Why does raising retirement age matter?

[RileyE104]

Is there really anyone in the Middle Class that can actually afford to do this anymore anyways?

Wont they end up having to rely on measly Social Security checks??

It seems completely idiotic to me... You work and pay into SS and then you HAVE to no longer be employed to collect it. So to get MY money BACK, I have to leave a steady income of it from another source... WTF, I'd rather just keep my job.

[BuddyRey]

Another question I'd like answered is, why is there a set, government regulated retirement age in the first place?! What business is it of the government to tell people when they may or may not retire? Shouldn't this be decided by individual employers and guided by public/employee demand?

[low preference guy]

It seems completely idiotic to me... You work and pay into SS and then you HAVE to no longer be employed to collect it. So to get MY money BACK, I have to leave a steady income of it from another source... WTF, I'd rather just keep my job.

The problem is that your money will probably be already stolen when you need it. So the government will have to steal from the younger generation to pay you back. But they won't pay you because they'll leave the country by that time, due to the excessive taxes they'll have to pay to keep SS for your generation alive.

The only way to finance SS in the long term is through means testing, i.e., making it a welfare program. If you're old but have savings, you won't get any.

[TCE]

The problem is that your money will probably be already stolen when you need it. So the government will have to steal from the younger generation to pay you back. But they won't pay you because they'll leave the country by that time, due to the excessive taxes they'll have to pay to keep SS for your generation alive.

The only way to finance SS in the long term is through means testing, i.e., making it a welfare program. If you're old but have savings, you won't get any.

In which case, it's just taxation/theft without any benefit. At least now, the people who have their money stolen via Social Security get a percentage back. The way things are going now, no one will get anything.

[RileyE104]

Thanks for the comments.

BTW I'm not retiring I'm only 19.. lol
I was just talking about it in a general manner because I don't see why people are like thinking Social Security is going to somehow let them live "the good life" when they retire, even if it wasn't going broke.

[low preference guy]

Thanks for the comments.

BTW I'm not retiring I'm only 19.. lol
I was just talking about it in a general manner because I don't see why people are like thinking Social Security is going to somehow let them live "the good life" when they retire, even if it wasn't going broke.

haha! you won't get anything at all! by the time you retire the government will very likely not run it anymore. it will all be private.

[Promontorium]

You don't have to retire to get Social Security. My grandfather's getting Social Security, he's 80, owns his own business and has been working nonstop since the 40s.

[RileyE104]

You don't have to retire to get Social Security. My grandfather's getting Social Security, he's 80, owns his own business and has been working nonstop since the 40s.

Odd... I remember hearing about how people can't collect if they have a job.

Maybe whatever he's getting isn't for retirement??

[Carson]

Some of it is about a thing like keeping your word.

It is like when you force someone to take your deal and then after they have payed in you decide to change the rules at the end of the game.

It was the sort of thing that used to be considered fraud.

Now it just another day in the lives of Americans. Besides what are the odds they would start telling the truth now.



When I started paying in, the deal was 65.

[libertythor]

SS would have been fine if all of the money had been deposited and kept there for each individual contributor. Al Gore's analogy of a "lock box" wasn't that dumb at all, and it is the only solution other than phasing it out.

If SS proves politically impossible to get rid of, then a good part of the surpluses from any drastic budget cuts should go toward shoring it up and have a constitutional amendment that prohibits the use of funds from the trust fund for other purposes.

[Zippyjuan]

Another question I'd like answered is, why is there a set, government regulated retirement age in the first place?! What business is it of the government to tell people when they may or may not retire? Shouldn't this be decided by individual employers and guided by public/employee demand?

There is not a "required age" for retirement- but there is an age where you become elgible for full Social Security benefits. If you retire sooner you get smaller or no SS benefit and you can work longer if you want to. More people are working beyond the SS age for a number of reasons. Maybe financial. Maybe to keep employer paid medical insurance. Maybe they just like to work or have nothing better to do and want to continue to be useful instead of waiting around for death to come calling.

[tremendoustie]

If SS proves politically impossible to get rid of, then a good part of the surpluses from any drastic budget cuts should go toward shoring it up and have a constitutional amendment that prohibits the use of funds from the trust fund for other purposes.

It'd be better to just use those surplusses to pay those in retirement or near retirement a lump sum, and end the program.

[Elwar]

Some of it is about a thing like keeping your word.


Government keeping its word...

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/01/lol_cats.jpg