What is the hubub about adjusting the Social Security benefit age?

[newtothegame]

Why was age 65 chosen in the first place? Was it based on life expectancy in 1935?

If so, why is it unreasonable, 75 years later, to raise it proportionately to reflect the increase in life expectancy? Governments adjust EVERY YEAR for changes in demographics; why can't Social Security do it every 75?

I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but just saying the rationale seems reasonable. It was bound to happen at some point; is it just the near-retirees wishing it didn't happen when they were so close?

[DJ13]

1. From what I've read every year delayed is a loss of 7% of benefits

[DURHAM D]

15. Every year delayed in collecting SS beyond full retirement age -

adds 6% to your monthly check.

When I signed up for Medicare last November they did absolutely everything they could to get me to take my SS a year early. I have talked to others who had the same experience. I was handed off to three different SS people who tried to talk me into taking it early. I assumed they were trying to save 6% a month over my life time.

I asked the last SS person if they were looking at my data and knew that my dad was still alive at 94 and my mother had just died at 88 and thought I would live a long time thus they were trying to cram down the savings for the government. Told them sorry - gone to delay past full retirement and not take the money until I am 67. The whole SS thing was rather bizarre.

[Joe Bacon]

67. If you raise the retirement age, guess what????

Let's say they raise the full retirement benefits age to 75 and the age for reduced retirement to 72. Do that and there will be an explosion of disability benefit applications for those between 62 and 75. Now how much money do you think the trust fund will save when an explosion of disability claims are paid out instead of retirement claims?

[Oregone]

2. Yeah, lets live to work, and work until death

Sounds like a good foundation for entitlement policy

[Warren Stupidity]

3. because keeping or getting a job in your late 60s and early 70s is

incredibly hard. Why should we subject our senior citizens to that crap? 45 years in the workforce is way more than enough to qualify for a pension. Raising the age is just another way to cut the benefits you already paid for. It is ripping you off.

[polmaven]

95. One of the reasons for that

is because potential employers believe a person in his or her 60s will not stay on the job long enough to make hiring him/her productive, but will retire within a few years.

[dsc]

4. Life expectency for adults has actually barely moved since the inception of SS

nearly all the gains in expectancy came from children living to adulthood and women living through childbirth. People who reached age 50 in 1935 lived nearly as long as those who reach that age now. In point of fact, for minority men and women you would see an actually decline in years of benefits from a raise to age 70 since the increase in life expectancy is less than 5 years. It should be noted, that the original architects of SS took this into account and actually overestimated the incrase in life expectancy.

[gvstn]

65. +1

There was a good diary over at Kos that explained this in detail. I know I didn't realize there had been so little an increase in life expectancy for adults past 50.

[meow mix]

5. mmm catfood

so good

[JoePhilly]

61. weak response to a person asking a reasonable question.

[meow mix]

86. uh.. yeah.. reasonable. and dont forget sensible!

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

91. The person asked an honest question about a complex topic ...

And gets flamed for doing so.

Says more about the flamers than the OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Because SS planned on the current demographics - zero has changed

and everything is properly funded. In 1983, Social Security was adjusted for the baby boomers who are retiring now, creating the current $2.5 Trillion surplus waiting to help pay for them.

There are no surprises here. Just an attempt to make budget numbers better on the backs of the soon-to-retire who paid in under a set of rules that were just fine, and still are.

Obama's catfood commission is spinning off staggering lies that are easily refuted.

[SharonAnn]

43. The wealthy stole our surplus "fair and square" and they don't want to repay it.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Exactly.

The level of lying around this is really amazing to watch.

[angrycarpenter]

7. Some of us will never live to seventy.

Carpenters like me are usually used up by 60 at best. If you have a physically demanding profession is is utterly ridiculous to expect us to work that long. I've seen 60 year-old carpenters but 70 is out of the question.

The only reason they are having to do this is that they borrowed the SS surplus we had in 2000 for two wars and and tax cuts and don't want to pay it back. I'll never see it, I will have dropped dead on the job by then. Save the tax payers that much anyway.

[Mudoria]

77. Worked in manufacturing all my life...

I'll be lucky to see 67 and full benefits, much less 70.

[brentspeak]

8. "Governments adjust EVERY YEAR for changes in demographics"

Can you explain what you're blabbering about?

[newtothegame]

24. Live in the boonies, huh?

Your local government adjusts its budget every year, kid. Unless you're the only resident.

[bettyellen]

55. don't get out much huh? they HAVE been and continue to adjust the age upwards, genius.

[newtothegame]

56. temper TEMPER Mufasa. nt

[bettyellen]

100. i pity the poster who parrots right wing memes and doesn't bother to look up the facts. you are

part of the problem, "kid". educate yourself next time.

[Vickers]

106. "kid" ??? "mufasa" ??? C'mon newtothegame, namecalling is for fuckknobs. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

75. social security isn't funded by my local government, or my federal government. it's funded by money

taken out of workers' paychecks. *only* workers' paychecks, & taken expressly to fund social security.

and currently, the government owes workers about $2.5 trillion dollars of pre-paid funding.

[Tailormyst]

99. You are just SO adorable

It's almost as if you truly believe what you are saying.

[drmeow]

9. From what I've heard

65 was selected because it was the age that Germany's social security had set as the retirement age (55 years earlier) because few employees lived that long.

Personally I think the solution to SSI is to lift the cap and include all income (capital gains, etc). If corporations had to pay FICA and Medicare on all those grossly inflated CEO salaries, I think they might go down a bit!

[Hannah Bell]

76. ssi isn't social security. it's supplemental security income, aka a welfare benefit funded from

income taxes, not fica taxes.

[DURHAM D]

10. I assume you are aware that the full retirement age for anyone under 50

is already 67. For anyone born before 1937 it was 65. Everyone born after that already reaches full retirement age later than 65. In other words - they have been adjusting upward for decades.

This would be just another adjustment in a long line of adjustments.

Your suggestion has been reality for decades.

[RKP5637]

11. For many when they hit their 50's they had better kiss their working days goodbye. If jobs

were easy to come by that would be different. We do not have a society structured for all people to work, even the young kids have difficulty finding work.

[bluestateguy]

12. Many people cannot keep working until they are 70-75

ESPECIALLY if you have had a blue collar profession for your whole adult life, in which your body is worn down by age 65 (or earlier).

There are already incentives to delay SS payments until you are 70 if you so choose. My mother is attempting to go down this route IF her health permits and if she survives inevitable rounds of corporate cost cutting in her job.

Anyway, the irony is that raising the retirement age may not save much money at all: you would have a huge increase in 65+ year old people going on disability when they can no longer physically work any more.

[RKP5637]

18. I have friends that are painters that tell me by the time you are in your 50's you

had better start thinking about how much longer you can last on the job. All those years of ladder climbing, the whole thing of working hard each day eventually takes its dues on your body no matter how fit and healthy you try to be. For some it's just hereditary, their joints in their body simply wear out. And this is just one, of course, of a zillion examples.

We should have a system wherein people can pay in their working lives and expect to get something out at the end of their working lives. Anything short of that means those running the system have failed. And the stock market does not hack it for guaranteed returns. And interest rates today for a return are absolutely laughable.

Americans are so brainwashed on SS having to fail. This country is so gullible and often sells its best interests down the drain to politicians and propaganda fallen for...

[NNN0LHI]

29. Lot of jobs that way

Had a couple of cousins who laid hardwood floor for about 30 years. They made good money but by the time they retired their knees and hips were completely shot. Neither of them were well enough to ever really enjoy their retirement. They were in pain all the time. Even after a bunch of surgeries. They both walked like a rusted Tin Man.

Don

[doc03]

13. It was adjusted up to 67 a few years ago. The mill I worked in

shut down on my 61st birthday, I drew unemployment for a year until I reached 62 and then retired.
You ever try to find a job at 61 years old when you spent your entire working life in a steel mill? I'm glad I was financially secure enough to retire at 62 I honestly don't think I could work for 8 more years. Working shift work on the 4th most hazardous job in America with Thursday and Friday off and being exposed to every damn carcinogen known to man takes its toll.

[doc03]

14. Didn't you notice they were having riots in France a few weeks

ago because the government raised the retirement age from 60 to 62. People in this country just rollover and take whatever is dished out.

[RKP5637]

23. Many people in this country have become a bunch of weak minded suckers falling for

whatever is dished out. Many of the citizens in this country are so gullible and ill informed we need a whole new definition for it...

[flamingdem]

79. THIS IS SO TRUE - I was paid to do a Focus Group on retirement

and it was secretly about extending the retirement age but NO ONE NO ONE complained.. except for me!

They all just said, well I guess I'll just have to keep working. Many had little savings and... seemed to blame themselves.

[EFerrari]

16. Are you kidding? How many jobs are there for 55 year olds right now

let alone, anyone older?

What do you propose people do to feed themselves in the interim?

[MilesColtrane]

17. Here's the problem.

Just because we are living longer doesn't necessarily mean we can all work longer.

[izquierdista]

19. One thing to consider

Is that since we are so much wealthier than 75 years ago, older people should get a break and maybe the age could be reduced to 60, like in civilized countries.

[Hannah Bell]

78. +100. not to mention productivity increases = less workers needed to produce the same amount of

goods & services.

too bad capital has taken the value of all those productivity increases over the last 30 years, while workers' wages stagnated.

it doesn't have to be like this, but capital is very effective at selling the crisis memes to line their own pockets.

[yellowcanine]

20. It depends on what kind of work someone does. For someone doing manual labor that is

physically taxing 65 may be a long time to wait. For someone with a job not so physically demanding 70 may not be too long. I would favor some formula based on the physical demands of the job and the health of the individual - also the actual years in the workforce could be a factor as well. As for setting the age at 65 in 1935 - it may have been set too high. So maybe we are just now catching up. In general I would favor some combination of encouraging people to work longer with a carrot rather than a stick approach as well as eliminating the cap on wages for the FICA tax.

[csziggy]

31. That is what I've always thought - need based Social Security

Some people are healthy and capable of working into their 60s and 70s. Some are physically or mentally worn out in their 40s or 50s. And here is one of the keys - good health care prolongs people's healthy life spans. They may live a little longer, but they will be healthier and more capable of taking care of themselves much longer if they have access to health care.

If we really valued our citizens, first we would pay them enough so that they could live decent lives and not need assistance on minimum wage pay. Then we would take care of them by giving them health care and dignified retirements.

This country does not value our citizens. Those in power value money and retention of power over everything else.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. SS is not welfare. Make it 'need based' and you will kill it dead.

It is a universal, and quite modest, old age pension system. The universal part is what keeps it politically alive.

[csziggy]

49. I always thought of it as sort of insurance

And who collects on that except as needed?

But you are right - that is not how it was sold and not how most people consider it.

[Sal Minella]

54. That was my impression.

I thought SS was supposed to be insurance, and people who had gotten good jobs with decent wages and never got laid off should have enough savings for retirement. I thought SS was for people like me who kept getting laid off and then finding another low-wage job. I never had a job where I could afford to start contributing to a 401K.

I wonder sometimes if some people are going to burn down their own homes to collect on the fire insurance "because I paid in all those years."

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Its only been this way for the last 75 years.

retirement insurance is similar to whole life insurance: you pay in until a fixed age and then you get an annuity back. This is not a difficult or unusual concept, and it does not require or imply fraud to get benefits: your benefits are guaranteed.

[Sal Minella]

108. I didn't mean to imply anything about fraud.

One pays into fire insurance (on one's house) for years and years and never collects unless it actually burns down for some reason.

My early understanding about Social Security was similar to fire insurance on one's house -- that SS payments were intended for people who couldn't manage to engineer any retirement income plan on their own -- that people who didn't actually need SS income at retirement were expected to just not apply to collect SS checks.

I'd like to think that some guys who are still making $250,000 a year might forego collecting their SS checks, but I think our culture would pronounce this behavior "idiotic" instead of "moral."

[Warren Stupidity]

110. well your early understanding was completely wrong

The fact that everyone pays in and everyone gets a pension is what keeps the program alive.

[Junkdrawer]

21. No, we're not being prepared for the Catfood Commission's cuts...

Nah Uh...

[CreekDog]

22. A lot of jobs wear out your body before you reach 65

Try being a nurse, garbage collector, construction worker, etc. until you're age 70, let alone 65.

:eyes:

[RKP5637]

26. My gut feeling is the OP is young and/or has a job they feel will go on forever. n/t

[704wipes]

35. Wait until the OP has obsolete stamped on him by Corporations

when he hits his 50's.

If he gets high enough before then he might survive
but he will learn & be cutting all his friends because they are such a drag on
his company's health benefits and a high risk to his company's
workman's comp insurer. He will also see that his company can pay less into SS
for a younger worker, and if he sticks his head in the sand he will never realize
that since those laid off workers can't find work until 70 at the wage he was paying them, then
their AVERAGE annual earnings used to determine their benefit will decrease thus decreasing
their final SS benefits yet again if they happen to make it hale & hearty to the ripe old age of 70.

But HE should be just fine.... heheh.

[RKP5637]

40. Yep, I've seen this all happen. I worked in 6 major corps. It went on all of

the time, didn't even matter if senior management or not. Any not knowing this are just inexperienced and/or have their head in the sand.

Very few corps. are going to pay someone a large salary if they can get 2 for 1 by hiring in younger people. Also for those with stock incentives they are a joke, few get to stay with the company long enough for them to all kick in...

And those in intensively competitive areas might as well figure about 40 to be the beginning of getting booted out the door.

And 50 and above is a health liability to the corp. even if you are healthy. It's all about statistics, not you personally.

[customerserviceguy]

25. You make a point

but it has been raised from 65 to 67 for full benefits already.

Frankly, I expect them to raise it again, but I hope they can carve out exceptions for people with physically demanding jobs. I sit at a desk, and it wouldn't kill me to do that until 70, but I wouldn't expect to see hotel maids, farm workers, and janitors have to go a day past 65.

[RKP5637]

28. Most corps. I've worked in start dumping people in their early 50's. No age

discrimination in this country is an absolute joke.

[newtothegame]

30. Agree with you. nt

[dflprincess]

66. I'm in the group that can retire at 66 and get what they call full benefits but

according to the statement I received from Social Security this year if I work until I'm 70 I'll get just over another $500 more a month. No way will I be able to afford to pass that up. I figure I'll need it to cover my Medi-gap policy.

I would have liked to retire when I was in good enough shape to enjoy a few years of not working.

[TheKentuckian]

27. We need to be focused on lowering the age to tighten up the job market

so people can not only get a job but one that pays a decent living wage so we can pay to to take care of ourselves and the children, the old, and the sick while building up something for ourselves instead of falling for a con that will grow elderly poverty like a weed and depress wages massively.

Long term this will grow the deficit just on lost tax revenue and a long term stagnant economy for most Americans.

The problem is that this is a scam and a heinous one at that. When was the last time we had millions of extra jobs in the economy? How can it be ignored that if we keep millions in the labor pool that there is a lot less to go around and even more people in line to replace you?

Why not a single peep of applying the tax to ALL income to rebalance the books and then looking at a half percent or a percent to allow us to retire at say 50-55-60 if we like or need to? Hell, if the retirement age was lower maybe we'd be at least creating enough jobs to keep up with population instead of slipping a little less and creating a wage death spiral and painful struggle for folks hungry for the chance to earn an income.

[librechik]

32. +100

yep, the belt tightening impulse doesn't help the economy at all. Leave full benefits in place and lower the age of retirement to open up jobs to unemployed.

[RKP5637]

37. Yep, there are all sorts of ways to make this work for all people. One of the

problems I think is that in a capitalistic economy someone has to lose. It's a mindset, nothing can be win/win, it always has to be win/lose.

It's just about become un-American to think of a win/win like you were discussing. We treat the economy and the long term success of ALL people like a sporting event, it always ends up being win/lose.

This country has become so unintelligent in my lifetime. The ignorance is astounding. Nothing has a reasonable and intelligent solution anymore.

[TheKentuckian]

39. Yup, yup that is a crucial piece of our failed national mentality

Great points

[Ignis]

41. +lots

Thanks for making that point so clearly.

[LaydeeBug]

33. fail. nt

[Warpy]

34. You try doing real physical work until you're 70

I guarantee it will be nearly impossible by the time you are 55. We don't all sit at desks in air conditioned offices and our bodies wear out if we use them to do the real work of this world.

Try it sometime. You might gain a better perspective on why the retirement age is where it is.

Oh, and look around you. How many of your co workers keep their jobs after they turn 55? That's something else you need to start thinking about, those years when you are considered ineligible for a corporate job but have 7 years to wait for reduced Social Security and 11 or 12 to wait for full benefits.

Anyone who wants to raise the age in this work climate needs to be ashamed of himself for his ignorance about what's really happening to us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Work 'til you die. The Capialists' wet dream.

[MadHound]

38. Because for those of us who are in the latter half of our working careers,

It is essentially taking away benefits, money that we paid in. It is also ruining many plans for retirement.

[donco6]

42. Can I ask what type of work you do? n/t

[RKP5637]

45. Lobbyist for "SS Reform Now."

Sorry, couldn't resist that one...

[donco6]

57. Well, ya gotta wonder if he's ever installed insulation for a living.

Or mopped floors. Yeah, everyone should do that till they fucking drop.

[RKP5637]

64. Installing insulation is a very tough job. Even the kids I see doing that are wiped out by it... nt

[donco6]

70. I would starve before I did it again.

It's just torture.

[NC_Nurse]

47. Many people are unable to work that long, and many die bfore then. How's

that fair? We paid into the system, probably more in percentage of income than a lot of those who are currently getting their benefits.

[RKP5637]

53. I paid into SS for half a century and much of it to the limit per year because of

my salary. It NEVER bothered me one bit. I ALWAYS figured it was helping other people and I would one day get my turn. We have a lot of callous people in this country today that don't give a F about anyone but themselves. The way we are headed, the US is going to devour itself on greed and me me me.

I've spent my life listening to people gripe about SS, all of their BS, when their turn came they couldn't get in line fast enough. And, if the F'en politicians had kept their hands out of SS over the years and not put in their worthless IOUs, we would be really well off today. Again, the objective of the US anymore seems to be to rig the system against the citizens.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. those iou's are t-bills and are NOT worthless

that meme is just more of the bullshit they feed us to convince us to accept cuts.

What the corrupt asshats in congress have done is to build the revenue stream from the boomer ss surplus into their budget, in particular into floating our insane military spending. Now that that boomer surplus is starting to decline, they are getting all antsy about where the dollars are going to come from to continue the party, and the obvious solution is to con us into taking benefit cuts and tax increases.

[RKP5637]

60. THANKS for the clarification! Very helpful!

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

81. +100. seems most people don't get that piece; any adjustments they make now (30 years

out from the projected date of shortfall) are to keep workers' SS taxes flowing into the general budget for them to play around with -- war spending, tax cuts for the rich, whatever.

SS is fully funded, at current retirement age, 30 years out.

And even then, it's funded at 75% of scheduled benefits (that's scheduled *higher* benefits 30 years from now, *not* 75% of *today's* benefits.)

[lbrtbell]

48. That's a cruel, callous thing to say

Just because a person can live longer doesn't mean they're healthy or energetic enough to keep working longer.

Nor does it mean they'll face any less discrimination in the workplace. Who's going to hire an older person, when a young one is available?

You really need to think this through before you jump to conclusions. Wait till you're 65 years old, and see how peppy you feel.

[TBF]

50. Oh how reasonable.

I hope they raise it to 500 when you're 70.

[WinkyDink]

52. You tell him!

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

51. Bwahahaha! You're young and healthy, right?

[walldude]

62. LMAO.. I was thinking the same damn thing

as I sit here at age 47 using my reading glasses to see and rubbing my sore joints from a busy work week.... Can't wait to see how much fun I am at 65.

[walldude]

63. Um... maybe.. now I'm just saying...

That the decision on what is the proper retirement age should not be made by some punk ass politician who wouldn't know a days work if it bit them on the ass. Somehow I don't think that a guy with manicured fingernails and the best medical care my money can buy them, needs to be telling a construction worker, or a roofer, or a factory worker when they are ready to retire. Call me crazy.

[pinboy3niner]

71. Okay, you're crazy (but not really).

To me, the notion of raising the retirement age is what's crazy. But you raise another interesting question: who decides?

We seem to have a lot of decisions being made today by those who are out of touch with those who are affected by those decisions. We try to change that--for one example, by electing Iraq and Afghanistan vets to Congress--but overall, we still have a disconnect between the deciders and the affected.

As constituents, we can have some influence-but that's been diminishing as the power of special interests have grown.

Your "crazy" question is anything but crazy.

[Hannah Bell]

82. I think we ought to raise the age at which congressmen & presidents can access *their* retirements

to 70.

shared sacrifice & all.

[JoePhilly]

68. I think you did a pretty good job of asking this question in a reasonable fashion ...

And you got flamed for even doing so.

The notion of increasing the age is not a new one, and many can chose to start taking benefits before 67, although the rate is less. So, if you want to start early, you have to be thinking that you won't live to 90 and it is better for you to take money earlier rather than later.

You also need to consider your beneficiaries and how long they might live.

If you are younger as some are suggesting you are, start an IRA or 401k. 25 years ago I was told that SS would be long gone for me, so I started investing for me ... and I still do ... I hope SS is still around in 20 years when I need it, but I do not count on it.

I think some have described the issue with raising the age limit ... physical impact of some jobs, intellectual impact of aging, age discrimination at work ... all very real issues. There are also age issues associated with race.

I think though, as some have argued, the issue is not what we spend on SS but how we fund it. What is the cap, what should it be ... addressing those aspects make more sense. One issue there is that the super rich often defer salary into other benefits ... so stock options as an example don't count for SS tax.

So you could ... maybe ... raise the FLOOR for SS tax ... give everyone 20-30k of income FREE of SS tax, then tax everything after that.

A model like that might work.

[newtothegame]

73. Thanks Joe, I appreciate your response and insight. nt

[bettyellen]

101. you got much more honest and complete responses all over this thread and ignored them all

[newtothegame]

109. Find some happiness friend. Hug a puppy. Watch a sunset. Something. nt

[bettyellen]

111. wallowing in willfull ignorance is fun? well whaddaya know. Enjoy yourself "kid".

[Hannah Bell]

85. the current model has worked just fine for 70 years & will continue

to work in the future unless it's deliberately destroyed.

"many can choose to start taking benefits before age 65" -- for a smaller check. in fact, the majority already "choose" to take benefits before 65, out of desperation -- inability to work due to no job, illness, disability. despite the smaller checks. the average recipient gets about $1000/mo & medicare. which is also on the table these days.

you act like this is some delightful picnic, a buffet of wonderful "choice".

[JoePhilly]

90. Ummm no ... I simply stated a fact ...

Every year, the government sends you a report of how much you would get monthly via SS depending on when you start. That is simply a fact. If you are smart, every year, you look at that form carefully. Even if you are young, you can use it to help you plan for the future. Simply a fact.

Your claim that "the majority" takes SS earlier than 65 out of "desperation" says nothing about SS. The "desperation" you refer to was not caused by the current SS system.

You mention disability. The form I refer to includes a line which tells you what you will get if you become disabled. It also includes a line indicating what your spouse would receive if you died. My father died at 42 (about 25 years ago). And my mother still gets a check from SS at 68. Wasn't a choice, just a reality. My father never made much money, struggled to hold a job, and died young. My mother's monthly check amount ~$1200.

Of course your last phrase makes my other point to the OP ... the OP got flamed for asking a reasonable question about SS.

I tried to give the OP a straight, non-emotional response ... and you flamed ME for doing so. Thus remaking my point that the OP got flamed for trying to ask a reasonable question on a complex subject.

Re-read my original post ... nowhere in my post do I suggest that this is "like this is some delightful picnic, a buffet of wonderful choice" ... I simply stated a fact.

And you attacked me for doing so.

[Hannah Bell]

94. ....

"The notion of increasing the age is not a new one, and many can chose to start taking benefits before 67, although the rate is less."

a delightful buffet of choice.

i can take a $600 check at 62, or i can sleep in the streets.

[JoePhilly]

98. Does not change the factuality of my statement ...

"The notion of increasing the age is not a new one" ... its not. I remember that notion being suggested back in 84. And from what I've read, its been floated prior to that as well.

", and many can chose to start taking benefits before 67, although the rate is less." That is a statement of fact. Many do start early and if they do, the rate is less. Simply a fact.

It is a choice one can make. The statement does not try to tell you what choice you should make, or for what reasons you should make that choice. Or suggest you should be happy with the choice you feel compelled to make.

My father died when he was 42. I was 19 at the time. My sister was 16. My mother had a low paying side job, and a ~$1200 check once a month. Did she have a choice? Not really. Was that the fault of SS? No.

Which is why I refer to the form they send you every year. The purpose of that form is to help you plan. And you want to plan so that when it comes time to make the choice, you can do so based on your own terms, and hopefully not be compelled by circumstances.

So, while I'm sorry your situation is as desperate as you suggest ... that doesn't change the facts I stated. Again, no delightful buffet suggested or implied.

[kenny blankenship]

69. And another thing: is cat food *really* so bad?

It keeps my cat alive! She bugs me for more of it every morning - wakes me up to get it for her, in fact. It can't be too disgusting, can it, if she can't wait to have more?

[RKP5637]

72. I was drinking one night and shared a can of dog food with my dog. It always

smelled good and he only ate 1/2 a can at a meal, so he gave me the other 1/2. I was curious. Frankly, it wasn't bad but I would never wish that on anyone. My dog had a great time of it, he thought it was great we were sitting there chowing down on his food. I did use a separate plate.

[Hannah Bell]

93. some of that catfood, i hear, is really gourmet stuff.

got little bits of vegetables in it & everything.

completely balanced meal.

[Hannah Bell]

74. "While the life expectancy at birth - 76.5 years in 1997 - grew by 0.2 years annually

between 1960 and 1997, the life expectancy at age 65 - 82.7 in 1997 - increased by only 0.09 years annually.

Furthermore, Social Security's trustees expect the life expectancy at age 65 to increase only at about 0.05 years annually for the next 75 years... Consequently, a higher retirement age means significantly fewer retirement years, or, if a worker retires early, a substantial benefit cut...

If the retirement age is... increased by just 3.2 years to age 70.2, a 35-year-old worker would still have only 16.5 years in retirement instead of the current average of 18 years.

Given the slow growth rate of life expectancy at or above age 65, it would take decades to bring the average number of retirement years back to where it is now."

http://www.epi.org/index.php/phpee/redirect/briefingpapers_raisingretirement_raisingretirement.


Other considerations:

1. Age to collect full benefits has already been raised to 67.

2. People already have the option to defer receiving SS until age 70 (at which time they collect a bigger check). Very few take that option; in fact, according to the link above, most people take early benefits (& a smaller check). One can guess it's mostly because they're too sick/disabled to work or they lost their job/drained their savings & have no other option.

So if the majority *already* take early benefits (with a reduced check), increasing retirement age to 70 would mean even *smaller* checks for those who can't hold out to age 70 -- and growing poverty among the elderly.

3. Though "on average" lifespan after age 65 has increased, the increases haven't been distributed evenly. Most of the benefit (as per usual) has gone to the highest income tiers.

In 2002 "average" life expectancy after 65 was 17 years, but for low income men it was only 11 years, and for low income women only 15 years. Low income men (& women) are less likely to reach age 65, & 1/3 of those who do die before age 73. They're also more likely to have serious health problems years before. Their jobs are also likely to be more physically demanding.

In contrast, high-income men/women "on average" live *more* than 17 years past age 65. But high-income workers are a minority of the workforce; their extended lifespans jack up the average in the same way that bill gates & i have an average income of billions.

4. Another thing to consider is that part of the "extended lifespan" picture is based on *projections" & trends, not actual real gains. We don't really *know* how long the boomers & later cohorts will live.

What we do know is that US society has grown increasingly unequal in terms of income over the last 30-odd years, & unequal societies tend to have lower life expectancies. Re this, there are some ominous trends: for about 1/5 women & 1/20 men, life expectancy has actually *dropped*:

"As shocking as it seems, life expectancy has fallen or stagnated for almost 1 in 5 women in the US, and 1 in 20 men. Majid Ezzati and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston studied mortality rates in all US counties between 1961 and 1999. They found that the inequality between counties' rates had been narrowing until the 1980s, when the trend reversed and the gap began to widen again. Although average life expectancy in the US rose steadily over all four decades, the researchers found that it declined significantly in 11 counties for men and 180 for women..."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826533.000-life-expectancy-dropping-in-some-parts-of-us.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

The researchers put it down to smoking, high blood pressure & obesity, but this doesn't wash. Smoking incidence has declined precipitously since the 60s, as has the incidence of heart disease & related morbidities.

The life expectancy gap was closing until the 80s. Then it began to widen again; this is exactly the time frame when the neo-lib/Reaganomics agenda of inequality took hold.

So long as our society grows more unequal we can expect widening differences in life expectancy, not only between rich & poor, but between rich & middle class, putting the projections of continuing increases in life expectancy for most of the population in doubt.

5. Social Security taxes have been raised through the years & part of the increase was to fund longer average retirements; i.e. part of the increase in average life expectancy has already been funded. Those tax increases + the raise to age 67 are plenty as things currently stand.

6. Social Security is fully funded with current retirement ages until about 30 years from now. There's no pressing need to change *anything* now to solve a problem that's projected to emerge 30 years from now.

Rather, the need now is to sunset the Bush tax cuts for the top 5% to ensure that the money borrowed from workers' excess Social Security payments over the last 30 years is repaid & their already-paid-for retirements are funded.

[taught_me_patience]

80. Totally agree. The age should be at least 70.

[Maru Kitteh]

84. How old are you and what kind of work do you do?

[Tailormyst]

83. What a sensible person you are.

[meow mix]

88. such a reasonable and sensible question!

:spray:

[TheKentuckian]

89. and "pragmatic" too

[QC]

87. Amazon has a toilet training kit for cats that looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/CitiKitty-Cat-Toilet-Training-Kit/dp/B000F1OS20

[Ganja Ninja]

92. 2010 - Yeah sure make it 70 what's the problem?

2015 - Yeah sure make it 72 what's the problem?
2020 - Yeah sure make it 74 what's the problem?
2023 - Yeah sure make it 75 what's the problem?

Do you get the idea?

[Fumesucker]

96. Here you go, Chuckles the sensible woodchuck explains..

[Yo_Mama]

97. Because for many there is no alternative

Except disability, of course. And believe me, this change won't bring the savings the theoreticians expect, because you are going to see an incredible number of people out on disability before 70, plus you are going to be pushing younger people out of the workforce, so the worker/retiree ratio won't shift nearly as much as the calculations show.

The rationale may seem reasonable, but it is not very reasonable.

First, the retirement age has already been raised. Many people (myself included) would have to wait until 67 to collect full benefits. Second, benefits have already been cut - it's now calculated on 35 years of wages instead of 20, which is going to lower most people's retirement check. Third, benefits were cut under Clinton by changing the CPI calculation, and the real buying power of Social Security checks has been drifting downwards ever since. The first few years it wasn't too bad, but now the changes have accumulated and many older persons are back to catfood already.

Fourth, the changes which have already occurred are forcing many older people to work much longer, but the fact is that most of them are only able to find work in lower-wage jobs (walk in a Walmart and look at the workforce) and often part-time. This is jacking up rates of teen and early-20s unemployment and will continue to do so over the next decade. Fifth, the life expectancy for those in their early 60s hasn't actually changed so much as people think. What has changed is that mortality at earlier ages has dropped a great deal.

Sixth, Social Security and Medicare taxes already add up to more than 15% of my generation's paycheck. We have been paying much higher rates for decades now (the change was in 1983), but now the plan is that we will get much less back out per person than earlier generations. Half of it is paid by the employer, and half is paid by the worker, so many workers don't realize exactly how much they do pay in.

Seventh, this is a huge class issue which really hits private sector workers and lower-paid workers. Many, perhaps even most, higher-income private sector workers are carefully restructured out of their jobs in their late 50s or early 60s. They cannot find new jobs with livable wages, and are forced to live on very low-paid employment plus savings until retirement.

Eighth, this utterly ignores the reality of how older people are already living and what they can do. If you really believe that having truck drivers, waitresses, bus drivers, construction workers, manufacturing workers, etc on the job for 40 hours a week at 68 or 69 is even remotely possible, you have rocks in your head. Either the accident rate is going to go way up or we are going to figure out a saner policy. And then there's the issue that as people grow older, many times you have one older person in relatively decent health taking care of a partially or totally disabled person. If that caretaker is going to be working, then social services for the disabled one are going to be necessary. I really don't see the savings that people expect, and I expect welfare and social services payments to rise very sharply if this change is passed. How does a person who is supposed to work 40 hours a week even get her/his spouse to the doctor's appointments?

What is going to happen to the 68 year old with a 72 year old spouse with a heart condition and/or Alzheimer's who has to take care of that person?

We have left compassion, realism and decency out of these calculations. I am tired of all this - a bone-deep tiredness and disgust that can hardly be described. Shifting the retirement age to 67 is already going to force many to early retirement, but shifting it to 70 is going to put many people in the grave.

[DailyGrind51]

102. Because persons over the age of 50 are having trouble finding jobs!

How are people age 65+ supposed to find and retain employment until they qualify for an advanced SS age requirement? Americans don't have enough saved for retirement to sustain them while they wait for Social Security to kick in.

[truebrit71]

103. I am paying for folks on SS right now...Why the hell should I wait to get the same benefits as them?

..it's a gamble by the Gummint against folks living long enough to actually claim what is owed to them...

[raccoon]

104. +10000--same with Medicare. Which IMO should cover all Americans,

not just those disabled or 65 and older.

[Vickers]

105. I was in the job market in my 40s, and that was tough. I can't imagine

looking for a job in my 50s, or 60s (or 70s?).

How old are you, and what do you do? I did a very physical job until about 4 years ago, and I'm not sure I could do it again (one of the reasons I switched professions).

I'm not sure I can do my current job when I'm in my 50s/60s.

[blueworld]

107. The benefits are based on salary as well as age & marital status

Benefits are calculated on the last few years of earnings. The less a person earns annually, the smaller their monthly benefit will be and the less likely they can retire at 65 anyway. I'm also not sure of all the specifics, but my understanding is that if both spouses work, only one earning history can be used to calculate benefits.

When my father-in-law, who was the best earner, got Alzheimer's & had to be put in a nursing home, my mother-in-law (10 years younger) lost half her benefits since the home got the other half, Medicare not withstanding. She had to move in with my sister-in-law.

Your point seems quite logical on the surface, but as always, the devil is in the details. SocSec is about as easy to maneuver as the IRS.

And thanks to the poster who put the DKOS link - I'm going over to read that as well.