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."
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
ROFLMAO I dont expect to get half of what I paid into SS back much less adding interest...the problem is so many people and "survivors" getting benefits that contributed nothing or very little....its a scam and should be abolished...if it is just a taxII it should be presented as such..fiduciary duty to disclose and all that...they do advise you benefits are subject to change...its like anything else the govt controls more messed up than Hogan's goat...the less of our money we give them the less they can waste and mess up...privatize now...
I'd love to pass a rule that not only should Social Security be means-tested, but all those chain-smoking old grandmas that I see in the Vegas and Atlantic City casinos that can't throw away their money into the one-armed bandits fast enough should have their Social Security benefits taken away from them.
Lobby....hell.....tar and feathers seems more appropriate. How these idiots can talk with a straight face about screwing American TAXPAYERS yet again in favor of billions for illegals and corrupt foreign gov'ts, etc. is beyond me. Yeah, like we're supposed to believe and support these same scumbags who've been "borrowing" huge $ of SS surpluses over the last couple decades to mask all their overspending.....gee, they wouldn't lie to us would they?
I agree in principle. In practice, we're not going let poor old people starve, so there has to be some form of a safety net. Given that we do need some welfare, it's much less objectionable to give it only to those truly in need rather than giving it to everyone (remember, it's coming from today's workers who are as a group less wealthy than retirees). Welfare is sometimes a necessary evil, but welfare for the rich is indefensible.
And I haven't even touched on the disincentive to save that such a plan would require.
It's not like you're going to be living the high life if all you have are SS benefits. It should cover basic expenses, if you want any luxuries you'll have to save on your own.
I don't "want your 'account'", since it doesn't exist.
Your 'reasoning' is circular, and is entirely based on the SS lie that has been sold to generations of Americans now without much refutation, unfortunately.
SS is welfare.
The sooner you realize it, the sooner you will drop the unreasonable assumption that your generation, the generation with most of the assets, has some proprietary right to make your grandkids live on macaroni and cheese dinners so you can further pump up your assets.
Now I will have to work harder and longer to pay for old people to enjoy benefits that I may never see myself. Workers everywhere should be outraged by this robbery. We need our own AARP to lobby these bozos.
DON'T FORGET THAT THE OLD PEOPLE NOT ONLY PAID A FAR SMALLER FICA TAX-IT STARTED AT 1%- BUT ALSO ARER GETTING MORE THAN THEY PUT IN.
You actually think we'd see a tax reduction out of it? Are you from Mars? They'll just spend the money the way they do now, to buy votes from idiots. We won't get back a dime of it.
The reason we cannot tell Bill Gates he's out of the system is because you'd be drawing a line to decide who gets benefits. Once you do that, you have the ability to finesse the line where it buys you the most votes and those above it get screwed. Do you really trust politicians to do anything but set that line anywhere but at the point that the most knuckleheaded wastrels congregate? Do you really want to give even more political power to Washington to pick winners and losers?
That doesn't sound very conservative to me.
YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T VOTE IN THE NUMBERS THAT GREEDY GEEZERS DO
YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T VOTE IN THE NUMBERS THAT GREEDY GEEZERS DO
Raising the retirement age will not change when you can retire......it will just DECREASE the amount you receive if you retire early. Right now one can retire at 62 rather than 66 [those born between 1944-54] and take a 25% decrease in benefits.
The closer I get, the farther away I get. Thank God I don't count on SS.
How about airline pilots who are forced by law to retire at age 60 ? Or river pilots who are forced by law to retire at age 70 ?
Fact of the matter is, no amount of working at minumum wage as a pizza delivery boy or WalMart greeter will come anywhere close to covering minimal living expenses. Do you think you can get a job in a corporation at age 60 or later ? 70 ? 75 ? I know lots of people age 50 or older with long, high-skill and productive work histories who are having problems getting full-time jobs, especially if they require health insurance.
Your solution to age discrimination is ??? Right - being a member of the younger generation you haven't encountered this problem yet. Don't worry - you will.
I have alreay stated my willingness to take a haircut so my kids won't get dinged (this is many years off even though I have contributed for 31 years.)
You, however, have decided the solution is to relieve me of benefits so that people without savings can get theirs. And I maintain your solution would be readily endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank--they can use that mechanism as they have used welfare. To buy votes from dumbasses.
Not a conservative solution IMO.
Yes, but so what? Are you opposed to all means-testing of welfare? (There's actually a decent case to make for abolishing all welfare and giving each American $10,000 a year or so, but that's not going to happen).
Once you do that, you have the ability to finesse the line where it buys you the most votes and those above it get screwed.
That's already the case with SS today, and many other government programs such as the income tax. Means-testing is far from a perfect solution, but it's a clear improvement over welfare for the rich.
Only those who saved - those who were improvident ended up with little.
So get another or a second job and stop seething. It's not your money - yet.
So give it to your kids - what's stopping you ? Why do you want the gov't to decide who gets the 12.4% they extract from you ?
WHO SHOULD MAKE THE SACRIFICE TO SAVE THE SYSTEM?
1. PEOPLE THAT PAID A SMALL AMOUNT AND ARE RECEIVING FAR MORE THAN THEY PUT IN?
2. PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY PAYING A MUCH HIGHER FICA RATE AND WILL PAY FAR MORE INTO THE SYSTEM THAN THEY WILL EVER GET?
WHO SHOULD MAKE THE SACRIFICE TO SAVE THE SYSTEM?
1. THE AGE GROUP WITH THE LOWEST RATE OF POVERTY
2. THE AGE GROUP WITH A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF POVERTY?
Oh, no, I am not planning on SS to cover any of it.
I guess I need to put it in my mind that the "retirement age" is only when you will get full benefits if SS is intact. It does not mean you can't retire sooner.
Once I get out of college and am in a job, I will start saving immediately...Roth IRA, 401K etc.
If you even wait until you are 30, that cuts down on how much you save by quite a bit.
I was just making a comment that by the time I get old enough to retire, the age for full benefits will be really high probably.
Well, i gotta weigh in here. Social Security IS NOT welfare. The definition of "welfare" is charity from the haves to the have nots. Everyone who works pays into social security, so it aint like we're trying to milk the govenment out of money that someone else put in. Means testing SS would change it to "welfare" in the classic definition of the term.
Like Big Grey Tabby, i'm one of the ants. And i'll be d*#mned if i'm got sit quietly and let it happen without a real sh&#ty fight.
I think they should get rid of the retirement age entirely. And get rid of "Social Security," too.
Call it what it started out to be, the Poor Tax.
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.