Posted on 03/07/2005 9:24:05 AM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - A leading Republican senator is proposing to raise the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 68, while Democrats maintain their opposition to the president's plan to overhaul the retirement program with private investment accounts.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's plan would raise the age that retirees could receive full benefits, beginning in 2023. "We are living longer," Hagel said Sunday on CBS'"Face the Nation.""So when you look at the total universe of this, I think that makes some sense to extend the age."
But some leading Democrats said they could not support Hagel's plan because he would pay for private accounts by borrowing and increasing the nation's deficit. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., told ABC's "This Week" that would be "a great threat to seniors" because it would raise interest rates.
President Bush plans to travel across the country this week as part of his 60-day push to persuade a skeptical public to support personal retirement accounts. The president's plan would allow workers under age 55 to divert up to 4 percentage points of their Social Security taxes into private stock and bond investment accounts in exchange for lower guaranteed future benefits.
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that while polls show most Americans don't like the idea, most of the opposition is coming from people over 55 who won't be affected by it. He said on "Fox News Sunday" that Bush will try to reassure those older Americans that their benefits won't change.
Bartlett said the White House wants to work with Democrats, but Democrats are vowing to fight unless the president is willing to change his plan to divert Social Security funds into private accounts.
"If the president takes privatization off, if he makes a commitment to the future of Social Security, we're ready to sit down on a bipartisan basis and put everything on the table," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on NBC's "Meet the Press.""That's the only way to start a good-faith negotiation."
Democrats also object to the president's call for personal accounts because they would not make Social Security solvent. Treasury Secretary John Snow, appearing on ABC, maintained the personal accounts still must be part of the solution.
"They don't in and of themselves bring those lines together," he said. "But we'll never get a fair and equitable solution to the Social Security problem unless personal accounts are an integral part of the solution."
Hagel's plan, which he said is the first Social Security reform bill being introduced in the Senate this year, would allow workers 45 and younger to keep their guaranteed Social Security account, but set up a voluntary program of personal accounts that could supplement their retirement income.
"The president has not laid down a specific plan as to how he's going to get us to solvency," Hagel said. "I do that. It doesn't mean mine's best, but I do it."
Bartlett indicated the president may consider raising the amount of income that is taxed to fund Social Security above the current $90,000 per person. "He says the only thing that's off the table is raising the rate" at which income is taxed, Bartlett said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Also on Sunday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Fox that because of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support of personal accounts, some people "have seriously questioned the independence of the Fed." She declined to say whether she would describe Greenspan as a "political hack," as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did last week.
Other Democrats distanced themselves from Reid's comment. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said on CNN that Greenspan is "sometimes very mistaken," but he is an "above-average human." Durbin said he has disagreements with Greenspan, but that calling him a political hack "may have been slightly too strong."
"You don't touch your "private" account until you retire. At that time, a schedule is put together determining how much you would need per month, and that amount is doled out to you from the account for the rest of your days."
At what age is the retirement considered valid? (per government definition) Do you know if that age is connected to 401K investments?
You've been sold a bill of goods.
Paying into SS does not equate to 'saving your money'. It was collected as Income Tax II, in fact (Medicare is Income Tax III), and spent. ALL of it.
In fact, your demand for 'your share' is a demand on your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Do you believe they owe you a bigger bank account, while they are required to live on less and less??
"As I wrote on a previous post, Republicans should refer to "collection of benefits age" rather than "retirement age"."
I like this clarification. The government should have no say when I can retire!
Read the thread. It's shocking a discussion like this takes place at arguably the most conservative website in the country.
"Means testing just means taking away benefits from folks who have saved their money and giving them to people who shot theirs on boats and cocaine. I can find no moral justification for basically cancelling my account out so you can get full benefits. What's your justification for this?"
Nobody is talking about cancelling accounts. A person of means would get back all they paid in plus interest, but that is it. If this person fell back below the set threshold, they could start receiving payments again.
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.
I agree.
But how you can call me some kind of a communist for disagreeing with you that transferring the minimal living sustenance of our kids to our bank accounts, when ours are already bulging, is beyond me.
As far as I know its the same age that you're eligible for Social Security.
I don't care what they do to the benefit--they can cut it to 70% of what is paid today and that's fine with me--as long as we all take the same haircut. I'm not going to sit quietly while we yet again reward the grasshoppers and screw the ants.
And I haven't even touched on the disincentive to save that such a plan would require. Why not just p!ss away my savings if the rest of you will pay for a full benny for me?
Means testing is Socialism 101.
I am 21 too and I do not expect to recieve social security benefits in the future. The whole system is one big ponzi scheme and we are going to be ripped off. It would ease burden somewhat to raise the retirement age but at the same time we should be against it because the sooner the system falls apart, the better. Then people will rely on family for security, the way that it used to be before the expansion of the government destroyed the role of traditional family in American life.
In other words, plan ahead for your retirement and have a couple of kids, you will be all set. That way if you ever became broke while you're old, you can always move in with one of your kids. *wink*
I don't think I follow. The benefits being paid to current recipients are derived from the Social Security payroll tax payments currently being paid by those working. I understand what you to be proposing is that "well off" people should "get back" an amount equivalent to the Social Security payroll tax payments they have made to date over the course of their working years. Again, where is that money going to come from?
Again, you have bought into the lie that somehow SS went 'into your account'. That's laughable.
SS is nothing but a generational transfer payment...from the generations with the least assets to the generation with the most assets.
Yup. The number of people around here who are willing to opine on how to "fix" Social Security, without having any idea as to the basics of how the program works, is astonishing.
It really is.
And those who propose the first step to undoing the damage being foisted on our people get called 'socialists'.
'Astonishing' is definitely the appropriate word...
You need to read up on this problem. Today's seniors get back their money with interest--it's tomorrow's seniors who won't even get their money back, let alone interest. Your solution might have worked 20 years ago, but the system has plenty of money now and no mechanism for saving any surplus.
Just returning our money with interest would be a greater amount of money than just leaving things alone because as it stands now we (tomorrow's retirees) won't even get back our money, let alone interest.
I hope you're not actually planning on SS as a means of funding your retirement.
That is what they have always counted on...
Damned increased life expectancy!
Where is global warming when you need it?
< /sarcasm >
Yes, we could start a C&SUF program. We have the unelected sit in full view of the public at a desk doing nothing. At the close of business, they get up from their desk go to the closet. Once there, they retrieve (1) perk mop & bucket. They then proceed to mop the Capitol floors to earn their meager pay in full view of the public. Satire at it's best. NSNR
There are no individual Social Security accounts. FICA is just a tax, no different from income taxes, and SS benefits are just welfare paid by current taxpayers. So yes, there's no reason why Warren Buffett should collect any payments, neither should Bill Gates in 25 years, and if things go well neither should I in 40. The corollary of means testing is that it allows a substantial tax reduction since payments would be limited to those who are actually poor, rather than being distributed to everyone in the group of richest Americans. (And actually the regressive payroll tax should be abolished altogether, both for efficiency and to end the fiction that it's a retirement plan, but that's another matter).
You respond as if I intend to tax my children so I can get paid, but the discussion here is what solutions we'll agree upon to avoid that. I have already agreed to a 30% haircut and you have agreed to cancel out my benefit and give it to someone who threw their money away instead of saving it. You tell me who's willing to sacrifice to avoid taxing the bejeezus out of the kids. (Hint: It's one of us, but not you.)
Sounds to me like my account's pretty real when you want to appropriate it, but not when I assert the same rights as anyone else would have. Why? Because I have savings?
Pfft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.