Get Your Hands Off My Social Security

Idea or implementation? (0.00 / 0)

Is the idea of raising the retirement age at this point in history, where people do indeed seem to be able to retire later, itself a bad idea?  Or is this particular implementation of it a bad idea?

I think that all of the things we're spending money on as a society right now are good but we really do have to pay for them.  If an adjustment in the retirement age could help to pay for all of the stuff we need to spend money on as a society and keep us further back from the brink of extreme indebtedness that some European countries are facing that would be a good thing.  (But yeah, I don't really trust the GOP to spend the money responsibly if we actually managed to save it through such an adjustment, they would probably spend it all on pork, tax cuts for rich people and new wars.)

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 02:10:11 AM CDT

"People seem to be able to retire later" (4.00 / 2)

That is not true.

You could look it up. We have about 9.8% unemployment. Older workers have a very difficult time finding new jobs if they are laid off or their employer shuts down.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:40:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have a better way to reduce the debt (4.00 / 3)

than to steal from the social security part of the wages I earned.

There's having the wealthiest pay their fair share in income taxes, for example.  Another is not going to war unless absolutely necessary.

I've had to live my entire working life under a diminishing American dream brought to us by 30 years of essentially unchanged Republican fiscal ideology.  No way I'm adding to that net negative by willingly giving away  the money I earned..

Finally, do not be fooled that this new push to slice up SS has anything to do with "Austerity" or the debt.  That's just the latest cover for what Bush was unsuccessful in doing in 2005

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 05:45:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay... (0.00 / 0)

I'll postpone trying to deal with the problem for another decade or whatever but we have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress and things haven't appreciably changed... and even back during the Clinton years when the deficit was improving the SS situation didn't get better much, did it?  So anyways, just for the record, for me personally things really need to move on these counts sometime in the next few years or I'm not going to be willing to depend on potential future Democratic political successes as a solution.  But at that point I'll obviously have spent another decade grinding my teeth watching people retire at 65 so possibly I'll be pushing for a retirement age of 75.  If we have to go kneecap some Blue Dogs or something let me know.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:49:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A dangerous mix of ignorance and self-righteousness. (0.00 / 0)

"grinding my teeth watching people retire at 65"

Start your homework here.

The retirement age isn't 65 for anyone.  

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 17:27:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not ignorant and not dangerous thanks. (0.00 / 0)

And you don't do self-righteousness too bad yourself.  "Homework"?  Right after you call me self-righteous?

And your link is even directly contradicting your statement above that it is not true that people have been able to retire later.  I'm glad I didn't second-guess myself and run off on your first "homework assignment".

I apologize if the "kneecap" joke scared you.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 22:53:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, ignorant. (0.00 / 0)

Re-read.

Anyone born in 1943 or later cannot retire with full Social Security benefits until after age 66. Since those born in 1943 are already 67, that means the "retire at 65" option is gone for everyone.

You have always been able to give up Social Security benefits and retire earlier. (You can retire at 30 with no benefits, for that matter.)

The whole discussion of Social Security is plagued by people who don't bother to do 30 minutes of their own simple research. The retirement age is ALREADY rising. The cap on contributions is ALREADY rising.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:58:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

None of my four parents (4.00 / 4)

Unlike any of my grandparents at their age none of my four parents are "retired" each of them work full time or part time to make ends meet.

My father is 70, my stepfather is 72, my mother is 68 and my stepmother is 69.

For the lower working class there is no such thing as "retirement".

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 09:41:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes - that's a related point (4.00 / 2)

After reaching full Social Security retirement age, many people are happy NOT because they can retire, but because they can supplement their wages with the Social Security benefits they have paid for.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 18:09:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a no-brainer, Dean. (0.00 / 0)

Via Dylan Matthews, eliminate the cap on FICA and SS shows a long-term surplus.  Heck, even increasing benefits while eliminating the cap gets the program close to 100% funded.

 

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:39:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a no-brainer - (0.00 / 0)

Up until now Social Security has been deliberately structured so that every wage bracket gets out more than they paid in.

Roosevelt's team designed it that way to make it politically bulletproof. It isn't an income transfer or welfare program, it is an insurance and retirement annuity program.

It's possible that the program is now so widely supported that changing this fundamental aspect won't weaken its survivability.

But it isn't a no-brainer.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 18:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that (0.00 / 0)

the tweaks to the program are no-brainers.  Raise or eliminate the cap on FICA, and, if it makes everyone happy, increase the benefits at the top end.  SS still gets very close to 100% funded, long-term, and there are no significant changes to the program.

Plus, I don't buy that the program is in trouble.  It continues to run surpluses until 2017, and the surplus (more than $2 trillion in Treasury bonds)holds steady until mid-century.  You have to be pretty optimistic to think that plague, pestulance, climate, or war won't change the game board by then.

For me, it is a no-brainer.  The only place left that has money are the top income brackets.  If we don't get it there, it comes from the folks who have nothing left to give.  

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 20:45:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

I agree that the program is not in any sort of serious trouble.

"Increasing benefits at the top end" fails on two counts:

• If you increase benefits enough to maintain the "no loser wage bracket" rule, it probably means the cap hike doesn't guarantee 100%; and
• High-end wage earners don't want - and probably don't need - the extra insurance provided by higher Social Security benefits.

You're convinced it's a good idea. But, the very fact that other progressives who have seriously studied this, think eliminating the cap is risky, means it is NOT a no-brainer. It might be the best choice, among all the non-perfect options (applying payroll taxes to investment income and capital gains doesn't get enough attention, BTW).

(A lot of people don't realize that the cap rises every year anyhow. It was about $67,000 in 1997; it's over $100K now.)

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 21:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a matter of curiosity, (0.00 / 0)

who are the progressive economists who are leery of raising or eliminating the FICA cap?  

I did mention that increasing benefits only gets SS close to 100%, not fully funded long-term, but it's not a "fail".  There are some fairness issues with eliminating the cap, but there are also fairness issues with wealth distribution - is it fair for Bill Gates' kids to start our life with a $50 billion head start on 99.99% of the planet?  What did they do to earn/deserve that money?

I agree with you about the capital gains scam.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 08:34:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's one: (0.00 / 0)

Linky.

I don't know Scmitt's reputation; his bio says he's a TPM contributor and also the The American Prospect.

You should be able to find other cites. This isn't an offbeat concern.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 18:06:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily a bad idea -- but many problems (0.00 / 0)

I am not opposed to raising the retirement age, so long as (a) it is grandfathered (no pun intended) for workers over 40, and (b) some allowance is made to allow workers in physical jobs, such as construction or waitressing, to retire earlier.  That latter point is a major concern, and we would need to find a way to make it work so that blue collar workers don't get the shaft.

As for Dean's point. . . . You know, of course, that the retirement of baby boomers will plunge Social Security into the red as soon as this year, and the program's "trust fund" status would be endanged if funded by differentiated taxes or external budged arrangements.  And then those that view Social Security as an "entitlement" would have a case to make.  

The only way we preserve the trust fund is to ensure that Social Security funds itself.  Privatization cannot be an option, even if Charlie thinks it is (and voted accordingly during his time in the House).  Raising the retirement age can work, so long as it is done with respect for individuals in jobs that are difficult to perfrom with advancing age.  It should not be taken off the table.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:20:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here we differ. (0.00 / 0)

My view is basically candidate Obama's view:

during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said subjecting more of a person's income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.

He objected to benefit cuts or a higher retirement age.

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

"That is the option that I will be pushing forward."

I object on principle to raising the retirement age, given the variables and vagaries of making ends meet when reaching one's 60s.  But going beyond principle, I particularly oppose it in the current unemployment economic crisis we are in, which increasingly looks protracted, and especially cruel to older Americans.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:10:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I respect that (0.00 / 0)

The payroll tax increase makes sense to me.  I don't believe that would compromise the character of Social Security as a trust fund.

But I still wouldn't take increasing in retirement age off the table, assuming it is done with appropriate protections for vulnerable workers.  It may be necessary.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:05:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Raising the retirement age (0.00 / 0)

will simply push people from SS to disability, for the most part.  Eliminating the cap does it all.

This is all about getting a pry bar under the program for conservatives, just like getting the health care reform was getting a nose in the tent for progressives.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." A. Einstein

---

by: StraffordDem @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:43:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is not true. (4.00 / 2)

"the retirement of baby boomers will plunge Social Security into the red as soon as this year"

Here are the actual facts:

1. The Social Security Trust Fund was revamped under Reagan so that it would build up a humongous surplus from baby boomer wage taxes for a couple of decades, with that surplus to be used when the baby boomers started retiring and the annual outflow from the program started exceeding the annual inflow.
2. We are about to hit that point: NOT a point when "Social Security plunges into the red," but the point at which it starts drawing down the Trust Fund, as planned.
3. The Fund IS expected to go into the red - meaning, more outflow than can be covered by both inflow and the remaining Trust Fund - in about 27 years.

This is important stuff. Please don't misstate it.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 18:10:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No misstatement (0.00 / 0)

We are about to hit that point: NOT a point when "Social Security plunges into the red," but the point at which it starts drawing down the Trust Fund.

That was precisely my point.  And it is NOT sustainable indefinitely.

In my accounting classes, "into the red" designated periods in which expenditures exceeded revenues.  There was no "misstating" involved.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:26:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Baloney. (0.00 / 0)

When a company sets up a sinking fund to build up a cash reserve for an anticipated future expense, drawing from that fund to pay that expense does not constitute "going into the red."

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 17:16:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ham (since we're naming meats) (0.00 / 0)

Elwood, if the cash reserve was sufficient to meet the anticipated future expense, then we wouldn't be talking about raising additional revenue.

"We're going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can't get something for nothing."
         - Senator Barack Obama, 16 April 2008

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 18:24:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know your reasons for spouting GOP, Charlie Bass distortions. (0.00 / 0)

The "cash reserve" of the Trust Fund IS sufficient to meet the "anticipated future expense" of covering the retirement costs of the baby boomers. That was its purpose; it is working.

In about a thirty years the Fund will be fully spent. THAT is when Social Security would "go into the red."

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 18:47:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please, sir, may I have some more? (0.00 / 0)

In about a thirty years the Fund will be fully spent. THAT is when Social Security would "go into the red."

No, then it will be bankrupt. Until then, it will spending far more than it takes in, even when you take into account the reserve you noted above.

I realize that you have a difficult time responding to anything I write nowadays without adding in a gratuitous insult or two.  Still, I figured that including the quote from President Obama would spare me the GOP/Bass comparison, especially since he agrees with me (and not you).

For the record, I have explicitly criticized Charlie Bass's position on Social Security more times on this site than I can count, and published research to back it up.  In this thread alone, my opposition to GOP "solutions" has been clear.

So knock it off.  If you disagree with me, try to do it with a modicum of decency.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:32:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Baloney. (0.00 / 0)

Don't hide behind the President's jacket.

He didn't say "in the red". You did.

Along with Newt, and Charlie.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 18:01:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And the Congressional Budget Office (0.00 / 0)

The CBO projects that the trust fund will be $29 billion in the red during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, and will run deficits for the next three years. After projected surpluses in 2014 and 2015, the trust fund again would have deficits from 2016 onward.

                - Boston Globe, 3/26/10

I guess the CBO must be assholes, morons, or right-wing Republicans -- just like everyone who disagrees with you.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 07:18:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Learn to read. (0.00 / 0)

That was the Boston Globe characterizing the CBO's report, not the words of the CBO.

And I called you an asshole, not for disagreement, but for repeatedly hijacking a diary.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 07:48:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know how to read, thank you (0.00 / 0)

Actually, it was from the top economic news reporter from Bloomberg News.  Who must know nothing about economics, clearly.  Ditto other sources, you reported the CBO leadership's remarks in a similar manner.

Christ, elwood.  I feel like I'm talking with Triumph the Insult Dog.  Does every one of your comments have to include a gratuitous slam?  Can't you acknowledge that, in accounting terminology, "in the red" is commonly used to describe periods in which expenses exceed revenues, NOT when bankruptcy occurs?  I have studied accounting before, am not making this up.

Damn near every one of your responses to my comments during the past several months has included one personal insult or another.  You don't have to like me, but a little civility wouldn't hurt.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:19:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Money is a figment of the imagination, printed on paper (4.00 / 1)

by the Treasury of the United States, whose value is defined by the good faith and credit of the American people.  Money is a tangible symbol of a promise to give something in return for whatever was received.  It acknowledges an obligation or debt.  People who resist paying their debts are, typically, in favor of theft-- i.e. getting something without giving anything in return.  In nature, such creatures are referred to as predators.  Putting a human face on the behavior doesn't change its nature.  
Predators exploit their environment and consider other creatures as prey.  
Think of money as similar to the written word.  There was a time when some people were denied and deprived of the written word.  The current object of deprivation is currency (think WIC, food stamps, housing vouchers, school vouchers, student loans, debit cards).  The stratagems for depriving people of the use of money, after having gotten them hooked on it, are multitudinous.

Poverty, like marriage, is a virtue, when freely chosen; not when it is imposed.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:39:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a pretty dumb idea right now, Vis (4.00 / 1)

Clearly you aren't out of work - but a person over the age of 50 who is unemployed has a better chance of getting hit by lightening than finding a job.

As for the rest of your commentary - if the US cut the defense budget in half, we could afford to do a whole lot of great stuff. What we can't afford is to sustain our goal of global military imperialism.  

member of the professional left  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:45:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I said before (4.00 / 3)

NH better think about how to fill all those seats in the state house if the retirement age gets raised.  Or we all need to get really rich quick.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:22:44 AM CDT

Or... (0.00 / 0)

We could just reduce the number of seats if it genuinely turned out to be a problem.  We do, after all, have the largest legislature in the world.

Besides, doesn't the fact that we can depend so heavily on people over the age of 65 to run our state government show that perhaps the idea that people need to stop working at that age is a bit artificial?

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 04:34:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

There is a slight difference between a paying job for 40 hours a week and serving in the legislature, which takes a couple days a week during part of the year.  Believe me, when you reach your 60s, most of us get tired a lot more easily than we did even at 50.  
And anyone who does manual labor, yes, there are a few out there, needs to retire in their 60s, because the toll on the body starts catching up with you.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 06:13:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

two things (4.00 / 1)

1. this is a remarkable from the "Spread the wealth around" standpoint. Boehner is essentially saying take from the Rich and Give to the Poor. For all the flack that Obama took for that statement it amazing JB is getting away with it.

2. James Gailbraith recently posted interesting view that what we should be doing right now is urging people into early retirement to reduce the labor pool and get ppl to work http://roomfordebate.blogs.nyt...

There is no chance any of these methods will create the jobs we need, and that is why we should now act to shrink the labor force.

Reducing the eligibility age for Medicare to 55 would allow older workers to opt into early retirement. Eliminating the early retirement penalty in Social Security for, say, five years - and, yes, we can afford that - would open up jobs for young people. More money for community colleges, technical schools and universities can help: more students means fewer unemployed.

I thought it was an creative smack up-side the head.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 07:16:05 AM CDT

Being sustained by the community, both in youth and in (0.00 / 0)

old age IS an entitlement.  It's what we are led to expect to be provided by our agents of government in exchange for having given our consent to their agency.  To provide for the general wefare is an obligation of the federal government.

That conservatives resist acknowledging any obligation doesn't change that.  Entitlements are rights and rights are worthless without cocommittant obligations.  Humans, by virtue of having been given life, have rights.  However, getting humans to deliver on their obligations is difficult.  That's why we organize public corporations and pay our agents to deliver the requisite service.  People who get paid and don't deliver are guilty of honest services fraud.  It's what Bush/Cheney, among others, should have been charged with.

Pretending that "entitlement" is a dirty word doesn't make it one.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:49:24 AM CDT

One more thing. (0.00 / 0)

When push comes to shove, conservative resistance to social obligation leads them to offer bribes.  This accounts for why, from the conservative perspective, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is in the composition of the populations being bribed.  Republicans, catering to a smaller population, need pay out fewer bribes.  Besides, their thieving supporters are quite willing and able to fend for themselves.  Democrats, on the other hand, in catering to the impecunious hordes, always need to pay out more in bribes.

In the conservative world-view, to govern is to rule and the ruler, if his reign is not to be consumed in subduing the unruly, needs, perforce, to dole out rewards and bribes.  That the people govern doesn't even fit into their paradigm.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 08:59:18 AM CDT

SS not in bad shape (4.00 / 2)

Kevin Drum

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 12:28:17 PM CDT