Posted on 06/29/2010 8:23:18 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70 By Michael O'Brien - 06/29/10 10:50 AM ET
A Republican-held Congress might look to raise the retirement age to 70, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested Monday.
Boehner, the top Republican lawmaker in the House, said that raising the retirement age by five year, indexing benefits to the rate of inflation and means-testing benefits would make the massive entitlement program more solvent.
"We're all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected," Boehner said in a meeting with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "And I think that raising the retirement age -- going out 20 years, so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement -- and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."
The GOP leader said that Social Security was the most important entitlement to reform, though he also pledged that Republicans would bring legislation to the floor to repeal and replace the healthcare reforms passed earlier this year if the GOP wins back control of the House this fall.
But Boehner also floated several other reforms to Social Security, paired with raising the retirement age, to make it more solvent. Boehner said that benefits should be tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of wage inflation, and he suggested reducing or eliminating benefits to Americans with a "substantial non-Social Security income" while retired.
"We just need to be honest with people," he said. "I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy, but I think if we did those three things, you'd pretty well solve the problem."
Republican have made cutting spending and reforming entitlement programs a key part of their 2010 campaign message.
Watch the entirety of Boehner's explanation below:
“I would forfeit every bit I have put into it for the last 30 years if I could opt out now and use the income to augment my own retirement plans.”
I wholeheartedly agree!
“How about changing SS to a defined contribution instead of a defined benefit”
Like how they defended it in the USSC?
So we should out dem the dims? Or?
70?
Dam, most people retire because they have to, because they are physically unable to do their job anymore. And in many cases the old mind is not as sharp as it use to be.
Why not just raise it to 80 and use all the money they saved to reward multi generational welfare queens whose only real skill is being a incubator.
I can hear all of the public service employees saying just what you said about their underfunded pensions that we will be unable to pay. Not criticizing you in any way.
70?
Dam, most people retire because they have to, because they are physically unable to do their job anymore. And in many cases the old mind is not as sharp as it use to be.
Why not just raise it to 80 and use all the money they saved to reward multi generational welfare queens whose only real skill is being a incubator.
Leave it to Boehner to create problems for the GOP election chances-this guy is not speaker material, I think he’s a ‘rat mole.
Hey pal, in a way I’ll be paying for your retirement.. I’m for it..
I don’t know if he is a rat mole, but he needs to lay off the scotch.
As life expectancy has gone up so should the “retirement” age. Of course one could and should self-fund their own retirement and thus the government could not “tell” you when you can retire.
But that wouldn’t work with our nice little socialist utopia, now would it?
One of the MAJOR problems plaguing Social Security is not the retirees, per se, it’s all the SSD and SSI recipients. Did you know that if you voluntarily retire and still have a minor child, the child gets a check? Did you know that if you have a child who has ADHD or you have “anger issues” or you’re “depressed” you can get SSI ($500-$600/mo) without ever having paid a dime into Social Security?
Calm down, Dan.
It won’t rise to 70 for 20 years. It will be gradual. I’d rather do away with it completely, but if we are forced to keep it for political purposes it’s better to do it this way.
I’d say that only 20% are truly disabled and that’s being generous.
I speak from personal experience.
Right now, my goal is to build a plywood shack in the Idaho panhandle and disappear.
Sad, I know, but I aint gonna be no slave to no man.
Exactly!
Heck, there was see see see in the media when there was any movement in the down direction, from the moment there was a hint of doing something to solve the problem like privatizing 2% of SS. Kind of puts leftists, libs, welfare scabs, and government is the solution to everything folks, all in perspective.
You are correct about that and the same could be said for the auto workers.
The fact is that these workers were fed unrealistic expectations by their leadership and the politicians and management who made these promises. To just screw retirees and working people while not taking it out of the "pensions" of management (who used their shareholder wealth to make these agreements) or the union officials or the politicians just makes fall-guys out of one side of a multidimensional transaction.
I just think it would do Washington some good to make "Leadership" start paying the price out of their personal pockets for all of the "promises" that so easily cross their lips.
No different than Obama et al getting their retirement pensions when all of their "stimulus" spending produces no jobs and a century of debt for the average person.
I think we should all be sick of these "Leadership" jerks dancing on our dimes!
Well, I appreciate that, but I’ve been paying for 46 years now, and I’ll be paying for at least another 7. A lot of those years I’ve been self employed, which means I pay in double what most employees do.
So, after paying in for about 53 years, maybe I’ll get back some of it, but I doubt I’ll ever collect all of what I’ve “contributed”, especially with todays dollar value.
Even if it doesn’t start for 20 years, and will probably not affect me, I still don’t like the idea of politicians telling the American public how long they should work before they can collect the money that was stolen from them. The idea that people are living longer so they should therefore work longer is about as arrogant as can be.
People are living longer today, but most of them are living in Senior Citizen’s homes pumped with God only knows what kind of drugs to keep them alive.
Not for me.
” How do you “means test” a program that takes 12%+ of a person’s wages for almost 50 years, then denies them the benefit of those years of Labor because they chose to succeed? Indentured Servitude, Obama style.
It is one thing to “means test” someone getting a benefit from the Government that they had no part in funding, but to steal money and then deny the person the benefit they were self funding is outrageous. “
Well stated................
I’ll second that.
For me it will be 53 years (so called full benefit) before I can collect the money that was stolen.
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.