Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) wants to raise retirement age to 80

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

These two were on Fox News Sunday, saying the same thing they said when this interview happened last month:

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) are part of a bipartisan group of senators developing ideas for the federal budget. They tell Steve Inskeep the first step to reining in government spending has to be tackling the top four expenditures: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending.

Senator MARK WARNER (Democrat, Virginia): I think there is a growing recognition that meaningful spending cuts is where our country has to head. Just as on Republican side, there's a debate about revenues, there's questions about when we phase some of these entitlement changes in.

INSKEEP: Mm-hmm.

Sen. WARNER: I think one of the points that's important to make is that anything we do on Social Security would be only funds that would stay within Social Security. So it's not we're taking money from Social Security to pay off the deficit; it is about making Social Security solvent for 75 years.

INSKEEP: Well, let me ask the flipside of the question I asked Senator Chambliss. I asked him if Republicans were going to go after anybody who signs on to more revenue. Are Democrats or some Democrats likely to go after anybody who signs on to changes for Social Security? Because Democrats have attacked Republicans on that issue in recent elections, including the last one.

Sen. WARNER: There will be, I'm sure, some who will be concerned about touching this issue, but some of this not Democrat or Republican. Social Security retirement age was set at 65 by President Roosevelt when life expectancy was 64. Life expectancy in America now is about 80. The math here is just irrefutable.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133831801/Sens-Warner-Chambliss-Seek-Common-Ground-On-Budget-Plan

Edited March 13, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[lostinblue 1,989]

These two were on Fox News Sunday, saying the same thing they said when this interview happened last month:

How about not collecting a government pension until age 67.Just like SS.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Genius!!!!! The best way to make SS solvent is to make sure no one ever collects it.

Wonder what will happen with all that extra trust fund money?

The law we really need passed is to have a mandatory miniumum IQ test for these guys before they can run for office.

[Pooky 3,794]

The law we really need passed is to have a mandatory miniumum IQ test for these guys before they can run for office.

What happens if they're above the mandatory minimum. Does that disqualify them?

[Dakine10 5,452]

What happens if they're above the mandatory minimum. Does that disqualify them?

It seems to be how the current system works.

But seriously, if they have minimum age limits, why not minimum IQ limits?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dakine10

[Pooky 3,794]

It seems to be how the current system works.

But seriously, if they have minimum age limits, why not minimum IQ limits?

Because a high IQ doesn't necessarily translate to a smart politician. Joe Biden being a case in point.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Because a high IQ doesn't necessarily translate to a smart politician. Joe Biden being a case in point.

Or Carter, probably the most intelligent man ever to hold that office.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wonder what will happen with all that extra trust fund money?

There isn't any money in the trust fund, just IOU's to be redeemed from the general fund. And guess what? Starting last year, they have been doing just that. No more raiding the surplus, because Social Security is now in deficit.

[Dakine10 5,452]

There isn't any money in the trust fund, just IOU's to be redeemed from the general fund. And guess what? Starting last year, they have been doing just that. No more raiding the surplus, because Social Security is now in deficit.

Yeah, for a minute I was thinking if they raise the retirement age there would be a surplus. Then I realized even if there was a surplus, it wouldn't be there for long.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dakine10

[웃 910]

Genius!!!!! The best way to make SS solvent is to make sure no one ever collects it.

I thought that was the whole point. When it was created life expectancy was 58 for a man and 61 for a woman. They should raise the age to 80 because current life expectancy is 78 years old.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

80? A bit much. Speaking as a 50 something it would be better to make it 67 for minimum benefits and 70 for full benefits. I would also means test and eliminate the cap on max contributions per year. But most importantly I would bring back the "lock box" and hang any congress person that touches it again. Since we are stuck with SS this would be the best way to save it.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I thought that was the whole point. When it was created life expectancy was 58 for a man and 61 for a woman. They should raise the age to 80 because current life expectancy is 78 years old.

I work with a lot of people who are in their 60's. They might live to be 80, but they're not going to be working till they are 80. Some of them are just hanging in there now.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dakine10

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't see where Warner is suggesting any particular age. All he's saying is that the eligibility age needs to be revised seeing that life expectancy has increased some 15 years since the program's inception and that the eligibility age has been raised merely 2 years. Obviously, that's going to make the system less sustainable or altogether unsustainable. Now, the SS tax rates and income cap has grown over the years as well. Remember that Reagan's saving the system for a number of decades included both raising the SS tax rates (yes, he did raise taxes) and the eligibility age. Whether the eligibility age is raised 2,3 or maybe 5 years and what, if any, adjustments on the tax rate or income cap side are necessary or whether there will be some sort of means test applied to determine eligibility or what combination of these steps is considered is another debate. That the eligibility age is very likely going to have to be raised should really not come as a surprise to anyone. Raise it to 80? Not without slashing contributions back down to where they were - relatively speaking - when the program was first created. Otherwise, raising the eligibility age to 80 would amount to nothing but one huge tax increase.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The problem is that anyone in government is discussing it. Eliminate Social security, allow people to invest the 15% of their income as they see fit and they will retire when they want.

[peejay 327]

I don't see where Warner is suggesting any particular age. All he's saying is that the eligibility age needs to be revised seeing that life expectancy has increased some 15 years since the program's inception and that the eligibility age has been raised merely 2 years.

I didn't see that he advocated the benchmark at 80 years old either. The senator was just bringing up some valid points. There are many ways to keep Social Security solvent and most of them are not pretty. Keeping the program solvent won't be easy or painless.

I'm 55 years old and have been paying into it since I was a teenager. It kind of sux that this has come to a head as I am approaching the age of being able to collect. My parents collected and I should be able to as well. Otherwise I have been been swindled and robbed.