Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is raising the retirement age for Social Security acceptable or unacceptable?

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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:38 AM
Original message
Poll question: Is raising the retirement age for Social Security acceptable or unacceptable?
As part of a budget agreement would you find increasing the retirement age for social security to be acceptable or unacceptable?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Social Security is not part of the budget and not part of the deficit. This poll presumes wrong.

It is a fact that is frequently obscured by right wing talking points, especially lately.

Today, cable talking heads have several times brought up how Obama said very little about Social Security in the speech. Little was said because Social Security does not contribute to the deficit or the 'national debt'.

Facts are important.

It cannot (honestly) be "part of a budget agreement".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. You are correct, but I don't think the poll presumes wrong
If Obama raised the retirement age he would do so as part of a budget agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alc Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. paying back the SS trust fund bonds is part of the budget/deficit
The money needs to be borrowed or taken from another program. I think this year's budget includes (or needs to include) $40 billion to repay SS trust fund.

If the budget is $40 billion too high. They can do one of these
* Decrease the dept. of education budget by 40%
* Decrease the war budget by 10%
* Borrow $40 billion extra
* Not pay back SS trust bonds needed to fund SS this year

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Option 4 is unacceptable and amounts to class theft
If the Treasury chooses to default on Treasury Bonds, they should do so equally and not just default on the Bonds owed to working American people. Let them default on Treasury Bonds held by Wall Street financiers and Chinese uber-capitalists too, equally. Anything lease amounts to theft by the monied classes from the working classes. And if you depend on a weekly paycheck, you are working class, no matter the size of your tv or number of cars in your driveway.

Ps/ I am not implying you recommend option 4, just taking this as an opportunity to make my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. it shoud be lowered, not raised. absolutely unacceptable. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly - lowered.

With no changes at all the Social Security system continues paying full benefits until approximately 2037 at which point, again with no changes, it can continue paying 75% of benefits "indefinitely".

None of that has anything to do with the federal deficit.

Of course, we obviously should strengthen the system now to take care of the out-years, as the President mentioned and as OMB Director Jack Lew has well argued last night and this morning.

By removing the cap that now exists on income subject to FICA tax almost all of the shortfall disappears, again "indefinitely" (which is a good thing meaning no problems/shortfalls appear in the forecasts). The remaining additional revenue needed would almost certainly be more than covered if the tax were applied fairly to ALL income, regardless of source, for example, investment income.

The system should be fixed by having everyone pay their fair share. That would probably make it financially sound to lower the minimum age which would benefit the economy by opening up good-paying jobs for younger workers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. +2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OffWithTheirHeads Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. You try strapping on 50# of tools, a hard hat, safety glasses, work boots,
and coveralls and climbing up and down ladders all day with two 10 min breaks to pee and 1/2 hour for lunch day after day for 40 some years and tell me that the retirement age should be raised. That is what I have done for most of the last 43 years as a Union Sheet Metal Worker and at 60, my body simply can't do it anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. That's very similar to what my dad did as an industrial mechanic.
He barely held on until he was 62.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
19. working in the trades can do that fast
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 10:47 AM by CountAllVotes
It seems the human body is pretty shot by age 60 for sure when doing work like you have been doing for years.

I think changing the retirement age is a very bad idea.

That is because I know of just too many people (friends, etc.) that died in their 30s, 40s, 50s and early 60s long before retiring even crossed their minds. :(

I agree with others, if anything the age should be lowered.

I am seeing a lot of folks around your age barely make it to retire and much less collect any Social Security at all. Most deaths I'm seeing in this age group are from cancer while I know of a few Greatest Generation folks still alive that are relying on their kids to care for them in their advanced old age. While they live on and their kids (Boomers) aren't lasting; many are dying out just too quickly it seems to me and their parents are still around. :wtf: Am I the only one that has noticed this?

Boomers were exposed to a lot of toxic crap while growing up, which includes all of the non-stop nuclear testing going on in Nevada to name just one place in particular. :nuke:

:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's as early as 60 in Belgium.
So, no. Unacceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. It needs to be lowered to 60. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Agreed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's a moot point anyway
If you get downsized/outsourced out of your job at 50, an official retirement age of 65, 67 or even 70 doesn't really make all that much difference.. Going without meaningful health care for 15 years probably means that many will not live long enough to ever draw any checks.

Postponing retirement is only effective IF people still have jobs available to them..jobs that pay a living wage and come with affordable health care options.

"reforming/modernizing/fixing" SS is the modern version of putting Granny & Gramps out on an ice floe..(of course soon there won't even be ice flows)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Unacceptable (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. So far, 11 votes for "acceptable"
but no defenders. I'd like to see what the rationale of that would be if there are any takers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I'm wondering the same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. I would guess it's young people who are still very strong physically & can't imagine
what it will feel like to be sixty. They probably can't even picture a time when they will be old.

I know that's how I felt, back then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. invincible
That is how I felt, invincible.

Then came age and what comes with it ... ugh.

:kick:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. Acceptable and inevitable. It's going to happen, there's no way around the demographics.
It should be a small increase, perhaps a year, combined with an increase in the FICA-taxable income level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
12. It depends
are they guaranteeing me I WILL LIVE LONGER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Now that's a very good point
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
21. It's a totally stupid idea, and it comes from guys who's hardest job all day is deciding which
lobbyist they're going to let buy them dinner.

We should be lower the retirement age, and remove the cap. This would greatly improve the unemployment picture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. It should be lowered to 62 or 60.
If we had a decent retirement system I would favor mandatory retirement at 65 so jobs could be opened up for young people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
25. I support lowering it to 55. We need upward pressure on wages.
Anyone wanting to expand the pool of workers better get to explaining where all these living wage jobs are going to come from.

Folks that live to say 18, aren't living any significantly longer time than in the past and if they do squeeze out another 18 months or whatever, they aren't getting anymore healthy years but the major non-feeling issue is we will have less and less jobs as we go into the future and more people for fewer positions means wide spread wage destruction which in turn will greatly reduce tax revenue which means that corrective action makes the problem worse.

The main reason we are having this discussion (other than some especially greedy fuckers salivating over stealing the money) and those who stole our money don't want it refunded is a concerted effort to lower the cost of labor.

The bottom 40% are already well under 10% of income and wealth, driving that number down means billions for the wealthy.
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 Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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