Ping
The GOP is not smart enough to figure out the obvious solution to this problem, i.e. mandatory retirement accounts. Tell people they've gotta save say 5% of their income in a Roth-like IRA, so that if social security goes bust, they will have an alternative source of funds. Over time, the voters will figure out that these mandatory private accounts are a safer place to put their money than the social security trust fund, and they will demand that Congress divert more of their social security contributions to these mandatory accounts.
... appears to say content posted from a blog belongs in the Bloggers & Personal forum.
NO to raising the retirement age! If we don't stop that option now, we will never be able to retire.
It is easy for a Congressperson to work until they are 80 since they have tax-paid staffers to do everything for them. How about no pay raises for Congress until SS is secure?
If you were born on or after 1960, your retirement age has already been raised to 67. This is effectively a benefit cut. Also, anyone born on or after 1960 has already had their taxes doubled for their entire working life. Carter and Clinton both passed huge ss tax increases. So those of us born after 1960 have already had our benefits cut and our taxes hiked. Any new cuts should be only AND I MEAN ONLY on those born before 1960. Figure it out somehow. The oldsters are spending our money. Let us choose to put our money in personal savings accounts, and no one from here on out should be getting any ss money unless they have the same rules that we have, retroactive taxes due and reduced benefits to reflect increased retirement age. Finally, consider this, without personal accounts, every few years congress inches up our retirement age and raises taxes to "fix" social security. By the time we get to be 65, retirement age will be 75 and we will be paying 50% of our income to social security.
It won't be exactly what the President suggested, but it still falls within his basic parameters. Win-win, if this means actually getting reform through. Once the idea is firmly planted and is "in production", changing it to be a more aggressive replacement is much easier. Getting that "foot in the door", so to speak, is the harder and more important part.
They ought to eliminate the partial benefit available at 62. Virtually everyone is taking SS at 62.
An election comes up, and suddenly Hagel turns reasonable. LOL
They are right in giving him credit. I am loathe to praise him for anything but this is the first reasonable plan put out by a Senator. Similiar to the President's proposal critiqued in a way that might see more movement in the Senate. That is if the Rep Senators will get onboard instead of cowering in the background.
Isn't chucky a democrat? Either way why is there a rino as the senator for nebraska? we could easly run another tom coburn like in Oklahoma and win.
Raising the retirement age to 68 will be a cut of $43,200 because those paying in will forfeit 36 monthly payments. In fact, some will not collect at all because fewer payers will live to 68 than were living at 65. I hope Sen. Hagel will explain that to those who have been paying in since they were 16 or 18.
Hagel should have the guts to go ahead and make it official and change his affiliation to the Democrat party. We don't need RINO's like him. He is an embarassment to Nebraska.