A bipartisan group of Senators is talking about raising the retirement age on Social Security

[brooklynite]

Semafor

A bipartisan group led by Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Bill Cassidy, R-La. is considering gradually raising the retirement age to about 70 as part of their legislation to overhaul Social Security, Semafor has learned from two people briefed on their efforts.

Other options on the table include changing the existing formula that calculates monthly benefits from one based on a worker’s average earnings over 35 years to a different formula that’s based instead on the number of years spent working and paying into Social Security.

The plan also includes a proposed sovereign wealth fund (as previously reported by Semafor) that could be seeded with $1.5 trillion or more in borrowed money to jumpstart stock investments, the people said. If it fails to generate an 8% return, both the maximum taxable income and the payroll tax rate would be increased to ensure Social Security stays on track to be solvent another 75 years.

“This is an example of two leaders trying to find a solution to a clear and foreseeable danger,” Cassidy and King spokespeople told Semafor in a statement. “Although the final framework is still taking shape, there are no cuts for Americans currently receiving Social Security benefits in our plan. Indeed, many will receive additional benefits.”

How inconvenient that the blame can't be lain with Sinema and Manchin.....

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. How about raising the cap on taxable SS income?

[dpibel]

2. Why is that?

A bad idea is a bad idea, regardless the source.

[Grins]

3. Bi-partisan? How?

A Republican and an Independent…?

[leftstreet]

4. Click-bait. An "I" isn't bipartisan n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Two senators is a pair, not a group.

And none are Democrats.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. And they're not "leaders" just because they say they are.

That's like claiming that you're humble.

[Freethinker65]

6. Raise the cap, you effing assholes.

Not everyone is healthy enough to work until age 70. If you want to continue to work and delay receiving social security (and get greater monthly payments that way), fine with me.

Are non-working spouses, the ones choosing to stay home to provide childcare since reproductive healthcare and family planning are being discouraged, still going to be able to receive social security under the new plan?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Social Security payout is NOT based on a worker's average earnings

over 35 years. It's based on the worker's highest 35 years of earnings. If you worked less than 35 years (as I did) that can hurt. I improved my payout by returning to work for about five years, and delaying taking my own SS until age 70.

I also had 3 years in the 1970s where I maxed out on my SS earnings. Just barely, but still.

There is this incredibly complex formula that accounts for inflation.

Every time I see something about raising the retirement age for Social Security, I wonder if they are thinking about raising the age when you can first collect. It's been 62 for a long time, although that comes with a reduced benefit, and if you continue to work there's an income limit, which if exceeded means you get less SS the next year.

[brush]

8. That idea is going nowhere. What a waste of time.

Last edited Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Are those two just grandstanding for visibility? They have to know the Dem Senate majority will never allow that to pass, and they also have to know all that has to be done to raise the income ceiling.

[Dorian Gray]

10. I'm sure people

are capable of blaming King and Cassidy if they don't like the bill.


Seriously, though, the attempt to find a solution for a longer life span and the drain on these funds is something that legislators should keep talking about. There are multiple potential solutions, but with life expectancy moving backwards over the last couple of years, adding 5 years to retirement for these funds may not be the feasible move.

[Deminpenn]

11. Are these two still laboring under the idea that there is some

"savings account" that will run out? Soc security doesn't work that way. Right now it's taking in more than it's paying out, but once the payouts exceed the tax revenue, they'll just be paid out of general revenue like everything else.

Also, do these senators know there is a cap on the amount of social security one can get? in 2022, the maximum benefit at age 65 is 3.3k, at 62 it's 2.3k. The absolute maximum is 4.2k that can only be achieved by working 35 years at the highest SS tax capped salary and retiring at 70.
This an easy to understand explainer: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/102814/what-maximum-i-can-receive-my-social-security-retirement-benefit.asp

Maybe neither senator understands that soc security income is means tested and taxed if recipients make too much income, regardless of source, in retirement either.

[IbogaProject]

12. I suggest we raise the age when Senators can collect

And make the Senator and Congressmember retirement match Social Security no more. And they and their family should be on Medicare or Medicaid while in office. They need to have skin in this.

[bluestarone]

13. My suggestion?

Add to their bill, ALL congress personal, (Senators and House people) cut their pensions and lifetime medical benefits!

[bigtree]

14. Sinema and Manchin aren't absolved by this

...ridiculous to even suggest it.

Manchin is still angling to 'negotiate' with republicans over leveraging the debt ceiling to force changes to SS and Medicare.

Sinema is a republican foil.

Nothing in this deal between an independent and a backwater republican absolves these two obstructionists.