Posted on 06/15/2005 5:34:09 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
WASHINGTON - Work till you're 69 before getting full Social Security benefits? That's one possibility — for Americans who retire two decades or more into the future — as Republicans on a key Senate committee review suggestions for improving the program's solvency.
No decisions have been made yet, and it could be fall before the politically volatile Social Security issue reaches the floor of either the House or Senate, if then.
At the same time, an increase in the retirement age is one of the suggestions that Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, outlined last week for fellow Republicans on the panel, according to several officials. Officials said Grassley's suggestion for raising the retirement age would be phased in, possibly over two decades or more, depending on future demographic trends.
The Iowa Republican has also suggested steps to hold down benefits for future upper-income retirees. The officials who described his presentation did so on condition of anonymity, saying the discussions were confidential.
Under current law, the age for retiring with full Social Security benefits is 65 years and six months. It is rising gradually until it reaches 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later.
The GOP lawmakers on the committee are scheduled to meet again on Thursday to continue their work, hoping to agree on a plan that can unify Republicans and allow them to advance one of President Bush's key second-term priorities.
The issue has become intensely contentious in Congress, with public polls indicating tepid support for Bush's call to allow younger workers to create voluntary personal accounts funded out of their Social Security payroll taxes. Democrats accuse the White House of seeking to privatize the depression-era program, while supporters of the accounts argue they are needed to modernize it.
"The easy path is to do nothing. That's the easy political path," Bush said Tuesday in State College, Pa., where he appeared before a young audience drawn from rural families.
"The tough path is to come together and get something done. But let me tell you something. By doing nothing, you're about to hear that we will have done a disservice to a younger group of Americans coming up," he told a convention of the Pennsylvania FFA, formerly known as the Future Farmers of America.
For their part, Democrats criticized Bush anew, saying his proposal would privatize Social Security while cutting benefits.
"Rural Americans tend to be older and more likely to depend on Social Security," Reps. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., said in a joint statement. They head the Democratic House Rural Working Group.
The president has called for a bill to create permanent solvency for the program, and he also wants the bill to give younger workers the option of establishing a personal retirement account financed from a portion of their payroll taxes.
Under current predictions, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax receipts in 2017, and the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. At that point, benefits would be cut to adjust for the reduction in available funds.
Along with curbs in benefits or increases in taxes, raising the retirement age is one of three general approaches that lawmakers can consider as they try to improve the solvency of Social Security.
I want the retirement plan the Senators get...sweet deal if you can steal....er swing it.
Raise retirement age to 90. That'll save it!
Why not? Ideally, we would scrap the whole rotten income redistribution system.
Short of that (as it seems any viable plan will be)...we have to cut benefit payouts.
Unless we means-test benefits, we have to raise the retirement age...as it stands in 2005, people who reach that age of 65 can expect to live under 20 or 25 years...that means the average retired American will be receiving money confiscated from working Americans for more than 1/3 of their entire adult lives...it is unsustainable
I think it makes sense to raise the retirement age. I think I have read on threads here at FR that when SS was established, life expectancy was 61 years, so that few people actually made it to retirement age. My guess is that at age 65 back then the ability to continue to work was very compromised. These days we see retirement communities with 70-ish folks playing tennis and golf, swimming etc. These are good things. Those people worked and invested and saved so that they could retire, and are, as they are entitled, taking advantage of Social Security provisions.
What is the philosophy behind retirement, and the perception that at age 65 we are somehow entitled to retire from work? I hope to do so, although my wife and I don't plan on relying on Social Security for any income. We live relatively modestly for our income level, and hope to accumulate enough to retire "on time." But should retirement be an entitlement? If one is able to work, and not in a financial position to retire, must society (or should society be required) to support that person until death as a prize for having lived 65 years? I suggest not, but I am open to persuasion...
I thought it was already staggered to 69 for some of the more recent births?
If Social Security was still what it's supposed to be, a safety net to keep Seniors housed and fed, there wouldn't be a problem.
How bad can the problem be if they want to include Mexican labor for benefits?
The government is creating a problem, by throuwing money at its friends, and then coming up with a "solution" that will send money to its friends in the stock market, mutual funds, and asset management.
Pretty cool deal for the rich pharmaceutical and stock-market interests.
IF you have any funds at 65 they will change the rules so you won't be getting what you think you will. Wish I could live to see it!
That's the kind of hubris the tar and feather treatment was meant for. They have us so buys chewing on each other, we don't go after the real problem. Americans are saps.
If you think about SS it's really and has always been the biggest carrot on a stick for the American people.
In other words, it was a huge SCAM from the beginning.
Under what right did FDR confiscate the earnings of other people to give it to the lucky 25% of the population that made it to 65?
I believe that until people realize the fundamental dishonesty of Social Security, they won't see the need to have it changed.
Lets see if I can get this right:
They (government) forced us (the working man) to pay into a socialistic retirement fund (they exlcude themselves of course). Then "they" raid the SS Trust Fund replacing the hard-earned cash contributions with a bunch of worthless paper I.O.U's and move the cash contributions to the General Fund where "they" can freely spend it as they wish. Then "they" have the audacity to change the "rules" on benefits for those that were forced to pay! In any other business circle, this would be considered a crime and breach of contract...but oh no, not for these boys...they're the elite.
Does anyone in fanstasy-land Washington understand what the word: R E V O L T means? Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is coming. IF these clowns would just pay back what they raided and quit raiding it, they wouldn't have to do this. Greed is an ugly thing and we're seeing it at its fullest.
What a phony. The easy path is letting all those 50 and over off the hook for this mess. And that's just what Bush is proposing; sticking to the kids and grandkids of those that made the mess.
The big stock brokerage firms are dead set against the privatization aspect of social security reform.
Too many costs, too many small accounts, too many more watchdogs in an industry that is already heavily regulated. They don't want it. If they did want that money, the "reform" package would have already been passed. With the financial industry position now, privatization is as far away from reality as an end to the war on drugs.
They can raise the retirement age to 95...I don't care. I'm going at 62. I'm not depending on SS to be there anyway.
Raising the retirement age is the fairest and most honest way to preserve Social Security. Perhaps some provision can allow those who wish to retire earlier to pay more.
I totally agree, the goal should be the total elimination of SS, and its replacement with welfare. For seniors who honestly can't work, and honestly have no money.
Right now we are taking money away from struggling young families, 13% of their income.. and giving it to millionaire seniors.
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.