Republican "roadmap" for Social Security reform: Retire at 70

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My Dad hasn't worked a day in 24 years and gotten more money back then he'll ever need.

The system isn't custom-designed per recipient. My dad had one 6-month stint of unemployment in his entire career, waited for full retirement age before claiming his social security checks, got one social security check and then died. You have anecdotes, so do I. But so what? Systemic health of the system is what we should be talking about. No system can ever be designed to be fair for everyone.

[alienlovechild 75]

The system isn't custom-designed per recipient. My dad had one 6-month stint of unemployment in his entire career, waited for full retirement age before claiming his social security checks, got one social security check and then died. You have anecdotes, so do I. But so what? Systemic health of the system is what we should be talking about. No system can ever be designed to be fair for everyone.

How about allowing people to opt out and save for themselves? Nope, we can't allow that kind of dangerous thinking so we'll dump billions of dollars of working capital into the pockets of retirees instead. It does make sense in a weird way if you count the demographics of the votes.

The "don't you dare touch Social Security" attitude is already expanded into Medicare and will make its way into healthcare reform and beyond. With entitlement spending there's not much that can ever be cut from the Federal government so we're all screwed.

[Dan J 277]

How about allowing people to opt out and save for themselves? Nope, we can't allow that kind of dangerous thinking so we'll dump billions of dollars of working capital into the pockets of retirees instead. It does make sense in a weird way if you count the demographics of the votes.

The "don't you dare touch Social Security" attitude is already expanded into Medicare and will make its way into healthcare reform and beyond. With entitlement spending there's not much that can ever be cut from the Federal government so we're all screwed.

That would cause collapse. Which I'm pretty sure is why you want to do it. As much as you hate being selfless, the system does somewhat rely on some people paying more than they will use in order to help those who less fortunate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the system does somewhat rely on some people paying more than they will use in order to help those who less fortunate.

precisely.

[Ali G. 37]

You can retire whenever you want but don't expect the government to subsidize your decision. Retirement in developed countries is a relatively new "right' which didn't exist in times of extended families and early death.

My alternative is for you to give me a percentage of income for decades then I'll give it back to you in monthly checks. If I don't have the money, I'll just get it from your kids.

It's a terrible system taking up a huge portion of the Federal budget and no one can stop it or they'd commit political suicide. The old folks want "their money" back and a huge increase to meet the cost-of-living increases. My Dad hasn't worked a day in 24 years and gotten more money back then he'll ever need. Back then many people actually owned their own homes, now few save and the low interest rates make putting your money in a bank a waste as an investment.

We don't have a Social security federal retirement system in Aus. Your employer pays 9% on top of your salary into a retirement account of your choice, which you can also feed into, and will basically use for retirement. The government also provides a means tested federal pension (same rate for all) for those who own and earn under $15K and own a house less than $500K. Anything over that, you are on your own money.

[Ali G. 37]

How about allowing people to opt out and save for themselves? Nope, we can't allow that kind of dangerous thinking so we'll dump billions of dollars of working capital into the pockets of retirees instead. It does make sense in a weird way if you count the demographics of the votes.

The "don't you dare touch Social Security" attitude is already expanded into Medicare and will make its way into healthcare reform and beyond. With entitlement spending there's not much that can ever be cut from the Federal government so we're all screwed.

That is not going to happen. Just in case you have not realized, the majority of folks living in middle America are not exactly financial gurus. As a result, they would end up living on the streets. Look at just how many people are already living in trailers and ghettos in the US. Or is that because they are all just lazy?

I just don't get why republicans like yourself are against entitlements (per say); aka government services by those of us in the first world. Do you have a good $2 million stashed away that you can live off or something?

I am a conservative and my folks are quite wealthy, but not billionaires. Yet you will never hear anyone of us say I think the the few that are wealthy should keep 90% of the money and the rest of the country (including Aliens) should fight it out over 10%. Actually, this much more even distribution of wealth in countries like Aus is why my folks were able to work hard and earn a decent living. Earn wealth that is probably 1,000 times more than that of the average Joe here.

Personally, I'd rather see Americans have a shot at a good quality of life, than seem the country littered with ghettos, has been cities and trailers. Not only does this reduce crime, it builds the countries wealth even more, and drastically improves everyone's quality of life.

But that is just my opinion, and that of every other first world country. What would they know, Aussies for example are only averaging $52K a year, with $56K for government workers. Idiots I tell you.. Trailers, Ghettos, athletes, musicians and pickups are the way to go.

Edit: Lets not forget deer hunting and the military.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If they set the age about 85, it would be more in line with the original design of Social Security, when the expected payout was to last about three years average.

I already have to wait until 67 and a half for my full benefits.

precisely.

Commie.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I'm Gone 60]

Modernizing the Retirement Age. When Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for men in America was 60 years; for women it was 64. Today, average life expectancy has increased to 75 years for men and 80 years for women (2007 figures). Life expectancies are expected to continue lengthening throughout the century. Given these facts, and the choice among many Americans to work additional years, this proposal extends the gradual increase in the retirement age, from 65 to 67, occurring under existing policies, and speeds it up by 1 year. Once the current-law retirement age reaches 67 in 2026, this proposal continues its progression in line with expected increases in life expectancy. This will have the effect of increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years. The retirement age will gradually increase until it reaches 70 in the next century.

The Full Retirement Age (FRA) is being raised to age 67, but you can still apply at age 62 and get 75 percent of your FRA benefit, where it was 80 percent when the FRA was 65. I would assume if the FRA is again raised people will still be able to apply at 62 and maybe get 70 percent of the FRA benefit.

However, even though you would receive a reduced benefit by not waiting until you are FRA, you would be receiving benefits that you otherwise would not have received.

Example: An individual who turns 62 during the year 2010 with a Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) of $1,000. PIA is the FRA payable benefit. 75.0% payable at age 62 or $750.00

48 months x $750.00 = $36,000.00 paid age 62 to 66.

Benefits would increase to $1,000 per month by waiting to apply at age 66.

$36,000 divided by the $250 gained by waiting to FRA equals 144. It will take 144 months past age 66 - 12 years to break even by delaying benefits. An individual would need to live to age 78 before losing $250 per month.

The age 67 FRA first affects people born 1/2/60 through 2/1/60 and is attained 1/2027.

RS 00615.004 Attainment of Full Retirement Age:

http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615004

“When To Start Receiving Retirement Benefits,” publication number 05-10147:

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10147.html

Edited February 2, 2010 by I Quit

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If they set the age about 85, it would be more in line with the original design of Social Security, when the expected payout was to last about three years average.

I already have to wait until 67 and a half for my full benefits.

Sorry. 66 years 4 months for me.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I'm Gone 60]

We don't have a Social security federal retirement system in Aus. Your employer pays 9% on top of your salary into a retirement account of your choice, which you can also feed into, and will basically use for retirement. The government also provides a means tested federal pension (same rate for all) for those who own and earn under $15K and own a house less than $500K. Anything over that, you are on your own money.

An agreement between the United States and Australia improves Social Security protection for people who spend part of their working life in both countries. It helps many people who, without the agreement, would not be eligible for monthly retirement, disability or survivors benefits under the Social Security system of one or both countries.

For Australia, the agreement covers "Superannuation Guarantee" (SG) contributions that employers must make to retirement plans for their employees. (Australia's Social Security program, which is separate from the SG program, is supported by general tax revenues not covered by the agreement.) Australian Social Security benefits covered by the agreement include the Social Security age pension, disability support pension for the severely disabled, pensions payable to widowed persons and carer payment.

http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement...s/austrlia.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So does mean now you guys don't want to hear the GOP alternatives after bitching about the party of "no" for months?

Well, it's still the party of "no", isn't it? As in, NO retirement for you people.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, it's still the party of "no", isn't it? As in, NO retirement for you people.

There is always the lottery. Better start buying those tickets!

[mawilson 2,133]

You can retire any time you want. Only those dependent on the government handout will need to worry.

[dalegg 143]

If we have to wait until people turn 70 before jobs start opening up unemployment is gonna hit 20% by the time my daughter is out of school.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If we have to wait until people turn 70 before jobs start opening up unemployment is gonna hit 20% by the time my daughter is out of school.

Maybe we can make it illegal for people to work before they're 30. Call it child labor.