General Discussion

zaj

(3,433 posts)

17. It should only be modified based on facts...

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 11:20 AM

Oct 2012

... such as economic solvency of the program. Which is a function of money paid in and money paid out. And the longer someone lives past the retirement age, the more money is needed in the pool to pay out for those additional years.

We want the program to stay solvent. Not be manged similar to the postal pension funds where the framework was set such that it would inevitably collapse. So in my mind, Democrats need to be more focused on the math (for good and bad) and not just the benefits ... than the Republicans are.

Otherwise they will slip in some policy change that will lead to the insolvency of the system, and once that happens, the program will get removed. Raising the age needs to be part of the math function that Dems watch like a hawk.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why shouldn't Social Security age be raised for future generations? [View all] zaj Oct 2012 OP

Do you know what your current retirement age is? DURHAM D Oct 2012 #1

More live to retirement age, but not really "longer" SharonAnn Oct 2012 #144

Because waitresses, hotel maids, janitors, nurses, etc still are hedgehog Oct 2012 #2

+1 Liberal Veteran Oct 2012 #6

this.... quality of life issues justabob Oct 2012 #16

+1 obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #23

Other countries retire at 60. robinlynne Oct 2012 #25

A DUer posted a few weeks ago about the prospect of "working to age 70" KansDem Oct 2012 #38

My Mom was a nurse and she was ready to retire at 55 - she was really worn out hedgehog Oct 2012 #44

Too many think that it would be easy to work until 70 or so. LiberalFighter Oct 2012 #80

I have been all of those, and a truck driver too! Care Acutely Oct 2012 #66

I'm an RN. I've done ER work for 30 years. I can't do it anymore and I am in GOOD SHAPE.. K Gardner Oct 2012 #90

Amen Horse with no Name Oct 2012 #114

Farmer here. Same thing - 30+ years at this kind of labor, in good shape, but TIRED riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #122

We have a good friend, a plumber, who had worked on his knees for 38 years and just retired CTyankee Oct 2012 #92

lord, I've been waitressing for 17 years now... Maine-ah Oct 2012 #121

Answer: How many companies employ people in their 60s? Where is it that you think people are going antigop Oct 2012 #3

you really think poor people are living longer and longer? CBGLuthier Oct 2012 #4

Yes, and the people who work in physically demanding jobs... Liberal Veteran Oct 2012 #11

Why do some people pay SS tax on 100% of their salary.. peace13 Oct 2012 #5

"The trouble is that the politicians raid the bank" arcane1 Oct 2012 #13

It could be considered treestar Oct 2012 #7

Why should it? mmonk Oct 2012 #8

It should only be modified based on facts... zaj Oct 2012 #17

You did not answer my question. DURHAM D Oct 2012 #20

why not raise taxes on the wealthy to put more money into the program? robinlynne Oct 2012 #26

The people who most depend on social security ARE THE ONES who work hard OKNancy Oct 2012 #9

I respect that, but... zaj Oct 2012 #27

Two points nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #69

The security of elders and older workers okasha Oct 2012 #130

Because we should be trying to improve our standard of living, not keeping it the same. randome Oct 2012 #10

That's an interesting assumption.. zaj Oct 2012 #37

Well, there are arguments below about reducing the age to 55. randome Oct 2012 #43

I agree with the other poster whole heartedly. ieoeja Oct 2012 #87

Actually check your numbers nadinbrzezinski Oct 2012 #12

Fair enough... zaj Oct 2012 #29

Do you know anything about current policy or DURHAM D Oct 2012 #41

you have to understand the numbers before saying that hollysmom Oct 2012 #64

+1 nt Live and Learn Oct 2012 #31

thanks 2pooped2pop Oct 2012 #60

First, because life expectancy is actually stagnant or decreasing for a significant fraction of HiPointDem Oct 2012 #14

+1 KurtNYC Oct 2012 #21

+2 nt Live and Learn Oct 2012 #32

Thanks for the links. hay rick Oct 2012 #116

^ this lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #123

ACTUALLY, THE RETIREMENT AGE IS TOO HIGH ProSense Oct 2012 #15

Exactly! nt SunSeeker Oct 2012 #24

Yes. The young need the jobs Live and Learn Oct 2012 #36

But where does the money come from? mythology Oct 2012 #136

Because rising life expectancy is already factored into Social Security MannyGoldstein Oct 2012 #18

Because we should be improving Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #19

For that matter, Art_from_Ark Oct 2012 #111

Because it will raise unemployment and misery. SunSeeker Oct 2012 #22

I think it should be lowered obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #28

And a big plus to you. GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #40

..... obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #99

It should be lowered and the CAP on wages should be eliminated. Vincardog Oct 2012 #76

+1 obamanut2012 Oct 2012 #100

Wrong tama Oct 2012 #30

How about people working in factories, doing physical labor, or high-risk jobs? Zen Democrat Oct 2012 #33

I can actually think of a couple of reasons. mysuzuki2 Oct 2012 #34

If we don't raise the retirement age, how else can we make it pay for itself long-term? reformist2 Oct 2012 #35

Lift the freaking SS tax (FICA) cap! SunSeeker Oct 2012 #46

Raise the cap. Liberal Veteran Oct 2012 #47

I'm OK with that, but it does change SS from an insurance plan to a hybrid insurer/welfare program. reformist2 Oct 2012 #59

Sorry to break it to you but exboyfil Oct 2012 #67

I'd like to see the age dropped to 55. GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #39

After removal of the cap exboyfil Oct 2012 #68

Because for many people, their work is physically demanding The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2012 #42

the cap should be raised, not the age. Retirement opens jobs for the young larkrake Oct 2012 #45

It's strange to me... ljm2002 Oct 2012 #48

Well wait until you're about 60 and see how enthusiastic you are about raising the retirement age. Ganja Ninja Oct 2012 #49

+100 n/t whathehell Oct 2012 #101

"the nature of our work" shanti Oct 2012 #50

Because there's more to life than work... Comrade_McKenzie Oct 2012 #51

So you want to privatize SS? DURHAM D Oct 2012 #53

Nearly every reasonably compensated individual exboyfil Oct 2012 #71

We live longer but longer life doesn't necessarily mean longer productive life aint_no_life_nowhere Oct 2012 #52

life expectancy is falling for some groups. n/t Cobalt Violet Oct 2012 #54

what would you rather have? Locrian Oct 2012 #55

Other countries don't use age, but total number of years worked. It makes more sense mainer Oct 2012 #56

Why shouldn't we raise the cap and make the better off contribute on 100% of their income?? tokenlib Oct 2012 #57

I'm sorry, but... Oilwellian Oct 2012 #58

"People live longer" is a fallacious argument nichomachus Oct 2012 #61

touche! Carolina Oct 2012 #139

I am gobsmacked that you could start such an asinine thread. tech3149 Oct 2012 #62

OK, let's start with YOUR cohort. Age 80 before you collect a dime of what you paid in. Ikonoklast Oct 2012 #63

Not just your body, but your mind. HughBeaumont Oct 2012 #81

If I had the money, I'd retire now, too Lydia Leftcoast Oct 2012 #94

Learn something new every day here. Ikonoklast Oct 2012 #96

Because money grows on trees and you can always get someone young to pay more to support you. dkf Oct 2012 #65

A decent retirement income and adequate medical care is not too much to ask. dawg Oct 2012 #84

Do you believe you can count on and should depend on other people's wealth to provide dkf Oct 2012 #95

It's MY freaking wealth. It came from the sweat of my brow. SunSeeker Oct 2012 #109

The lifestyle I want? dawg Oct 2012 #117

There were 6 others who helped provide for each person in the generation ahead of you. dkf Oct 2012 #124

Yes, but our GDP has increased massively over the last fifty years, even ... dawg Oct 2012 #125

Social security tries to keep a link between payments and benefits. dkf Oct 2012 #134

It has always been a government program. dawg Oct 2012 #135

But what are you entitled to if there is no connection to your benefits? dkf Oct 2012 #140

You know, you're the one who came up with the "no connection" bit. dawg Oct 2012 #142

No...there is a positive real rate of return at almost every level. A slightly negative one the top dkf Oct 2012 #145

That's good information. It proves that very little additional revenue is needed. dawg Oct 2012 #146

We are not living longer! The infant B Calm Oct 2012 #70

First, repay the "borrowed" funds. Daemonaquila Oct 2012 #72

Because many jobs are too physically demanding for older folks. Odin2005 Oct 2012 #73

Social Security doesn't dictate a retirement date. BlueStreak Oct 2012 #74

It has been raised CreekDog Oct 2012 #75

Because so far my generation has had minimum wage frozen for two record setting ten year periods, slampoet Oct 2012 #77

HERE'S PRECISELY WHY THE SS AGE SHOULD NOT BE RAISED - Koch Bros. are behind it... Must-see Video -- Indi Guy Oct 2012 #78

Well looky there Oilwellian Oct 2012 #82

I think this info/video... Indi Guy Oct 2012 #97

Thank you for the videos! SunSeeker Oct 2012 #107

I don't know how old you are but you probably haven't experienced ageism at work yet Matariki Oct 2012 #79

80 will never be the average human longevity. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #83

Pessimist! dawg Oct 2012 #86

If we ever really did have a major across-the-board increase in life expectancy ... dawg Oct 2012 #85

The longer life spans are not equally distributed across demographic groups . . . markpkessinger Oct 2012 #88

There aren't enough jobs to keep all the young people employed. Blue_In_AK Oct 2012 #89

that's my answer Enrique Oct 2012 #91

+1000 wickerwoman Oct 2012 #115

Several reasons. Zalatix Oct 2012 #93

Because I paid into it my whole working life at the higher rate... JHB Oct 2012 #98

get back to us when you are 65 Skittles Oct 2012 #102

you know, my dad's girlfriend worked at a laundry facility. ejpoeta Oct 2012 #103

you must be young. spanone Oct 2012 #104

How old are you? RC Oct 2012 #105

+1 area51 Oct 2012 #149

I'll be 62 next week, and I'm tired NOW dammit! Retirement age has already been pushed up to 67, so txwhitedove Oct 2012 #106

If you factor out infant mortality B Calm Oct 2012 #108

I'm a 58 y.o. waitress HeeBGBz Oct 2012 #110

First and foremost, increasing the labor pool diminishes wages TheKentuckian Oct 2012 #112

Ever try to get a job over 50? marlakay Oct 2012 #113

How old are you? Javaman Oct 2012 #118

Because it's an unnecessary benefit CUT, plain and simple. It will cause hardship. jtown1123 Oct 2012 #119

If you're a white collar worker that may not seem extreme, but doccraig67 Oct 2012 #120

i just read where we are not living as long. and ... where are the jobs???? nt seabeyond Oct 2012 #126

People who do hard physical work are used up in their 50s Warpy Oct 2012 #127

55 really? What about those who are 54, should it not be protected still_one Oct 2012 #128

Because its good enough the way it is. MichiganVote Oct 2012 #129

The age of eligablity should be going DOWN not up bowens43 Oct 2012 #131

Because 60 is still 60. Even if you live longer. Why should they not be able to more easily enjoy... NCTraveler Oct 2012 #132

Its interesting zaj hasn't come back to reply to many requests for his/her age and occupation riderinthestorm Oct 2012 #133

Bodies wear out! Carolina Oct 2012 #137

Are you saying Glitterati Oct 2012 #138

Bless your heart! Thanks so much for your concern! ANSWER: Zorra Oct 2012 #141

my father retired from a factory--he was pretty much used up dembotoz Oct 2012 #143

It's a much bigger stimulus to the economy to retire early, like in France librechik Oct 2012 #147

Suppose you raise the retirement age.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #148

Economic reason - the longer you force working class people to labor at full-time jobs haele Oct 2012 #150

I have a question too. Why shouldn't the cap be raised instead of eligibility age? notadmblnd Oct 2012 #151

It's already 67 Yo_Mama Oct 2012 #152

Ever worked in the coal mines? Sekhmets Daughter Oct 2012 #153

Some of us still have physically demanding jobs. Codeine Oct 2012 #154

Hell, I work a desk job. I can't imagine being able to keep up with it till 67, much less 70 and TheKentuckian Oct 2012 #156

Because people with, for instance, good public service sector jobs are forced out at 65 and kestrel91316 Oct 2012 #155