• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should The Retirement Age Be For SS?

But it's been ok for 80 years. Suddenly now it has huge health consequences??

Well.. first retiring at 65 has had huge healthcare consequences. Its one of the reasons that our healthcare is so expensive in the US versus other countries.

In say France.. if you have a hard labor job.. you can retire earlier than even 60.

This number has been calculated in relation to average life expectancy, attempting to divide the life span into thirds—the first two spent at work, and the third in retirement—with individuals typically retiring around the age of 60. The decree is also meant to absorb the burden of the baby-boom generation that is beginning to reach retirement in France. Exceptions for early retirement are made for French workers performing more difficult jobs, including night workers and certain forms of hard labor.

The effects of working 5 more years on a hard labor job.. or heck even standing on concrete.. equals millions of dollars of healthcare costs.
 
I probably mentioned I work in automotive, and/or at a dealership. But I have a desk job.

Oh.. then you probably won't care. but everyone of the mechanics probably will.
 
MarketWatch published three columns on the retirement age for Social Security.

This piece is from Jason Fichtner from Mercantus says that retirement age needs to move to 70. "The harsh reality is that Social Security wasn’t designed to finance 20 to 30 years of retirement."

The retirement age for Social Security needs to rise to 70 - MarketWatch

This piece is from Chris Farrell from MarketPlace which says that retirement age needs to move to 76.

Should the Social Security retirement age be 76? - MarketWatch

I contributed a contrast piece which said that the problem isn't that we are living longer. The problem is that more of us are living average. Up to now, the changes in life expectancy have made the system more solvent not less.

Why the age for Social Security benefits doesn’t need to go up to 70 - MarketWatch

Should be 55. It'll be expensive, but if you want the best, ya gotta pay for it.
 
Viewing the SS problem as folks living too long is the same as saying that they simply work for too few years. If that is the case then why can folks working for the government retire at a much lower age than those relying on SS? Would (should?) we also up the retirement age for government workers and the IRA withdrawl age to that mandated for SS as well?

In the piece that I wrote, I point out that we aren't living 'too long'. Today a typical person expects to lose money. According to the SSA, I think that we are living about 18 days longer per co-hort. That means that over a working career we are adding less than 3 years of retirement. We aren't living longer. More of us are living average. These are very different problems.

In a slow growth economy the main way that a "new" job opens is for a current worker to retire or to get promoted. Forcing many more folks to work more years means even fewer job openings for those wishng to get promoted or to get an entry level position.

Raising the SS retirement age has already shown us that more will become disabled thus drawing even higher SS benefits for their remaining years. IMHO, the best solution is not to try limiting benefits, by raising the retirement age, but by increasing the "contribuions" of the payroll tax by raising the employee and employer "contribution" from 6.2% to 7%

Today people lose money, and your solution is for younger workers to lose even more???

That fixes our problem by creating a bigger problem for our kids. As payroll taxes rise, savings falls. So we make our kids even more dependent upon a program that is even more broken.
 
Based upon the current level of jobs about 50, but one can not be allowed to both suck up a job and take SS.
 
62-67 isnt a bad age range to choose from. What we need to change is the qualifiers. To qualify, currently one needs 40 credits. About 10 years of work. Many spend most of their life in an unemployment cycle, to just get a job at 55, work ten years solid and get full benefits. I say up the credit requirement. 120 credits, 30 years put in, for full benefits. This would up revenue, encourage continuous employment, and lower the number of beneficiaries.

People should take steps to ensure their own golden years, there lots of investment vehicles designed specifically for building a retirement fund. Relying on SS alone which is capped, is not wise. I plan as if I won't recieve SS, so anything I get will just be a bonus.
 
With the lack of good paying jobs out there is should be lowered to 60.
 
Social Security should end as soon as possible.

It is a joke and completely unsustainable.

If old people need help, then there is always welfare.
 
Retirement age should be at least 70. Probably more like 75. It'll never happen though.
 
If we made the SS benefit retirement age 70, we'd pretty much eliminate every black male in poverty. However little or much they contributed to SS, they will most likely have died by then. Heck, American Indians already die at an average age of about 55. I know Any their payment to SS is a bit of a different matter, but they don't get anything out of the deal, eh? What age do you think should be the age and why?
 
MarketWatch published three columns on the retirement age for Social Security.

This piece is from Jason Fichtner from Mercantus says that retirement age needs to move to 70. "The harsh reality is that Social Security wasn’t designed to finance 20 to 30 years of retirement."

What does "retirement" have to do with anything? Especially if we're going to allow it to continue to be called "old age insurance?" If we're going to conceptualize it as old age insurance, then perhaps the age of eligibility for social security benefits (assuming that's what you were referring to) should be the age of average life expectancy. That way people can pay a modest premium for financial protection against the unlikely event they live longer than average. That's what most effective and cost-stable types of insurance do, you pay an affordable premium for protection against something statistically unlikely to happen to you, so that if you're one of those statistically unlikely cases, you're set.

The conclusion I've come to regarding social security is that we need to use words that have generally accepted concrete meanings and then decide what the program is by using specific words that carry those specific meanings to define what the program is. That means if we are going to consider it "insurance," it needs to protect against something unlikely. If we're going to consider it "a pension," we need to face the reality that pensions have extremely poor track records for long term stability. If we're going to consider it old age welfare, we need to realize it's anything but. If we're going to consider it a progressive social program, we need to acknowledge the fact that it's funded by a flat payroll tax and that its cost-to-benefit ratio is greater for every future generation than the one before it, and NO major political leader has been willing to admit that. If we're going to consider it a retirement account or deferred income, we need to acknowledge the simple irrefutable fact that it isn't one of those things either.

The program is a public pension, and like so many other examples of public pensions, it's a slow motion disaster that will very generously benefit 2-3 generations in history at most, by making its successors worse off.
 
What does "retirement" have to do with anything? Especially if we're going to allow it to continue to be called "old age insurance?" If we're going to conceptualize it as old age insurance, then perhaps the age of eligibility for social security benefits (assuming that's what you were referring to) should be the age of average life expectancy. That way people can pay a modest premium for financial protection against the unlikely event they live longer than average. That's what most effective and cost-stable types of insurance do, you pay an affordable premium for protection against something statistically unlikely to happen to you, so that if you're one of those statistically unlikely cases, you're set.

The conclusion I've come to regarding social security is that we need to use words that have generally accepted concrete meanings and then decide what the program is by using specific words that carry those specific meanings to define what the program is. That means if we are going to consider it "insurance," it needs to protect against something unlikely. If we're going to consider it "a pension," we need to face the reality that pensions have extremely poor track records for long term stability. If we're going to consider it old age welfare, we need to realize it's anything but. If we're going to consider it a progressive social program, we need to acknowledge the fact that it's funded by a flat payroll tax and that its cost-to-benefit ratio is greater for every future generation than the one before it, and NO major political leader has been willing to admit that. If we're going to consider it a retirement account or deferred income, we need to acknowledge the simple irrefutable fact that it isn't one of those things either.

The program is a public pension, and like so many other examples of public pensions, it's a slow motion disaster that will very generously benefit 2-3 generations in history at most, by making its successors worse off.

Retirement is a fancy way to say we are too old to work. Do you think that when you pay for auto insurance it should cover only the portion above an average car wreck? People have no idea how long they will live. They need to have some certainty in their lives.

The first thing we need to do is admit that there is a problem. Then we need to stop suggesting that any program that gives Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K a year has anything to do with welfare. It isn't a retirement account, there is nothing in it. What is left over is old-age insurance which is a sensible expense.
 
right now SS is in a bubble of population. we will manage to make our way through this.
 
Retirement is a fancy way to say we are too old to work. Do you think that when you pay for auto insurance it should cover only the portion above an average car wreck?

Not sure I understand the question, but maybe, yes, if that's the protection I want to pay for and the premium seems reasonable relative to that risk.

People have no idea how long they will live. They need to have some certainty in their lives.

If the program were structured to only kick in for people who outlive the average life expectancy, that too would be certainty.

The fact that many would never receive payouts is common with insurance. People pay for protection they're unlikely to need or use, but would be pleased they had it if that unlikely thing happened to them.

The first thing we need to do is admit that there is a problem. Then we need to stop suggesting that any program that gives Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K a year has anything to do with welfare. It isn't a retirement account, there is nothing in it. What is left over is old-age insurance which is a sensible expense.

I ruffle at it being called insurance, for many reasons. My biggest problem with social security is the same as my big problem with defined benefit pensions, and that's because they're both defined benefit pensions. I don't think one can be equated with the other.
 
Not sure I understand the question, but maybe, yes, if that's the protection I want to pay for and the premium seems reasonable relative to that risk. If the program were structured to only kick in for people who outlive the average life expectancy, that too would be certainty.

When you buy insurance, you know your deductible. There is no question in your mind in the case of an accident whether that wreck was sufficiently largely enough to be more than an average wreck. You pay for a deductible, not a variably set offset. If there is a rise in auto wrecks, your premiums rise. It isn't an after the wreck adjustment.

The fact that many would never receive payouts is common with insurance. People pay for protection they're unlikely to need or use, but would be pleased they had it if that unlikely thing happened to them.

I ruffle at it being called insurance, for many reasons. My biggest problem with social security is the same as my big problem with defined benefit pensions, and that's because they're both defined benefit pensions. I don't think one can be equated with the other.

Social Security is a pension, which is old-age insurance. We are spending nearly $400,000 in lost savings on that protection. If you want to use the standard that people pay for protection they're unlikely to need or use, let's cut the cost down to something less than 15 years of work.
 
62-67 isnt a bad age range to choose from. What we need to change is the qualifiers. To qualify, currently one needs 40 credits. About 10 years of work. Many spend most of their life in an unemployment cycle, to just get a job at 55, work ten years solid and get full benefits. I say up the credit requirement. 120 credits, 30 years put in, for full benefits. This would up revenue, encourage continuous employment, and lower the number of beneficiaries.

People should take steps to ensure their own golden years, there lots of investment vehicles designed specifically for building a retirement fund. Relying on SS alone which is capped, is not wise. I plan as if I won't recieve SS, so anything I get will just be a bonus.

If you work for 10 years, you do not get full benefits. You get a formula that includes 25 zeros.
 
"What Should The Retirement Age Be For SS?"

It should be at whatever age companies force people to retire.
 
Retirement age for, say, a welder who starts his job at age 20? 55 should do, assuming he hasn't died from something like manganese-induced parkinsonism or cancer by then. For an accountant who starts his career at age 30 after being a professional student in this twenties? 70 sounds good. He gets a ten-year late-start penalty compared to the welder plus a five-year penalty for sitting in classroom chairs for a few years instead of destroying his health like the welder did. ;)

Seriously, requiring someone who works a job requiring considerable physical exertion to toil from high school-age until age 68 or 70 simply isn't realistic for most people.
 
Death.

Social Security is for the birds.

After the last person who is currently over 40-45 in America dies..have SS die with him/her.

Beef up welfare a bit/lot for the elderly poor and end the nonsense that is Social Security.

It was a lot like Obamacare..a nice idea that ballooned into an unsustainable whale that should be killed off.

Please repeat after me...ALMOST EVERYTHING GOVERNMENTS DO, THEY DO BADLY - VERY, VERY BADLY.

I take it you're giving yours back? Medicare, too? To help the needy, I mean?
 
"What Should The Retirement Age Be For SS?"

It should be at whatever age companies force people to retire.

yes, because we're a Democratic Republic. Except in the workplace, where we are a dictatorship.
 
yes, because we're a Democratic Republic. Except in the workplace, where we are a dictatorship.

Did you find something about my comment that you want to debate?
 
If it wasn't designed for that, then restructure it. Few companies want to keep people in their 60s much LESS until 70. Actuaries can fix it. We'll all have to pay more, but that's the breaks. Without a mandatory program to cover people in retirement, we'll be supporting people through welfare programs. You work? You contribute to mandatory retirement benefits.

Older people would more valued in the workplace if they were willing to accept pay cuts as their productivity decreases.
 
Back
Top Bottom