some pretty nice darn vacations, too.

[varelse]

107. There's quite a bit wrong with forcing people to work longer, at jobs younger people need

Of course, forced retirement (which isn't being proposed or discussed in this thread) is also wrong. No question about that.

[RC]

135. I want to do what I want to do. Working 40 hours a week is not what I want to do.

I have to for the health insurance. I can't afford to retire, even thought I am old enough. I have other things I could be doing, but can't because they expect me to be there during the prime time of every day.

[CBR]

104. I was born in 1980. I am screwed. Seems there are lots

who believe it should be raised. By the time I retire it will be 80.

[tammywammy]

109. I was also born in 1980

I'm not counting on SS even being around by the time we retire.

[CTyankee]

113. This is sad. Tell me, do you think it is because no one will rescue the Social Security system?

Not even politicians you elect from your own generation?

[tammywammy]

132. I don't think it'll survive the boomers retiring

It wasn't meant to be a retirement plan, and too many people depend on it that way. You weren't supposed to retire and live off SS for a couple of decades or more.

I think the age of retirement should be raised along with the cap. But too many people look at SS as their "right" and while increasing the cap may happen, raising the age won't. I don't agree with eliminating the cap, because SS isn't a welfare program and that's exactly how it would be perceived. Everyone's allowed to withdraw from SS what they've put in, and someone making millions isn't going to be allowed to actually withdraw what they put it, that's why I disagree with a complete removal. I say raise the cap to $250,000/yr.

I'm saving for my own retirement and doubt I get any SS.

BTW, when people, even on DU, talk about it's solvency it's until 2040, which would be when I'm 60.

[bread_and_roses]

159. "Too many people" think SS is their "right?" Er....it IS their right

What is that sentence supposed to mean? And for all those who keep going on and on about how SS wasn't "supposed" to be a retirement plan, just how many minimum/low wage workers do you think can sock away enough in IRAs to retire on? And of course, those higher wage workers who did sock away enough have now seen much of it vaporized, so that was some great plan, eh?

[Hannah Bell]

262. The cap is what it has been from the start, 90% of the wage base. If it's not enough,

it's because the ownership class is taking most of the value of US production of goods & services.

If the boomers destroy SS, then they couldn't have retired no matter how much they saved anyway. Its destruction could only mean the economy during their retirement didn't produce enough to support the elderly.

SS will be perfectly solvent for your retirement, unless you go along with the plans to destroy it.

For God's sake, the same people have been saying SS was bankrupt since the day it was conceived, how long does it take for you to understand they're lying?

[Autumn]

115. Sure I could still

lift 50 pound boxes for shipping and continue working in a warehouse at age 70.:sarcasm:

[burning rain]

120. Nay.

As others have said, eliminate the cap. Raising FICA tax rates should also be out, as payroll taxes are pretty regressive as it is. In the future I'd like to see Social Security and Medicare partially funded by general revenues -- that would be a more progressive solution, though the AARP and some other groups (overly wedded to the status quo in my view) oppose it, claiming that it could lead to reduced prublic support for these programs. I think however that most Americans have a better sense of social responsibility than that.

[CTyankee]

121. What are your ideas? I'd like tohear them

I hope you are right about Americans having a better sense of social responsibility.

[burning rain]

123. If anything I'd rather see payroll taxes rates lowered, though I'd remove the caps.

Payroll taxes sock lower-income folks hard. People should be made to pay for social programs to the extent they can do so with less pain, and this shades in favor of funding (say) Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance with revenues raised from income and corporate and capital gains tax (more progressive) and not just payroll taxes (relatively regressive). It seems perverse to me to say as the AARP does that the rich and corporations ought not be given a proportionally larger role in funding these programs, because it is precisely they who can do with the least pain.

Obviously, this isn't the be-all and end-all for American workers. I'd also like to see a fat increase in the minimum wage and its indexation to inflation, mandates for paid sick leave and vacation and family leave, EFCA of course, tight regulation of use of part-time employees, and universal health care. I'm more in line with old-school leftwing European social democrats than American liberals.

[CTyankee]

125. Overall, I agree. Your ideas on AARP/ I dunno, haven't studied.

I'm totally with you on lowering payroll taxes.

I will probablypay more due to reform in this area than any other. I have bonds and some preferred stock that will suffer and may be reformed in the area of rate of return (on a few of my investments). It won't be what my mother had expected, but I know in my heart that she would have rolled with whatever to get through. It is my only hope and motivation, really...

[Thothmes]

124. If it is funded by general revenue, that means that

who ever controlls Congress gets to decide how much money of the general fund goes to those programs. How much money do you think a Republican controlled Congress would allocate to Socia Security and Medicare if they had a vote.

[burning rain]

128. I certainly don't trust in their good will....

But I do know that even in earlier more conservative times they took a harsh electoral beating whenever they proposed harming Social Security and Medicare.

[Thothmes]

131. What is wrong with establishing

a tax structure that will support these programs. That way we do not have to deal with the political dogfights in Congress to fund these essential social services. JMO. I do not trust our Congress to do what is in the best interests of the American people.

[burning rain]

134. Fine with me in principle....

provided it's a progressive rather than regressive tax mechanism.

[Thothmes]

155. Fully agree, progressive taxation is the only way to do it.

[southernyankeebelle]

130. MAYBE ITS NOT BUT MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE -

I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD LOWER THE AGE FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH HARD LABOR SUCH AS PEOPLE WHO BUILD HOMES, TAKE CARE OF ROADS AND SUCH. I WILL BE TURN 62 THIS JAN. I WILL BE APPLYING FOR MY SSN IN OCT. MY HEALTH ISN'T THE BEST. I CAN'T STAND OR SIT FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. I HAVE BEEN WORKING SINCE I WAS 16 YRS OLD. I EARNED MY RETIREMENT AND WHAT LITTLE I WILL BE MAKING WILL HELP MY FAMILY. MANY PEOPLE USE SSN AS RETIREMENT. WHEN YOU MAKE VERY LITTLE YOU DON'T HAVE EXTRA MONEY TO SPARE.

[Thickasabrick]

133. Hell no. Unless the unemployment rate for people over 50 is like

3% or something. Or make laws making it illegal to not hire an over 50 person because they would increase your insurance. Until a lot of crap like that happens - Hell no.

[Yupster]

139. Two solutions

1. Raise the cap on income subject to social security.
2. Make the program universal so everyone has to be in it.

Does anyone know why most teachers are not in social security? I have no idea how they got their privileged status, but most teachers in the two largest states (and many others) do not contribute to social security.

Just doing those two changes would help the system tremendously.

[Born_A_Truman]

170. Because they pay into a state retirement

and the money they paid into SS before becoming teachers is subject to the SS offset. Not all teachers started teaching right out of school. He (my husband) paid into SS starting in HS and then when he was in the Navy.

[YvonneCa]

171. Some teachers paid into SS long enough...

...to draw full benefits on their own, may even be eligible for benefits as a spouse, and will BARELY see any money at retirement age because they ALSO paid into the state retirement system (not their choice, BTW) and the Government Pension Offset PREVENTS them from SS which they earned. Had these teachers NOT gone into teaching, they would draw Social Security they had paid into and earned. For more info, google WEP/GPO. ;)

[Yupster]

178. If teachers would just fold their state retirement funds

into social security and get treated like every other worker, the social security system would be in much better shape.

Of course they would fight that attempt tooth and nail because their current system is so much better than social security.

That poor little girl lost her mom to that horrible accident. As a society we need to all contribute and send that poor girl a check until she turns 18. Oh - what I mean by we is all the rest of you. Not me. I'm a schoolteacher. I've detached myself into my own system, but the rest of you guys, please be generous and help that poor girl.

[YvonneCa]

180. You seem to be under the misperception that teachers...

...have a choice in this matter. I just retired...I was never given a choice about which system my money was given to...it was just deducted from every paycheck for a whole lot of years.

[Yupster]

181. Of course I'm not under that misperception

I was a teacher myself for 10 years.

I'm trying to find out why teachers have a retirement plan more than twice as good as everyone else's.

So far the answer I've gotten is "it just is."

If teachers and their representatives would push to blend their retirement into social security and make the universal system actually universal, then the America's retirement system would be much relieved of its current troubles.

Can the teachers on this board make a commitment to lobby for this long needed change? Are there union shop stewards (I was one) on this board who can commit to making this change?

[Yupster]

177. But why are teachers treated differently than everyone else?

Everyone else is in social security.

Teachers are allowed to have their own system. In Texas let's say a teacher and a concert violinist each made the same amount of money for their entire 35 year careers. The teacher would pay into the TRS system. The violinist would pay the exact same amount into social security. Each of their employers would have matched their contributions.

And the teacher will have over twice the monthly retirement check and it will start sooner than the violinist.

Why?

What makes teachers a special class of employees?

When someone is disabled and qualifies for social security disability, why do we all contribute to their monthly social security check except school teachers? When a child's parent dies and the child gets a social security check, why do we all contribute to the young boy or girl's social security check except schoolteachers?

I just don't know how they became such a special class of employees?

Believe me if stockbrokers or plumbers or doctors could detach themselves from social security and fund their own system, they'd do it in a heartbeat. But they can't. Only teachers can.

Why????

[YvonneCa]

179. Teachers are government employees. The other professions...

...are not...they are private enterprises. Teachers are the employees of state governments.

I don't know if that makes us 'special' or not. :7

[Yupster]

183. Not particularly to me

Does that make teachers special to you?

Also, other government employees are in social security. Why teachers aren't? I have no idea?

But it is a major cause of social security's problems. To work properly social security must be universal, and universal means teachers too.

Please teachers. Ask your legislators and union reps to have your retirement plans folded into social security. The system needs the money very badly.

[CTyankee]

228. My husband worked for city government for 9 years before being laid off recently.

They were in a special category since they paid into a union (AFSME) retirement fund. Before his employment with the city he had worked in private organizations and had paid in SS. He hopes to find part time work, at which time he will once again pay into SS. He is receiving retirement (not much, 9 years wasn't long enough to build up much) and SS (he is 68).

So it's not just teachers in that "special category."

[Yupster]

232. But why should there be a "special category?"

Social security is a universal program that isn't universal.

Why can't we all be in social security? Why treat some jobs more fair than others when it comes to social security?

[CTyankee]

240. Good question. I'd be in favor of changing it. But you'd have to get the unions to agree.

Right now, it's a enriching of the job due to union membership. It's a benefit not only for the union but for the city trying to hire good people into jobs in the public sector. Fine until the economy goes into the dumpster, then they have layoffs which is what happened to my husband and quite a few others, stripping bare the city's ability to serve the poor, the homeless, children (teachers in public schools were cut), families and the elderly, because jobs servicing those areas were the FIRST to go. The office that collects taxes have suffered no such hits...

[Yupster]

290. Teachers will have to get their unions to agree

The union works for the teachers. The union doesn't work for fairness or the disabled or the poor. The union works for the best deal for the membership.

It's up to the membership to tell the union that they don't want to be "special" workers. They want to be in the same "universal" system that everyone else is in.

[YvonneCa]

306. Teachers' unions are already negotiating...

...changes in both health benefits and retirement. Many work for teachers, but not all. Teachers, the 'membership', don't feel special right now...most feel used and scapegoated for everything that is wrong with public education (and that's a discussion for another day).

To think ...in this environment...that any percentage of the teacher population wants to have their retirement program taken away and replaced by SS, is to live in a fantasy world. That teachers would tell anyone that they don't want to be 'special'...when the last eight years have been about blaming them for everything wrong in public schools... is laughable.


This will never happen. JMHO.

[Hannah Bell]

214. delete

[Hannah Bell]

213. teachers pay into social security *and* teacher's retirement. what are you talking about?

nevermind. freaking texas.

[Yupster]

233. And freaking California and many

other freaking states.

Why are many teachers not part of social security. Don't they realize that they are shifting their share of the burden to everyone else and stressing the system horribly?

[YvonneCa]

250. I'm not sure we're 'stressing the system'...

...in all cases. For example, I paid into SS for 12 years, working full time. I'll not see more than 150.00 per month in SS benefits at age 66. If I had NEVER become a teacher, I would draw a full benefit...so my money goes to unstressing that imbalance you talk about.

[Yupster]

288. But won't you end up getting far more than if you had been

in social security? I know the teachers I work with normally get at least twice the pension they would have gotten if they had made the same salaries their whole lives and paid into social security.

Social security isn't just you saving for your retirement.

There's also social security disability which those teachers not paying into social security don't contribute to. There's also survivors benefits which those teachers don't contribute to. Then there are the people who worked little time or at very low income their whole lives. Those workers have their pension subsidized by everyone else in social security.

By setting themselves into their own system, teachers avoid paying survivor benefits, disability benefits, and subsidizing older immigrants, lower paid workers, partially disabled workers,

so of course you're stressing the system. You're letting everyone else carry your share of the weight. You don't think doctors or lawyers wouldn't love to contribute to a system just for themselves? Of course they would, but it would be a great stress on the system and it would be completely unfair.

So why does no one say a word as teachers have been doing it for 30 years?

[YvonneCa]

303. You make a lot of good points about SS. Please don't misunderstand...

...me. I am COMPLETELY in support of Social Security as a safety net...not just a retirement program. I want any reform that is done to strengthen it. As to your questions...yes, my pension may be slightly more, but not twice as much.

SS is more than retirement...it is a safety net...and IMHO, needs to stay in place. I haven't researched this, so this is just my opinion, but it is my understanding that the WEP/GPO offsets were to prevent 'double-dipping' and to address the concerns of 'stress on the system' if that happened. So ..even though I've worked long enough to earn TWO pensions...essentially I'll only draw one. Teachers' SS money could be seen to pay for those safety net functions of SS.

Your words:

"...so of course you're stressing the system. You're letting everyone else carry your share of the weight." No, the SS system keeps at least $1000 a month from me and every other teacher in a state retirement system. That's a lot of money.

[Hannah Bell]

216. most teachers *are* in SS. it's only 13 states where some aren't.

Texas, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island.

"Before 1983, any state or local government could decide if their retirement system would be part of Social Security or not. Texas chose not to have their teachers retirement system be part of Social Security."

[Yupster]

234. So can teachers on this board work to get this changed

so everyone is in social security? It would help social security tremendously.

Teachers in Texas and California -- please chime in and commit to getting this changed.

[YvonneCa]

251. Why would a 'teacher on this board' want to do that? n/t

[Yupster]

287. To help social security

and get rid of the system where a key program is universal except for the special set of employees who can set up their own system.

Do we want to have universal programs for everyone except "special" employees?

[YvonneCa]

305. I'm for helping Social Security. But it can be very easily...

...fixed. As to getting rid of teachers' retirement systems, I DO think they will change going forward...they already are. Defined benefits are being phased out in favor of 'defined contribution' programs. Eventually, new teachers will not have the kind of programs now in place in most states...maybe they'll even get to choose between the state program or SS, who knows?

The change you seek is already happening, but gradually...without pulling the rug out from under teachers who retired after 30+ years of employment who earned promised benefits for their old age. I think that's a better way to go. JMHO.

BTW, NOTHING will ever be totally universal...not preschool, health care, SS, you name it. But it's a nice goal. :7

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. Sure. Raise it to 100, then it'll be solvent for a real long time.

And I know that unlike you, I'm gonna live to be 200. I'll be rich.

[Hekate]

142. No. How many reasons do you need? (1) Many 50+ who are laid off will never have a comparable job

... again, and they've lost not only income but health insurance and savings. Reaching the age of 65 and getting Social Security benefits begins to look better and better after a few years of this. (2) I'm 61 and dh is 62. There are plenty of people in our age group whose health is not so good any more, making even desk-work hard to sustain, much less physical labor, standing on one's feet all day, or factory work. Just because the population as a whole is allegedly living longer and healthier doesn't mean we have the health and vigor of 40-year-olds. (3) Before Social Security, old age and the end of work life meant a steep plunge into poverty for most people. If they hadn't managed to make a pile of money (see above: physical labor, factory work) they were SOL and dependent on their adult children, who were in the middle of raising their own families by then. Before Social Security, life for most people was working until you simply could not work any more, and then...

I'm sure I'll think of more after I click Post, but I do have to ask why it is that so many in the US, especially politicians and talking heads, want to balance the budget (which will never be balanced) on the backs of workers, children, and the elderly. Social Security and Medicare are *successful* programs. If they need a bit of tweaking now and then, fine. But every time politicians start to blather about major overhauls and privatization and every worker having their own 401K (see above: physical labor, factory work) in lieu of getting some tax money back from Uncle Sam when they can't work any more -- every time I start hearing that I want to :argh:

Hekate

[Vidar]

144. No.

[Joey Liberal]

157. No. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

161. Lower the age and alter the cap

I'm for eliminating the cap, and having plenty. I can also see the wisdom in Obama's idea of a doughnut hole where the cap stops where it is now, and then kicks back in at 250K or so.

[DainBramaged]

164. 63 enough of this raising the age bullshit

I do a tremendous amount of physical labor in my job, and I'm 58 and I AM FUCKING TIRED. Should I work till I die???? Bullshit, lower it to 63 with full benefits. I have worked since I was 16 and I need a break. As do millions of us.

[blindpig]

301. You are shit outta luck, my friend,

as am I. You see, we are not smart investors.

See post #272.

[mwooldri]

174. Promote a more flexible cap instead...

Raise the nominal date one can get social security to 70 but be able to claim as early as 65 for reduced benefits or hang on til 75 for better ones.

Then figure out if people are taking up Social Security earlier or later and adjust the contribution rates accordingly.

[quiller4]

175. I want to see the cap eliminated first but I don't oppose

raising the age. Given the change in life expectancy since SS was enacted, I think raising the retirement are to 70 would be reasonable. But even more than changes in eligibility, I would like to see all wages subject to FICA and Medicare taxes as well as non-cash compensation and deferred compensation taxed as well.

[Hannah Bell]

211. 5 years gained in life expectancy past 65 since the 30s - but they are

frailer years, & retirement age has *already* been raised by two years.

universal requirement to wait until 70 to collect full benefits will kill. literally.

[The Gunslinger]

182. NO

[Joe2131]

185. no

[Toucano]

198. Yes. We should be looking at 68 or 70, I think.

A simple glance at the life expectancy tables from the 30's and today make the idea of raising the age pretty self-evident.

[Hannah Bell]

212. no, it doesn't. those extra five years are frailer years. you're essentially

asking half the elderly to work until they're disabled.

[Toucano]

242. If someone is frail, he or she would be disabled and should qualify for disability. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

265. Disability is less than regular retirement. Why should they have to work

until they're disabled & get less money?

I repeat, life expectancy over 65 has gone up only 5 years, & they've already added 2 years to SS retirement age.

[Toucano]

296. Since WHEN?

When the SSA was created in 1935, the average life expectancy in the United States was 61.7 years.

Repeat- AVERAGE life expectancy, 61.5. That means MANY people died before being ELIGIBLE for benefits.

If we were writing the act today, when we have an average life expectancy of 77.8 years, we would make people eligible at 80 years of age.



You are lacking a FUNDAMENTAL knowledge of the intent of Social Security.

The worker-supported "freedom" to wile away 20 years of one's life on the GOLF COURSE was never the intention. The concept of "retirement" as some life-long earned holiday for all is an unsupportable FANTASY.

The still-vital intent of Social Security is to provide for people who CANNOT PROVIDE for themselves. Whether they be unable to provide for themselves due to their aged state, their disability, or their widowed/widowered state, the SSA serves a vitally important social function.

The bequeathment of an "I am near-death" VACATION is not such a function. Society has an obligation to expect that able bodied people take care of themselves.

The SSA has to adapt to a changing society if it is to endure and benefit all.

[endarkenment]

241. How about the JOB EXPECTANCY TABLE?

I don't get you people. Is this a progressive democratic message board? :wtf:

[Toucano]

243. What kind of discussion would there be if everyone had the exact same opinion?

The response of "Heretic! That's not a progressive opinion," is weak.


And what's the deal with saying "you people"? Sounds antisemitic to me! You people!

[TexasObserver]

221. No to raising the age. It's a promise that has been purchased.

And it would be a fraud to change the age upward.

[Toucano]

297. Promise purchased? Sure you don't mean Lie Sold? n-t

[eridani]

223. No. Keep it solvent by raising the taxable income cap

How stupid is it to dump more oldsters into the employment market so we can take jobs away from those who are raising young kids?

[Romulox]

224. No. Eliminate the income cap. "Progressives" who argue against progressive taxation are shameless.

[Hannah Bell]

259. Social Security IS progressive, in its payout. You want progressive taxation,

increase the progressivity of the income tax & make the top 1% pay back the two trillion they stole.

SS is only assessed on WORKERS' WAGES. Not on DIVIDENDS, not on CAPITAL GAINS, & not on personal PROFIT-TAKING.

[Romulox]

268. Nope. It's massively regressive inasmuch as ZERO contribution is made income above $100k

"You want progressive taxation, increase the progressivity of the income tax & make the top 1% pay back the two trillion they stole."

OK. Let's remove the cap and increase the income tax on capital gains and dividends. These goals are not in opposition.

You are opposed to making Social Security progressive for other reasons.

[Hannah Bell]

273. it pays out progressively more to those with lower lifetime earnings, & progressively less to those

with high lifetime earnings.

if you want to turn SS into complete welfare, fund it through the general budget.

and watch your SS turn into welfare-sized benefits, with intrusive welfare-style surveillance.

[Romulox]

302. SS is 100% PAY AS YOU GO.

So this handwringing about "welfare" is illogical; every penny of the check in a current retiree's hands was earned by a current worker. It is, by definition, a gratuitous transfer, not a "repayment" for some earlier consideration (the current retiree did not give any money to the current worker out of whose check his present benefit comes.)

Moreover, current retirees receive far more in lifetime benefits than they actually contributed.

Finally, the progressive taxation is a foundational concept of Leftist politics. If you don't believe that progressive taxation (and a concomitant progressive benefit schedule) are appropriate for Social Security, there is no reason why they should be appropriate for the General Budget, either.

[Hubert Flottz]

229. "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate...

"life unworthy of life"

Euthanasia by way of poverty and working people until they drop dead of old age, while the pigs in Washington use the money they took out of your check all those years, to pay for other shit, like tax cuts for rich people and wars that make more money for oil companies.

The GOP needs to change it's name to T 4...

[Burma Jones]

230. No. The Cap should be eliminated

Or at least modified such that as you reach the current cap, your contributions could be reduced rather than eliminated.

[endarkenment]

236. No.

The job market for 65+ people - seriously, there isn't one.

[workinclasszero]

239. No

The sooner I retire, the sooner a job opens up for a younger person.

[backscatter712]

244. No, raise the cap on FICA taxes and implement the lockbox. n/t

[Joanne98]

248. NO! They should lower it.

[sybylla]

278. no - and why isn't this a poll? n/t

[Two Americas]

285. no

No.

Why don't "we" just adopt every right wing idea, then "we" will never lose?

Of course we do not advocate people waiting longer for retirement - no Democrat should ever be advocating that.


...

[nini]

289. no.. we're going to start dying sooner because of the health care issue

so people croaking earlier will take care of all of it.

I'm being sarcastic but it's probably what's going to happen after a generation or so of the number of un-insured folks we see these days.

[Toucano]

300. Thanks, Nostradamus.

I would be happy to base public policy on your vision, but you have failed to include the requisite rhyming quatrain.