Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We should Lower the Retirement age for Social Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:21 AM
Original message
We should Lower the Retirement age for Social Security
Everyone seems to want to reform Social Security, even though it's working just fine. So I'm going to hop on the bandwagon. Let's fix Social Security.

First step - lower the retirement age, at least down to 60. At age 60, you can retire and get full Social Security benefits. To make up any shortfall, just lift the income cap, and include non-wage income.

This should not only keep the system running for another, say, 200 years, but imagine the benefits of retired 60-65 year olds that now have time to devote to other pursuits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. One benefit to lowering it would be to free up work for younger payees
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good idea. Retire young enough to be a benefit to your community.
By the time people are 65, or 67 for my retirement age, face it, you're not just retired, you're tired. The advantage of retiring earlier, with full benefits, is it frees up senior citizens to engage in projects in their local community, to help others who need assistance that would otherwise cost the state, to train those who are new to professions by passing along their experience, knowledge and skills.

I'm sure I can think of other advantages, but that will do for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. sounds good to me
If we have to "fix" Social Security, let's fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. I AGREE!!!!!
But then of course, SS doesn't need "reform."

The Chimp just wants to raid the cookie jar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Where would the money come from?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to retire at 60... but as the friendly mailing from the SSI told me, I'll probably never see a dime of social security, ever. Paying more people out would just break the system faster, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. not at all
All we need to do is cut the cap and include non-wage income, problem solved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. No it would not
The govt needs to quit raiding it. Leave it alone. That would solve most of the current problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'd love to be able to live up to age 60.
But I don't see getting beyond 40. Possibly 36. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. What about medical insurance?
I'm 61, and I'd love to retire right now. Under your plan, I might be able to, but there'd be no medical insurance for my wife and me.

At the least, you'd have to lower the age for Medicare to 60 as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. When we get universal single payer government healthcare
like every other civilized country in the world, that will not be a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. Possible:No wage cap is equiv to 14.82 tax instead of 12.4 tax for OASDI
No wage cap is equiv to 14.82 tax instead of 12.4 tax for OASDI

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_cyoper.html#wp89438

From the detailed SSA reports we find that OASDI's wage capped (at $90,000 in 2005) 12.4% (6.2 to employee and 6.2% to employer) produced about $543B in 2001.

And HI's no wage cap 2.9% produced about $151B for 2001.

Therefore removing the wage cap would have increased the tax take for OASDI by 20%.

The Trustee's report says that the tax shortfall over 75 years averages 1.92% (this is actually much too high as it is inflated by not reflecting the excess assets and their interest that would occur should the tax increase be passed now when Soc Security is over funded that Bush uses the Soc Sec surplus monies to finance his tax cuts for the rich). In any case a 20% increase on the 12.4% amounts to 2.48% additional to the tax rate (greater than 1.92%) - meaning the overall tax rate would have to come down because we would be so over funded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEconomist Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. LOWER it?
Well that runs contradictory to the typical plan of raising it as life expectency increases. And as if its not already in enough trouble, who do you propose pay for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Let's review the post
We should cut the cap and include non-wage income. That wasn't clear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Too many people read carelessly around here.

I like your proposal. Remove the income cap and include non-wage income, i.e., tax the wealthy so the rest of us can retire at 60. But give us Medicare at 60, also. That's a problem with Social Security now -- you can retire early, but then you don't have Medicare for a few years and have to buy expensive medical insurance.

If raising the income cap, and including non-wage income, would fund full Social Security and Medicare benefits at 60, I'd support it wholeheartedly. Earlier retirement for boomers also opens up jobs for younger workers.

Dennis Kucinich is a proponent of rolling the retirement age back to 65, influenced by the fact that his father, a truckdriver and Teamster, died at age 65 with his first retirement check uncashed in his pocket. A lot of people don't even make it to 65 (or 67, the current retirement age for a lot of Boomers, and many of us are damn tired in our fifties. I'm already "retired" due to disability associated with chronic illnesses and there is no way I could work even part time. But I'm sure some of my fatigue has to do with aging.

My husband used to think he'd never retire. Now, in his late fifties, he looks forward to retirement. He'll still work hard and be productive, but he'll no longer be wearing himself out for an employer. He's in good health but aging takes away some of our strength and energy. We are not meant to go full tilt right up until death; we need our naps again, as when we were much younger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Let's face it...
there is a very particular subset of society that has a distinct lack of logical comprehension skills. This lack does not necessarily correlate with IQ, but rather with dogma. I will not name this subset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEconomist Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Excuse me?
Its a simple question of Economics, really, and since I teach Economics, I will judge my view over your own. I understand we want to raise the taxable income level, but to what? What is the new cap?

I think we should keep the retirement age, as-is, but increase the benefit level by increasing the taxable income level to 100k per year. But I do NOT think we should lower the retirement age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. why should we cap income at all?
Why does there have to be a cap? I'm paying Social Security on 100% of my income, why do rich people get a cap? Why are certain kinds of income capped at 0% for that matter?

"Its a simple question of Economics, really, and since I teach Economics, I will judge my view over your own."

Good for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEconomist Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Why cap?
Well, if we wanted to pay people 10,000 a month, we wouldnt need a cap at all. But if we want to pay people a lesser amount, we could either cap the income level or lower the percentage for everyone and remove the cap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. wait, how does one follow the other?
Let's remove the income cap. Rich people, like the rest of us, will pay SS on 100% of their income, regardless of the source. That doesn't mean we necessarily increase the benefit amounts to tens of thousands of dollars a month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEconomist Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. True...
We dont have to, but then we would have a SURPLUS, and that is something that this government does not understand. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'm on board.
...and I have insurance since I took early retirement (55) for life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newfoundland Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. Hell yes!!!!!!!!
I have been working fulltime since 1973 and I am ready to retire!

I have not had more than 2 weeks straight off since I was 13 and am ready!

Whom do I have to vote for to retire now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Hi Newfoundland!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
23. I am with you...who wants to retire and then die?
sorry I want some time off before I die...enough to enjoy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC