Senator to Propose Raising Retirement Age

AP ^ | 3-7-2005 | NEDRA PICKLER

[No Surrender No Retreat]

I agree totally.

[Sunsong]

Those who do hard labor are not forced to do it all their lives. Ballerinas and athletes aren't in the business at age 35 either. If we don't raise the retirement age and people continue to live longer than ever before, how do you propose paying people medicare and social security for 20 years, given that folks retire at 65 and die at 85?

Good point. Lots and lots of people are going to live well beyond 85. There are over 16,000 Americans who are over 100 right now.

If people are retiring in their 60's and living to be 90 or 100 - well, do they really expect to be "retired" for 30 years? and do they really expect for young people to pay their way for that many years?

[Sunsong]

The welfare mentality is one of the most insidious and addictive things there is in a society, and it can easily take hold even on good, honest conservative people. And the longer one goes in life thinking that society "owes" him something, the more unlikely it is that person will ever let go of that attitude.

ditto. Sometimes I am amazed at how greedy the AARP/elderly constituency is. They may very well derail SS reform.

[rwfromkansas]

Over 40 years, even if there are a couple big crashes, you still would be able to get a mill or so if you invest in even basic retirement funds.

[EternalVigilance]

[Sunsong]

My mom is 83 and still working - because she likes to work. She is receiving SS *and* they take SS out of her checks.

Those who continue to work after 65 - continue to pay into the system.

[mongrel]

It seems to me we're having a pointless argument. At what point will you be 65 abb? Before 2023? Because if you are, nothing's changing for you.

The whole point of changing the system now is so that people have 15-20 years with alternatives to build up private nest eggs. So, abb, if you retire sooner, then convince your fellow seniors to let us make changes to secure our future. If you're retiring later, than you have plenty of time to put contributions into private accounts that will more than make up what you would lose by the changes.

Nobody is losing anything in this whole deal except the federal government, which won't be able to cook the books as easily with SS money. Less funds in the public SS system and more in private accounts means it will be harder for the federal government to make the deficit look smaller.

We should all be on the same side here, nobody's getting screwed by these proposals. The AARP is trying to scare the hell out of seniors telling them their benefits are going to get cut in half, but forget to mention that figure only applies to those retiring in forty years.

So I wish you old people would back off and look at the whole picture and realize that YOU'RE LOSING NOTHING WITH THESE PROPOSALS. And if you're young enough to have lower benefits, YOU'RE YOUNG ENOUGH TO INVEST AND EASILY MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. The only people who will lose benefits are lazy welfare pimps who are not going to get ready for their retirement. They shouldn't be living high off the hog on someone else's money anyway. They will still have enough to live on. Everybody wins except those who want a bloated federal budget, and that's why Bush's proposals scare the Democrats.

[CyberAnt]

How can raising interest rates be a threat to seniors ..??

If they have their money invested - raising interest rates would mean a higher rate of interest would be paid on their money ..?? Do I have this correct ..?? If I do then Teddy is lying through his teeth again!

[Fishrrman]

A Ruckus of Dogs writes:
Very few jobs are paying pensions these days and as for those that are, very few people stick around at one place for 20 years. Actually, if you've been at one place for over 10 years, interviewers look at you funny.

Well, I guess I ain't gettin' another job after this one, because they're going to look at me _really_ funny. I'm in my twenty-sixth year (on the railroad). Four and half more and I'm retired - at age 60.

And I hired out late, at age 29. Many who hire on young retire with forty or _more_ years of service. But the railroad can be a punishing life, and quite a few don't make it, or don't survive long into retirement. Still, once you hire out on the railroad, if you stay any length of time, you're probably destined to retire from that life.

I haven't paid a penny into Social Security since 1979, and don't expect to pay a penny more into it during my life. Rail workers pay into the Railroad Retirement System, which I believe actually predates Social Security by a few years. We are taxed at a _higher_ rate than other workers, but receive higher monthly annuities at the end of the line, as well. It's worth mentioning that with all the talk about raising the retirement age for Social Security, Congress recently passed a law _lowering_ the age for rail workers back down to age 60 (it was raised from 60 to 62 during the Reagan years). They tell us the system will be solvent for the forseeable future (again, that's what they _tell_ us).

A very very few rail lines that serve wealthy constituencies (such as the Long Island Rail Road) have actual "pension plans" for their employees. The vast majority of railroad agreement (i.e., non-management) employees have only Railroad Retirement to collect when they pull the pin.

Having said that, I agree with previous posters who think that trying to raise the retirement age will force many older people who earn their livings by manual labor (even in the skilled trades) to struggle on past the point in life where they _should_ be able to retire. If the Pubbies try to push on this, it's going to hurt them.

- John

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

A very very few rail lines that serve wealthy constituencies (such as the Long Island Rail Road) have actual "pension plans" for their employees. .

DO you live on Long Island? I do and I take the LIRR to Manhattan on occasion. although I hardly consider myself wealthy. I didn't know they had a pension plan.

Having said that, I agree with previous posters who think that trying to raise the retirement age will force many older people who earn their livings by manual labor (even in the skilled trades) to struggle on past the point in life where they _should_ be able to retire. If the Pubbies try to push on this, it's going to hurt them.

Here's the problem. People are living a lot longer than ever before. If people retire at 65 and die at 85, how do we propose paying them Social Security and Medicare for 20 years? I think people who are in fields demanding manual labor should consider a career change early in life. Athletes don't stick around past age 35, why should construction workers?

[PGalt]

Ra^ther Hagelian of Chuck. $ocialists have that $ixth $ense. They $ee dead people.

[big gray tabby]

Now you're just being stubborn. We can only repeat it so often--I am for any solution that will relieve the burden on our kids. You can haircut my check every month so no increase is needed in payroll taxes.

But means testing is right out of the Little Red Book. It isn't anything more than another divisive issue, red meat for the Boxers and Pelosis and their constituency of layabouts.

You keep claiming we're trying to transfer more money from poor working kids to rich parents and you keep ignoring the part when we tell you we'll take the hit--as long as we all take the same hit.

You seem to be on this rant because you want to prove something to folks here about the weak foundation the system rests upon. Pin a rose on you--you're right. Now how about discussing the issue. How about telling us why, morally, we should sit still for rewarding Washington politicians with another opportunity to pick winners and losers. Tell us why we should watch people who blew all their money cash a check every month while we get bupkus.

Stop pretending the issue is the burden on our kids. The issue is how we'll apportion the hit so we don't have to burden our kids.