PDA

View Full Version : Economics Congress considering raising retirement age


Deberg_1990
07-14-2010, 07:31 AM
:facepalm:


Hey, congress, if you dont have enough money, stop spending billions on Bailouts!!




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/both-parties-mull-raising-retirement-age/?page=1



In a rare departure from this year's intense political posturing over the soaring budget deficit, House leaders of both parties recently signaled that they are prepared to tackle a leading long-term liability Social Security by raising the retirement age.

Politicians often talk in generalities about cutting the deficit, but discussing specifics about how Congress may curb the growth of the biggest and most popular programs such as Social Security and defense is controversial and usually taboo in an election year.

But lessons learned from the debt crisis in Europe and worries that the U.S. could soon confront its own debt crisis, with annual deficits projected at about $1 trillion for years to come, may have prompted the unusually frank comments by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

Speaking in unrelated forums, both leaders stressed that with people living longer and enjoying better health in their senior years, the nation simply can't afford any longer to be paying out benefits for as long as 30 years after retirement.

"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Mr. Boehner said in an interview last week with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Besides raising the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to 70 for people now 50 or younger, Mr. Boehner suggested curbing benefit growth by tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than growth in wages, and providing benefits only to those who need them.

"If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?" he said. "We just need to be honest with people."

Mr. Hoyer also said it was time to be honest with the public that the sheer size of the deficits and public debt means any serious effort to cut them back to manageable levels will require cuts and reforms in all major programs including defense and Social Security as well as tax increases.

"We could and should consider a higher retirement age, or one pegged to life span," he said in a speech last month before the Third Way think tank. Like Mr. Boehner, he suggested making Social Security and Medicare more "progressive," that is, providing benefits primarily to low-income people who need them the most.

Mr. Hoyer also endorsed specific cuts in defense weapons systems sought by the White House, and said the House Armed Services Committee is considering whether to adopt them.

"I fear that if we cant decide what we can afford to do without today, well be forced to make much more draconian cuts in the years to come," he said.

The comments reveal that, beneath the heated rhetoric as each party seeks to gain a political advantage by blaming the other for surging deficits, congressional leaders appear to be laying the groundwork for negotiations on a solution possibly as early as this fall.

A deficit commission appointed by President Obama is due to present its findings on how to reform major programs like Social Security and defense in November, and it is widely expected to endorse measures like raising the retirement age and others mentioned by the leaders.

Mr. Obama refused to rule out charging the commission with finding deficit solutions, including a value-added tax that would be the first-ever broad national tax on consumption.

One clue that both parties are getting serious about addressing the deficit problem is neither the White House nor congressional leaders of either party chose to single out for attack the others' unusually frank discussion on Social Security.

In fact, the interview in which Mr. Boehner detailed his views on Social Security was the same one in which he suggested that the Democrats' Wall Street regulatory reforms were like killing "ants" with a nuclear weapon comments that the White House and liberal groups immediately denounced.

Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hoyer repeated the same political talking points that analysts say would make it harder to control the deficit in the future.

Mr. Boehner advocated continued free spending on defense and said that should Republicans take control of the House in the fall elections, one of his first acts as speaker would be to repeal the $534 billion in Medicare cuts used to finance the Democrats' expansion of health care this year.

Many of those cuts are the same ones seen in a Republican budget plan, the only one to date that carries out the GOP pledge to get the deficit under control without tax increases, authored by Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Hoyer repeated a frequent Democratic defense of the gaping exemptions in congressional budget rules, which generally require new spending programs to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget.

Excluded from those "pay-as-you-go" rules are such major trillion-dollar expenses as Medicare doctor reimbursements and President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the middle class. Mr. Hoyer said that was because Congress would routinely override the rules to keep those programs in place, and render the law "toothless."

Still, good government groups were impressed at how far the leaders went toward signaling a consensus on ensuring the solvency of Social Security one of the government's biggest long-term budget challenges.

"It seems political leaders are finally getting the message" that the public wants action, said the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in a blog on Social Security. "Just getting congressional lawmakers to propose solutions in public has been difficult to come by. Not anymore."

Congressional leaders have come to realize that Social Security once considered the untouchable "third rail" of politics is now the "low-hanging fruit" among the many seemingly intractable budget problems facing Congress, the committee said.

"Compared to fixing Medicare or making significant changes to our tax system, reforming Social Security is a walk in the park," it said. "The funding gap is much smaller than it is for Medicare, and the options to solve Social Security's problems are clear and easy to quantify."

It helps that European countries from France and Britain to Greece are moving toward raising the retirement age for their pension systems to address their serious overspending problems and reassure investors in European debt markets.

The International Monetary Fund recently noted that solving such long-term budget problems carries the advantage of calming financial markets today while posing no immediate threat to economic growth like raising taxes or cutting stimulus spending.

mlyonsd
07-14-2010, 07:41 AM
Yeah, that whole retiring while you still haven't broken a hip and can control your bladder is pretty much over rated.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 07:41 AM
Reasonable start

RJ
07-14-2010, 09:39 AM
Man, that's would be a can of worms and a bucketful of unintended consequences. I think it's one of those things that sounds a lot simpler than what it really is.

FD
07-14-2010, 09:45 AM
A good reform thats long overdue.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 09:45 AM
Actually it may not be.

Do 50 and unders believe that they can sustain the funding to pay the current projected expemces?

The ones who benefit are those who have years ahead to pay in and Id bet they have the least expectations of the SS system paying them a dime. A blended program may be in everyones best interests weaning the system of the burden of SS and empowering people to save in a self directed manner.

Cave Johnson
07-14-2010, 09:48 AM
Two thoughts. First, I'd prefer they means test benefits first. Our retirement age is already high relative to Europe, etc.

Second, it would be great for me personally. Way more people would apply for and receive Social Security disability benefits.

talastan
07-14-2010, 09:54 AM
None of this reform by raising retirement age isn't worth crap if you don't protect the funds. The fact that Congress uses the SS money as a governent slush fund will just allow them to spend more with the supposed savings that they offset. Can I just please get the ability to take my SS taxes and privatize them myself? I won't ask for SS funds at retirement and I would much rather take advantage of the money myself rather than pay my entire life only to find out that they haven't got any money left, and I would make much wiser investment decisions than the Feds anyway.

RJ
07-14-2010, 09:56 AM
Two thoughts. First, I'd prefer they means test benefits first. Our retirement age is already high relative to Europe, etc.

Second, it would be great for me personally. Way more people would apply for and receive Social Security disability benefits.


That was one of the unintended consequences that occurred to me. A lot of folks just won't be able to work that long, depending on their occupation. Walmart can only employ so many greeters.

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 09:57 AM
Yeah, that whole retiring while you still haven't broken a hip and can control your bladder is pretty much over rated.

Hey look, as long as Los Illegals can continue to use up all of our social services, who cares about the quality of life for the people who actually pay for everything?

Deberg_1990
07-14-2010, 10:03 AM
Can I just please get the ability to take my SS taxes and privatize them myself?

This please.

RJ
07-14-2010, 10:07 AM
This please.


The last few years my 401K contributions would have been better off under my mattress.

But in general I would agree with you.

Brock
07-14-2010, 10:10 AM
So basically, keep paying in, and expect nothing back. GREAT

notorious
07-14-2010, 10:14 AM
So basically, keep paying in, and expect nothing back. GREAT


The very definition of government.

mlyonsd
07-14-2010, 10:16 AM
It's pretty funny if you think about the dems laughing and ridiculing republicans when they wanted to privatize 2% of SS.

The reality is the most dangerous thing that SS faces is congress itself.

mikey23545
07-14-2010, 10:16 AM
So they are thinking of pegging retirement ages to life expectancies?

This is a brilliant move on their part - since they will soon control everyone's medical care, they will be able to control everyone's life span...One hand washes the other, eh?

Garcia Bronco
07-14-2010, 10:17 AM
Amusing. GW tried to fix SS. His plan was bad, but the disscussion ended there.

RJ
07-14-2010, 10:18 AM
Another interesting thing about raising the retirement age is the assumption on the government's part that private employers will want that.

Brock
07-14-2010, 10:18 AM
For the boomers by the boomers. Thanks, guys!

petegz28
07-14-2010, 10:22 AM
"If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?" he said. "We just need to be honest with people."

I take issue with Bohenr on this. You are paying those people because THEY PAID THE FUCKING FICA TAX, you moron!

Brock
07-14-2010, 10:23 AM
I take issue with Bohenr on this. You are paying those people because THEY PAID THE FUCKING FICA TAX, you moron!

"We stole their money, but why should we give it back, it's not like they need it"

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Let carousel begin.

mlyonsd
07-14-2010, 10:36 AM
I take issue with Bohenr on this. You are paying those people because THEY PAID THE ****ING FICA TAX, you moron!

Someone needs to b-slap and warn him not to utter words like that again.

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 10:40 AM
Someone needs to b-slap and warn him not to utter words like that again.

And he's our golden boy fiscal conservative.

:facepalm:

Man, we are so fucked.

RJ
07-14-2010, 10:42 AM
The other neat thing about delaying retirement age is that we'll shrink the available job pie even further!

Hey kid, you might as well stay in college a little longer cause I ain't going anywhere!

Dayze
07-14-2010, 10:46 AM
I've come to the conclusion I'll never retire.
I'll work until I die at my desk.

FD
07-14-2010, 10:48 AM
The other neat thing about delaying retirement age is that we'll shrink the available job pie even further!

Hey kid, you might as well stay in college a little longer cause I ain't going anywhere!

This is an important economic fallacy. There is no "job pie" or fixed amount of work to be done in an economy. Its this type of thinking that has led nations like France to reduce the workweek in an attempt to lower unemployment. Its not true and it doesn't work.

Rain Man
07-14-2010, 10:50 AM
Honestly, I think it's a good idea to tie social security benefits to expected life span. Increased life spans and theft of the money by Congress are the two big reasons SS is in trouble, but even without the theft the life spans would be a major issue. But it needs to be a formula that's calculated automatically so Congress can't use it to pander for votes or fund other initiatives.

On the other hand, tying benefits to need would be criminal. Absolutely criminal.

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 10:53 AM
Reasonable start

About how I feel.

Hydrae
07-14-2010, 10:56 AM
As one who is turning 50 this year I am not thrilled. If I had been born in 1959 I believe I could retire at 65 with full benefits. Since I was born in 1960, I have to wait until 67 to retire with full benefits now. I have known this for a long time and gotten used to it. Now, at this late junction you want to raise it by another three years! So being born one year later than a 59'er, I will be expected to work 5 more years now? Frack. Good thing I am going to school so I can make better money in the mean time so I can afford to retire, regardless of SS.

mlyonsd
07-14-2010, 11:06 AM
As one who is turning 50 this year I am not thrilled. If I had been born in 1959 I believe I could retire at 65 with full benefits. Since I was born in 1960, I have to wait until 67 to retire with full benefits now. I have known this for a long time and gotten used to it. Now, at this late junction you want to raise it by another three years! So being born one year later than a 59'er, I will be expected to work 5 more years now? Frack. Good thing I am going to school so I can make better money in the mean time so I can afford to retire, regardless of SS.

:LOL: That's me exactly. In June I turned 50. The first time I read the thread starter I thought it meant anyone under 50....so I went "Whew". Then I read it again and went WTF?

I don't think we have anything to worry about, they won't get anything like that passed this year.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 11:07 AM
Another interesting thing about raising the retirement age is the assumption on the government's part that private employers will want that.

Whats that got to do with it. You can retire anytime you choose not tied to SS. Many companies allow full retirement benefits based on age and years of service and can be way way before current SS starts.

RJ
07-14-2010, 11:12 AM
This is an important economic fallacy. There is no "job pie" or fixed amount of work to be done in an economy. Its this type of thinking that has led nations like France to reduce the workweek in an attempt to lower unemployment. Its not true and it doesn't work.


Okay, if you say so. But it sure looks to me like our job pie right now is smaller than we'd like it to be due to a fixed amount of work to be done.

RJ
07-14-2010, 11:13 AM
On the other hand, tying benefits to need would be criminal. Absolutely criminal.


Yes, criminal. Literally.

RJ
07-14-2010, 11:16 AM
Whats that got to do with it. You can retire anytime you choose not tied to SS. Many companies allow full retirement benefits based on age and years of service and can be way way before current SS starts.


Retirement benefits from the employer?

Isn't that pretty much just government jobs and utilities these days?

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 11:21 AM
Retirement benefits from the employer?

Isn't that pretty much just government jobs and utilities these days?

Depends on the employer. My old company still has retirement benefits. Im not old enough for SS. When I am the employer contribution will drop an amount equal to what SS will pay.

Not limited or impacted by what I make from my own business post retirement.

talastan
07-14-2010, 11:37 AM
I'm praying my Roth 401k will eventually start gaining some ground. I've got several years so I'm just hoping for change (pun intended), as in the Left's hatred and attack on personal wealth to not permenantly disable my ability retire off of my personal investments.

King_Chief_Fan
07-14-2010, 01:08 PM
None of this reform by raising retirement age isn't worth crap if you don't protect the funds. The fact that Congress uses the SS money as a governent slush fund will just allow them to spend more with the supposed savings that they offset. Can I just please get the ability to take my SS taxes and privatize them myself? I won't ask for SS funds at retirement and I would much rather take advantage of the money myself rather than pay my entire life only to find out that they haven't got any money left, and I would make much wiser investment decisions than the Feds anyway.

the answer to the dilema is before us :thumb:
good response.

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 01:16 PM
This is an important economic fallacy. There is no "job pie" or fixed amount of work to be done in an economy. Its this type of thinking that has led nations like France to reduce the workweek in an attempt to lower unemployment. Its not true and it doesn't work.

:drool:

I'm sure that sounded good in Art Class or whatever non-economics classroom you were sitting in paying attention to the idiot professor rambling on about shit he knows nothing about and has even less business pontificating about it and making sure he noticed you were paying attention because you wanted an A---

But here i DC when you say stupid shit like that, we laugh and throw peanuts at you.

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 01:18 PM
Okay, if you say so. But it sure looks to me like our job pie right now is smaller than we'd like it to be due to a fixed amount of work to be done.

He's an idiot.

Bwana
07-14-2010, 01:43 PM
So basically, keep paying in, and expect nothing back. GREAT

Yep, the way these assholes go through OUR money, there is no way in hell there will be anything left......fuksticks. :shake:

FD
07-14-2010, 03:20 PM
Okay, if you say so. But it sure looks to me like our job pie right now is smaller than we'd like it to be due to a fixed amount of work to be done.

The "job pie" right now is much larger than the number of jobs, this is due to a shortfall in demand. Capacity utilization is extremely low.

The idea I expressed is just Econ 101. For more on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Amnorix
07-14-2010, 03:25 PM
It's a positive step, but I'd prefer more than just a band aid.

Amnorix
07-14-2010, 03:27 PM
Two thoughts. First, I'd prefer they means test benefits first. Our retirement age is already high relative to Europe, etc.

Second, it would be great for me personally. Way more people would apply for and receive Social Security disability benefits.

Means testing is a dangerous path, encouraging hiding assets and other games being played, and rewarding profilgate consumption over saving for retirement, which is more or less the opposite of what we want people heading towards retirement to do.

It's also a betrayal of the original principles of Social Security, which has been an extremely stable and fair system for 70 years or whatever.

ClevelandBronco
07-14-2010, 03:36 PM
Means testing is a dangerous path, encouraging hiding assets and other games being played, and rewarding profilgate consumption over saving for retirement, which is more or less the opposite of what we want people heading towards retirement to do.

I was just sitting there in the passenger seat thinking that you were doing a fine job behind the wheel...

It's also a betrayal of the original principles of Social Security, which has been an extremely stable and fair system for 70 years or whatever.

...and then you Chappaquiddicked my Kopechne.

Calcountry
07-14-2010, 04:09 PM
[quote=Deberg_1990;6878783]:facepalm:


Hey, congress, if you dont have enough money, stop spending billions on Bailouts!!

meh, that is so 80's. In 2010's they are spending trillions.