As Social Security’s full retirement age moves to 67, some experts say it should not go higher

CNBC ^ | 02/13/2023 | Lori Konish

[SeekAndFind]

Key Points

• Politicians on both sides of the aisle promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare at this month's State of the Union address.
• But one idea that has been floated, raising the full retirement age, would be a reduction in benefits, according to experts.
• "They are proposing a 40-year-old plan that doesn't work for this economy," a labor economist says.

Pekic | E+ | Getty Images

More than 1 million people recently took to the streets in France to protest an increase in the country's standard retirement age.

In the United States, a similar battle might be quietly brewing in Washington.

The full retirement age for Social Security, when workers are eligible for 100% of the benefits they've earned, is transitioning to 67. Eligibility for health care coverage under Medicare currently starts at age 65.

Yet as both programs face funding shortfalls, one Republican proposal has suggested pushing those ages higher.

The Republican Study Committee budget, put forward by House leaders, has called for Social Security's full retirement age to gradually go up until it is increased by three years. Based on their proposal, people born in 1978 or later would have a full retirement age of 70.

The proposed changes would not apply to current Social Security beneficiaries or people ages 55 and over, according to the plan that was proposed last year.

[montag813]

Idiots. Leave it alone. GOP just wants to lose.

[Governor Dinwiddie]

There are a lot of grifters claiming "disability" and collecting, and they are nowhere near retirement age. I met a guy who was collecting disability. I said "you don't look disabled to me." He said he was a alcoholic and they let him collect disability for it. No kidding.

[Leaning Right]

> Idiots. Leave it alone. GOP just wants to lose. <

You are correct. Social Security is a contract. The instant a person pays into Social Security, a contract is established. That contract must honored.

Oh no, say many in the GOP leadership. Let’s unilaterally change that contract. We won’t mess with our federal retirement plans, of course. But we will mess with the retirement plans of plumbers, bricklayers, and waitresses.

The Democrats must be loving this.

[P.O.E.]

Acquaintance of mine had a druggie child (heroin, coke, etc.) She worked for Social Security and was able to pull some strings and get him lifetime disability payments, so he just partied on having a grand old time on the taxpayers dime.

[dfwgator]

That’s why it’s called “The Stupid Party”.

[P.O.E.]

Forgot to mention - at the age of 21. So decades of cashing SS checks, and zero paying into it. AFAIK, he’s still livin’ large having a grand old time with wine, women & song.

[vpintheak]

Always talk about reducing and running out of SS and Medicare benefits. Never talk about reducing and running out of welfare benefits. Sick.

[SaveFerris]

Apparently

[glorgau]

It’s a game of fiscal chicken.

[glorgau]

> You are correct. Social Security is a contract.

No such thing. There is no “right” to collect. There might be some sort of social contract, but that sort of thing is ammended all the time. Basically it is just a tax.

[Leaning Right]

Social Security is a contract. The worker pays in. And he is promised a stipend at a certain age in return. That is the very definition of a contract. Consideration, and a meeting of the minds.

But by golly, you are on to something. The federal government prefers not see Social Security as a contract. They prefer to see it as merely a tax, something to be changed at the whim of Congress.

The Democrats are evil. But they are smart enough to know that Social Security must be left alone. The GOP is not nearly as smart. And so they will drift into minority status forever.

[Bob434]

i expect lindsay graham to announce right before the next presidential election that the GOP “Will Aggressively curtail social security in order to ‘save it’”

just like he announced the GOP woudl seek a nationwide ban on abortions right before the last election- to ensure the republicans woudl lose-

[doorgunner69]

I said F’ them and got out at 62. Yeah, I might not get as much, but i will not let them bleed me any longer than necessary. And, the added years will cover that for me and my wife.

Not a regret for my decision.

[Round Earther]

It’s a ponzi scheme and those born after 1964 will be left hold the bag.

[Valpal1]

I have very bad news for you. The courts say it’s a tax. And the benefits can be changed by Congress at any time.

It was and remains a Ponzi scheme that will fail at some point or the US will collapse and disintegrate under the weight of debt.

That which cannot continue, won’t.

[Leaning Right]

> I said F’ them and got out at 62. <

I did exactly the same thing (and said exactly the same thing). As soon as I hit 62, I went knocking at the door of my nearest Social Security office.

But I did the math first. The break-even point for waiting is around age 78. Would I even be alive then? And if so, would I be healthy enough to enjoy the money?

For me, it was a no-brainer. Take the money now.

[jz638]

Idiots. Leave it alone. GOP just wants to lose.

Exactly. Of all the things to pursue, this should be way down the list. If they're looking for big ticket needle movers, try any of the below on for size:

- Decrease the size and cost of government to pre-2001 levels

- Sunset every federal administrative "rule" "regulation" or policy that has a financial or criminal effect on the general public unless it is voted for explicitly and approved through congress

- Require all stock trades and asset moves above one month's salary for legislative branch employees, and all executive branch employees at GS-15 and above to be put into escrow for 30 days and made known to the public before they are allowed to take effect.

- Reduce the size of the standing military and place significant limits on defense contractor expenditures

- Relocate the headquarters and major workforce concentrations for at least half of cabinet agencies to locations at least 100 miles away from Washington DC. - place significant restrictions on foreign real estate transactions and cancel any transactions made on the behalf of foreign governments not related to overt embassy or consulate activities.

- If the military needs to be so large, declare war on the Mexican and central american drug cartels, fight the war that's already being fought against us. Repatriate any foreign migrants claiming asylum after the cartels are extinguished.

But the GOP thinks it's better to work and make sure people in their 40s now should be told they won't be able to collect the bennies they worked their entire life for another year or two after age 67. Wise move numbskulls.

[Leaning Right]

> I have very bad news for you. The courts say it’s a tax. And the benefits can be changed by Congress at any time. <

I hear and understand what you’re saying. The courts can say that 1+1 = 3. That’s not true, of course. But we must live with it.

[Nervous Tick]

Ping