When Social Security was put into place, life expectancy was around 58.

Now it is around 78.

 

Should part of reducing debt and fixing Social Security mean the raising of retirement age?

Discuss.

 

:popcorn:

It is expected that when a person starts a thread, they state their opinion.

 

Anyway, I do believe the retirement age needs to be raised as one of several things needed to keep the system going. I forget the statistics but if nothing changes there's going to be something like 2-3 people supporting one person's retirement? Those numbers just can't work.

Absolutely.

Problem is more and more are retiring early. Corporate downsizing has lead to many tenured employees taking early buyouts and retiring. Something I think I would consider in a few years. So you're going to tell that 55 year old, hey, now you have to wait 23 years to collect SS? I have no idea what the answer is to get out from under SS, but it needs to happen.

Maybe there should be a gov't buyout for the SS system. Take those billions and give them to everyone that is in it, then end it. Changing the age on retirement is a very small bandaid on a very large wound. Won't work!

I look at it this way. I'm going to have to work until I'm dead anyway....doesn't matter to me if they raise it.

I look at it this way. I'm going to have to work until I'm dead anyway....doesn't matter to me if they raise it.

 

Amen to that!

Our representatives have two things to consider when voting to raise the age requirement.

 

1. Logic - does it make sense

2. Keeping their gig - what will the impact be on their next election should they vote to raise it.

As long as we're trying to keep the System solvent, why have a cap on the income that is subject to withholding and employer match?

The retirement age has been raised before so I see no reason why it shouldn't be an option. If that is what it takes to keep the system solvent, go for it. As to "keeping their gig", did anyone lose an election because of raising the age the last time they did it (1983)? Reagan was re-elected so it didn't hurt him. I really don't remember there being much of a fuss over raising the age the last time they did it and I don't think there would be one this time if they raised it in a similar fashion as the last time. My biggest question is what is the impact of raising the age on solvency?

I say raise it as the first step in phasing it out.

The retirement age has been raised before so I see no reason why it shouldn't be an option. If that is what it takes to keep the system solvent, go for it. As to "keeping their gig", did anyone lose an election because of raising the age the last time they did it (1983)? Reagan was re-elected so it didn't hurt him. I really don't remember there being much of a fuss over raising the age the last time they did it and I don't think there would be one this time if they raised it in a similar fashion as the last time. My biggest question is what is the impact of raising the age on solvency?

 

As the population gets older and older in terms of longevity the "old folk" voting bloc gets bigger and bigger.

As long as we're trying to keep the System solvent, why have a cap on the income that is subject to withholding and employer match?

 

I have no problem with that as long as the formula for benefits doesn't cap them either.

I believe the raising of the retirement age is done gradually over the years. So that by 2050 the age to retire will be 69 with the current proposal.

Go ahead and raise it I retired 6 years ago at 57 .

I believe the raising of the retirement age is done gradually over the years. So that by 2050 the age to retire will be 69 with the current proposal.

 

The Ky Enquirer says it will be 2075 before the retirement age hits 69.