Top Republican: Raise Social Security's retirement age to 70

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.

“

I’ll second that.

For me it will be 53 years (so called full benefit) before I can collect the money that was stolen.”

Good to see there are people who believe in accountability...

If we are required to pay a tax for something that is supposed to be a benefit, then it’s only natural we expect a return.

For me I’m in the getting close to collecting after paying for all those years, so this whole discussion raises my attention.

In addition, lets look at other ways our tax dollars are spent, and make the hard choices to trim those areas to shore up this type of plan.

That’s what most of us do when confronted with financial challenges, or many businesses, large or small, do when they
face survival questions. ( exception O’Bummer bailout candidates)

“In addition, lets look at other ways our tax dollars are spent, and make the hard choices to trim those areas to shore up this type of plan.”

Well, for one, how about stopping billions in Foreign Aid that goes to countries that hate us. This is bribe money to keep them from funding terrorism or from producing illegal drugs, and it doesn’t work.

Stop the flow of illegal aliens into this country. It’s costing us billions also. In N.J. over 22 hospitals have gone bankrupt dur to “too much charity work”. Illegals going to the emergency room so they cannot be refused care, and don’t pay a dime. State has stopped re-imbursement to the hospitals, so they’ve been forced to sut down.

Man, I could go on and on about how this country pisses away our tax dollars.

It’s almost July. Tomorrow I can start working for me and my family. The first half of the year was for our gov’t.

“Let me see if I follow - someone makes quite a bit of money, has wise investments, etc. and work for many years and they pay into SS but when they retire they will not get the money they paid into SS because they are already rich enough without it?”

Yep, that’s it exactly, you got it!

And I’m NOT kidding with that response.

My prediction is that we are much more likely to see benefits means-tested than we are to see the retirement age rasied much higher.

By 67 (which I believe is the “last step up” to which the retirement age was raised for the younger workers coming down the line), most folks are pretty tired, physically worn, and READY for retirement. Indeed, some can work longer, but how many 70-year-old bus drivers and bricklayers do you see?

It will be much more “politically possible” to test benefits than raise the retirement age. After all, the constituency for folks who expect to get older is 100%. But for those to have an income subject to means testing? Much less (at least AT FIRST).

I expect that if this comes to pass, you (and I, and all) will have to submit a yearly “wealth statement” — significantly different than the “income statement” you submit now to the IRS.

On the “wealth statement”, you will list not only any income, but also savings, investments, real property, certain personal property, etc. — to arrive at a “wealth total” to be used by the Social Security Adminstration. You will still be awarded the same benefit that anyone else would get. HOWEVER, your monthly check from SSA will then be “offset” or reduced proportionately based upon your wealth statement.

If the wealth statement shows no assets (or nearly none), you’ll get the full amount of your benefit annuity. Some wealth (middle class), and it will be offset accordingly. I’ll guess that upper-income folks will still get a few bucks out of SSA so it can’t be said that “the government took it all and gave me nothing in return”. But I wouldn’t be surprised or shocked to see the annuity reduced by 75-90% to the most wealthy retirees.

And I’m NOT kidding about THIS, either.

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.