What Should The Retirement Age Be For SS?

Critter7r · Nov 9, 2016

jimbo said:
The retirement age should be whatever the retirement age was when the program was sold to the public. Otherwise it's just another renege on a contract.

Nah, things change. As long as the changes are phased in early enough, changing the program incrementally isn't a renege.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

bluesmoke · Nov 9, 2016

Whatever the retirement age is now, it should go up or down according to the average mortality age, split by men and women. If you disagree with the men/women thing, then whatever the average of the two is.

jimbo · Nov 9, 2016

Critter7r said:
Nah, things change. As long as the changes are phased in early enough, changing the program incrementally isn't a renege.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Nah, it is. From the get go, the SS program was sold as a retirement program payable at 65. If a private insurance sold an annuity payable at 65, and then decided to pay out at 70, the same people wanting to change the payout date. Would you feel the same?

Critter7r · Nov 9, 2016

jimbo said:
Nah, it is. From the get go, the SS program was sold as a retirement program payable at 65. If a private insurance sold an annuity payable at 65, and then decided to pay out at 70, the same people wanting to change the payout date. Would you feel the same?

As long as the change in payout changes only for people just starting to pay in, yes, I'd feel the same. So to say tomorrow that all those born after ,say, 2006 can't receive benefits until 68 is simply a change.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

jimbo · Nov 9, 2016

Critter7r said:
As long as the change in payout changes only for people just starting to pay in, yes, I'd feel the same. So to say tomorrow that all those born after ,say, 2006 can't receive benefits until 68 is simply a change.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

A different issue, but yes. If the policy is sold today, then today's rules apply.

JoeTheEconomist · Nov 9, 2016

jimbo said:
Nah, it is. From the get go, the SS program was sold as a retirement program payable at 65. If a private insurance sold an annuity payable at 65, and then decided to pay out at 70, the same people wanting to change the payout date. Would you feel the same?

Let's keep in mind that the people who made the promise were elected by the people who took the promise. Do you not see a problem in that math.

Casper · Nov 9, 2016

Critter7r said:
Nah, things change. As long as the changes are phased in early enough, changing the program incrementally isn't a renege.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

What changed?

Critter7r · Nov 10, 2016

Casper said:
What changed?

life expectancy, health, a general ability for people to work until later in life.

Lo as long as changes in SS are implemented as changes to people that are not yet of working age, then I think changing the system is fine. If we want to say that anyone born after 2006 doesn't get full benefits until 70 and that's how those born after 2006 are told their program is going to work, then they have literally their entire life to prepare for that eventuality.

If they told me tomorrow that full retirement was now going to be 70 for everyone born after 1959 (instead of my current full retirement age of 67), then I'd feel shorted, because the rules would be changing mid-stream for me.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
Meh, one can still receive partial benefits starting at 62. I don't want full retirement age to go much beyond 67, tho.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I think you will find you feel differently when you are 62-63... especially if you are a mechanic.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
life expectancy, health, a general ability for people to work until later in life.

Lo as long as changes in SS are implemented as changes to people that are not yet of working age, then I think changing the system is fine. If we want to say that anyone born after 2006 doesn't get full benefits until 70 and that's how those born after 2006 are told their program is going to work, then they have literally their entire life to prepare for that eventuality.

If they told me tomorrow that full retirement was now going to be 70 for everyone born after 1959 (instead of my current full retirement age of 67), then I'd feel shorted, because the rules would be changing mid-stream for me.

right.. so basically what you are saying is "pass the buck to the children..".

How do you prepare for benefits at 70. When your back gives out at 64 from decades of bending over motors. Or your shoulders from reaching up under cars. Or your knees and back from standing on concrete hour and hours a day?
People are living longer.. but that does not mean that another 5 years on concrete from 65 to 70 doesn't have a dramatic effect on their function and health.

By the way.. this is one of the reasons that we pay more in healthcare than other countries.. because we work harder and longer until retirement.

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
I think you will find you feel differently when you are 62-63... especially if you are a mechanic.

I have made peace with the knowledge that I can't fully retire until I'm 67.

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
right.. so basically what you are saying is "pass the buck to the children..".

No. What I'm saying is that if the system is unsustainable and needs to be changed in order to not have it collapse completely, then we should do that.

Nice appeal to emotion, tho.

rhinefire · Nov 11, 2016

Odd that the social security problem was voided in this recent presidential election. Since 2010 the SS program has been running as a deficit meaning the money coming in cannot match the money going out. The drop dead date is 2034-no more money for anyone! That mean SS will start paying out 80% of scheduled benefits. Today approximately 60% of Americans age 65 or over rely on SS for 50% or more of their family income. For 33% of families rely on it for 90-100% of their income. SS is 25% of the fed. money spent and Medicare and Medicare another 24%. Eight years ago 75,000,000 began taking SS money. The ratio of workers to SS recipients is shrinking. Payroll tax revenues are falling due to low wages and slow growth. All current ideas will smack working Americans hard in their wallets. To close the current funding gap wage taxes will need to go up 21% and / or the benefits will have to shrink by 16% according to CRFB (Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget) research. So far Trump has no solution or plan and so we will have to wait and see like we did for eight long years under Obama.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
I have made peace with the knowledge that I can't fully retire until I'm 67.

Your body may disagree. Especially if you are mechanic.

By the way.. that's why raising the age of retirement is so popular.. younger people have no idea what it means to them. (and frankly they don;t have political power).

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
No. What I'm saying is that if the system is unsustainable and needs to be changed in order to not have it collapse completely, then we should do that.

Nice appeal to emotion, tho.

Right.. and your suggest of raising the age of retirement effectively puts the burden on the children and young people who will now have to work longer to receive benefits.

That's not an "appeal to emotion".. that's fact.

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Right.. and your suggest of raising the age of retirement effectively puts the burden on the children and young people who will now have to work longer to receive benefits.

That's not an "appeal to emotion".. that's fact.

Think of the children!!

That's an appeal to emotion.

If there was no SS in place currently, and it was enacted with a retirement age of 67, with partial benefits available at 62, would it be a "burden" on the current citizens whose ages are in the single digits? No, it wouldn't. So changing it to reflect the realities of that generation is not placing a burden upon them, it's defining the parameters of the retirement program provided by the country.

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Your body may disagree. Especially if you are mechanic.

By the way.. that's why raising the age of retirement is so popular.. younger people have no idea what it means to them. (and frankly they don;t have political power).

What's your hangup with mechanics having a hard life?

It sounds like you've assumed I'm a mechanic, but I'm not.

Mach · Nov 11, 2016

Basing it on when a standard for retirement age should be, 60, maybe 65.

Mach · Nov 11, 2016

ttwtt78640 said:
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 "contributions" of the payroll tax by raising the employee and employer "contribution" from 6.2% to 7%.

I have no idea if those numbers work out, but a modest increase specifically because of longer life expectancy and other objective reasons..works for me. SS is something we get back in large measure, its not really the poster child for government largess/corruption/expense IMO.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
Think of the children!!

That's an appeal to emotion.

If there was no SS in place currently, and it was enacted with a retirement age of 67, with partial benefits available at 62, would it be a "burden" on the current citizens whose ages are in the single digits? No, it wouldn't. So changing it to reflect the realities of that generation is not placing a burden upon them, it's defining the parameters of the retirement program provided by the country.

Pointing out that you are putting the burden on those children is not an appeal to emotion.. its fact.

If there was no SS in place currently.. and it was enacted with a retirement age of 67 would there be a burden on current citizens? Well there would be a burden certainly.. but the people paying into it.. would be paying for 67..

My benefits would be paying for EVERYONE who receive at 67. and I would be able to receive to 67.

IF you then said.. well.. us folks want to retire at 67..and the only way for us to do that.. is so you Jaeger.. and everyone younger than you has to now go to 69 ... then yes.. more burden would be shifted to me and my age group.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
What's your hangup with mechanics having a hard life?

It sounds like you've assumed I'm a mechanic, but I'm not.

Oh.. for some reason I thought you were a mechanic/tech from other posts.

The point being.. is that many professions are very hard on the body.. and asking someone to work till 67 or 69.. or even 65 has huge health consequences

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Pointing out that you are putting the burden on those children is not an appeal to emotion.. its fact.

If there was no SS in place currently.. and it was enacted with a retirement age of 67 would there be a burden on current citizens? Well there would be a burden certainly.. but the people paying into it.. would be paying for 67..

My benefits would be paying for EVERYONE who receive at 67. and I would be able to receive to 67.

IF you then said.. well.. us folks want to retire at 67..and the only way for us to do that.. is so you Jaeger.. and everyone younger than you has to now go to 69 ... then yes.. more burden would be shifted to me and my age group.

it's an appeal when you call a change in the parameters of payout of SS to recipients that are not yet old enough to get jobs a "burden". It's no more of a burden on them, than on me paying SS taxes currently to people that get full benefits at 65 while not being able to get them myself until 67.

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Oh.. for some reason I thought you were a mechanic/tech from other posts.

The point being.. is that many professions are very hard on the body.. and asking someone to work till 67 or 69.. or even 65 has huge health consequences

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

Critter7r · Nov 11, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Oh.. for some reason I thought you were a mechanic/tech from other posts.

The point being.. is that many professions are very hard on the body.. and asking someone to work till 67 or 69.. or even 65 has huge health consequences

I probably mentioned I work in automotive, and/or at a dealership. But I have a desk job.

jaeger19 · Nov 11, 2016

Critter7r said:
it's an appeal when you call a change in the parameters of payout of SS to recipients that are not yet old enough to get jobs a "burden". It's no more of a burden on them, than on me paying SS taxes currently to people that get full benefits at 65 while not being able to get them myself until 67.

WTF Sure it is.. how can it not be? They will be paying extra years to support those retiring at 65. and having to wait to 67. and yes it IS a burden on you to be paying for people to retire at 65.. while you have to wait to 67.