one of these days

[CorvallisBMW]

^ So US citizens that pay into a service they have no choice over, and, they are supposed to work until they are 81?

No, but lets bump it up to 68. Maybe 70 in another 10 years. I see nothing wrong with that. People are living and working much longer now, it only makes sense that SS kicks in at a later age.

[ck_taft325is]

No, but lets bump it up to 68. Maybe 70 in another 10 years. I see nothing wrong with that. People are living and working much longer now, it only makes sense that SS kicks in at a later age.

Says the young, dumb and healthy.

[CorvallisBMW]

How am I "dumb" exactly for that suggestion?

I'm sorry, but SS was never meant to be a source of retirement income for nearly 100 million people. It was meant to alleviate senior poverty. When the average life expectancy was 64, a benefit age of 65 made sense. Now that that age has improved to 80, why should benefits still start at 65?

[ck_taft325is]

No, no. Not you being dumb, just as the saying goes. The young criticizing or claiming to know how long a person should wait to retire or not based on "their" experience or how "they" feel about it.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Hey, we give enough money away to people for not doing anything anyway, why don't we lower it to 55, so people can spend some free time enjoying their "Golden Years"?

[gwb72tii]

Remember though that SS is funded and paid for completely separate from the rest of the budget. It neither adds nor subtracts from the national debt in any way because it takes in it's own revenue.

Hence why any reforms to it were left out of the budget just released. It doesn't factor in to gov't spending the way everything else does. Even if we leave SS completely untouched it will remain solvent until 2037, at which point it will be able to pay out approximately 80% of it's benefits. And frankly the easiest way to help SS remain solvent it to raise the benefit age. When it was enacted, the average life expectancy in the US was 64 (payout begins at 65). Today it's near 80, no wonder $ is running out. Doesn't take a genius to see the math, yet no lawmaker has the guts to do anything about it.

You're half right. SS is underfunded on it's own. And there really is no separate funding as all the SS withholding goes into the general budget. It's just another tax.


But you're spot on about raising the retirement age. You 20 yr olds are going to live past 100 with the coming advancements in medical tech. SS has to be changed. And all you 20 yr olds had better get used to the idea of work, if obama can figure out some fucking way to create a job.

[mrsleeve]

You're half right. SS is underfunded on it's own. And there really is no separate funding as all the SS withholding goes into the general budget. It's just another tax.


But you're spot on about raising the retirement age. You 20 yr olds are going to live past 100 with the coming advancements in medical tech. SS has to be changed. And all you 20 yr olds had better get used to the idea of work, if obama can figure out some fucking way to create a job.

yup if congress had not put the SS trust into the general fund (so the could spend all the money that was still accureing for the boomers retirement as they were still working ) under the LBJ administration. The system would still be going broke but would be in much better footing and insolvency would be much much further off than it is.

And Darrin due to the economic down turn 2010 was the 1st year SSI was operating in the red. NOT 2037

[CorvallisBMW]

.

And Darrin due to the economic down turn 2010 was the 1st year SSI was operating in the red. NOT 2037

I'm talking about something slightly different. Yes, as of 2010 SS is paying out more than it has coming in, but it's been putting billions every year in to the SS trust fund. It's drawing off of that money now. In 2037 that trust fund will run out and then benefits (as they currently sit) would need to be reduced 20% so that the $ coming in equals the $ going out.

Operating "in the red" simply means you are spending more than you're taking in, but with several trillion dollars in savings, it will be a while before SS goes "broke".

[z31maniac]

Yup, from what I understand SS is back in the black this year, and will be until ~2017.

Although we should still try to do something before it reaches critical mass (some would say it already has). In reality, the only thing to do is reduce benefits. With all of the baby boomers retiring, I'd hate to see how much they would have to raise the tax to cover the cost.........especially since our generation isn't growing/producing enough jobs to cover it.

[KenC]

There was a good article in Esquire recently in which they brought in four former senators (2 D, 2 R), and asked them to lay out a plan to balance the budget in the next ten years. Raising the SS age to 68 immediately was one of their major recommendations.

[KenC]

What about paying SS only to those who need it? My grandparents are all (moderately) wealthy and SS checks are coffee money for them. I'd advocate for a need-based distribution as opposed to decreasing payments overall. However, you then encounter the issue with people who paid into the system for 50years, but don't need the money... shouldn't they still be entitled to return on their "investment?" Why can't everything be easy? Haha

[KennyT]

This is the sort of P and R thread I can get behind.

Both my aunt and uncle work for the state as social workers. It seems like every time I talk to them there are new stories of how group a gets benefits it doesn't need and how group b is getting screwed by the system it was designed to help.

Nothing is going to help the American society in the short run, other than doing what you can to make things better. Organize can drives and give the food to the people you see fit. Donate your time and organize your neighbors to help each other out when someone gets screwed over by work/government/freak of nature. Those are the things that will pull this country out of the shitter.

The whole 'kill the government' ideology is not logical, because even if we did the seats would just be filled the the same breed of people. Nothing would change other than funeral homes making some more money. SS age needs to go up, or have a cap placed on it. Retirement age should not increase, as the body is in just as bad of shape at 65 now as 20 years ago. We have just figured out how to manage another 10 years of shitty living.

Also, we probably won't see a time from SS, so bank on that fact. If we do see money from it it's a bonus.

[z31maniac]

There was a good article in Esquire recently in which they brought in four former senators (2 D, 2 R), and asked them to lay out a plan to balance the budget in the next ten years. Raising the SS age to 68 immediately was one of their major recommendations.

I hope I'm smart enough with my money that I don't have to work to 68. That's pretty damn old to still be doing the 9-5 grind.

What about paying SS only to those who need it? My grandparents are all (moderately) wealthy and SS checks are coffee money for them. I'd advocate for a need-based distribution as opposed to decreasing payments overall. However, you then encounter the issue with people who paid into the system for 50years, but don't need the money... shouldn't they still be entitled to return on their "investment?" Why can't everything be easy? Haha

The absolute first thing to do is subject ALL income to SS tax. Not just everything below $106k or whatever.

I know I usually balk at raising taxes, but if I have to pay SS on ALL my earnings, then people that make significantly more than everyone else should have to pay SS on ALL their earnings as well.

But then again, it really just reinforces my desire for a flat tax or fair tax. And I lean toward the fair tax since you're getting all "underground" money that is never taxed in the first place.

[Kershaw]

when i reach 68, it'll be the new 55. i am not concerned.

but i also dont have a blue collar job where i am breaking my back.

[mrsleeve]

What about paying SS only to those who need it? My grandparents are all (moderately) wealthy and SS checks are coffee money for them. I'd advocate for a need-based distribution as opposed to decreasing payments overall. However, you then encounter the issue with people who paid into the system for 50years, but don't need the money... shouldn't they still be entitled to return on their "investment?" Why can't everything be easy? Haha

why should we all have to pay into the system, then because some of us worked harder, got lucky, were smarter with our money and investments, Lived with out things and with in our means all our lives. So we can have the savings, and income stream when we retire........

HAVE TO FORFITE all those funds we had confiscated from our pay during our working years, because some bureaucrats in DC think we dont need it. That is bull shit anyway you cut it. even you know this.

I know a VERY VERY wealthy man, that has built several companies with payrolls exceeding 5 million a week. About 6 months ago I was on a equipment run with my boss to TX. Well we stopped off to visit with this man, and he was just tickled pink that his he was getting his 1st SSI check (now that hes 65) and getting something back out. He does not need it by any stretch, he makes more in 1 day than all his SSI will pay in a year, but that is his money he should get it back.