From Retirement Ethic To Work Ethic

IBD Editorials ^ | November 23, 2010 | Staff

[Kaslin]

Social Security: It's time to give a sensible reform the hearing it deserves. Gradually raising the minimum age for old-age entitlements would be good for the budget, the economy and society.

Is that infamous third rail of American politics losing its juice? We may soon see, because leaders of the party that's about to take over the House are on record supporting ideas that politicians past have dared not touch.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who will take over as chairman of the Budget Committee, has laid out a detailed proposal to raise the eligibility age for Social Security by two years over a period of 48 years. Incoming Speaker John Boehner has suggested a similar reform. Ryan also proposes revising the benefit formula to reduce its future growth and wants to revive private accounts — an idea his GOP colleagues ran away from when President Bush promoted it in the mid-2000s.

Raising the eligibility age is probably the easiest reform to explain — and to attack. No matter how moderate the change, it seems to send the left into fits of outrage. When the co-chairmen of President Obama's fiscal commission proposed reforms almost identical to Ryan's (plus a tax increase that Ryan and the Republicans do not endorse), Nancy Pelosi called the plan "unacceptable." AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said it would cut "the critical economic lifelines for working people."

Liberals may be trying once again to play the old scare-the-seniors card — though none of today's retirees would be affected by these changes in the slightest. Or they may assume, as they always have, that voters don't want the GOP getting anywhere near Social Security. Democrats feel have a certain pride of ownership toward the program, and they seem to think the public feels as they do.

[HighWheeler]

Or.....the govt could stop stealing 15% of my earnings and let me handle the financials. I would be FAR better off.

[Ann Archy]

1. Let people who really don’t need their SS give them up BUT GIVE THEM A MEDAL FOR THEIR SACRIFICE, so they have something to SHOW for their sacrifice!!

2. Let people take their SS PLUS interest they would have made on it, and STOP the payments.

3. PRIVATE ACCOUNTS FOR YOUNGER WORKERS!!

4. NO SS PAYMENTS TO ILLEGALS.....NONE!!

[exDemMom]

I recall that the Democrats used pure fear-mongering to block privatization of SS.

What if the Republicans used fear-mongering to push privatization? For instance, emphasize that as long as the money is in politicians’ hands, they can and do use it for all of their pet projects, while making sure retirees live comfortably is at the bottom of their priorities.

[RipSawyer]

If they stop stealing your money they will just devalue it through inflation so that what you have is worthless anyway. They have pretty well done that already. The nominal amount that my father earned in a month while supporting himself, a wife and four sons is only a decent day’s pay now and nothing to brag about even for one day’s pay.

[Venturer]

You are right, either way we end up with nothing.

Mu idea is to wait and see what happens with the health care Plane.

With Obama’s rationing, the average age of death is going to come way down. We may not need to raise the retirement age.

[Retired COB]

Rep. Paul Ryan, who will take over as chairman of the Budget Committee, has laid out a detailed proposal to raise the eligibility age for Social Security by two years over a period of 48 years.

I believe he's also for "Means Testing". I'm really confused how means testing became part of any Republican's agenda. Means testing = class warfare....which is a Democrat gimmick. There is no logic that dictates that the people who have put the most into the program should get the least out....again, that sounds like Obama's "Redistribution".

If they want the super rich to be able to decline their Social Security benefits in order to save the system money, that option is already available. All they have to do is not sign up, or sign up and decline the payments. On the other hand if someone of means wants to get a payback because they've contributed the max for a lot of years, I can't blame them. If nothing else, it can help offset the crippling 39% income tax they're paying.

BTW, I earn less than the magic $250,000 that is considered "Rich" nowadays. I do, however, expect that number to be lowered as the government wants more taxes to support it's uncontrolled spending.

[glorgau]

Gradually raising the retirement age will do NOTHING for the solvency of Social Security. It is currently laying out more than it takes in and will do so for the foreseeable future. The “trust fund” is nothing more than promises.

[Vigilanteman]

You forgot one of the most important:

No SSI payments for people who've never paid into the system and have been imported specifically to drink from it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Gradually raising the retirement age will do NOTHING for the solvency of Social Security. It is currently laying out more than it takes in and will do so for the foreseeable future.

---

One simply needs to adjust the retirement age annually to maintain annual break-even solvency.

Then when the baby boom wanes, instead of ratcheting the age down, you can start phasing out the system by allowing an opt-out into a reduced contribution system with means tested benefits.

[Marathoner]

With Obama’s rationing, the average age of death is going to come way down. We may not need to raise the retirement age.

I do not believe this is by accident.