Raising the retirement age - how many people will end up

[hedgehog]

going out on disability? The savings may be all they're cracked up to be.

[B Calm]

1. It takes about three years of fighting to even get on disability. And now

it's going to be even harder.

[hedgehog]

3. And once you're approved , you have to wait 6 months for the first check!

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Not For My Wife

Admittedly it was 9 or so years ago, but while the process took forever, the retroactive check was direct deposited in about 3 days and she got the first regular check a month later.

It takes 6 months to get the first payment now?

[TexasBushwhacker]

56. Your first payment is 6 months from the date

you were declared disabled. For example, I stopped working because of my disability in December, and got my first check in May, with no back pay.

[2naSalit]

18. And you're more likely to

be continually denied if you have an advanced college degree because they deem you able to find a desk job even when there are no jobs available or you keep getting turned down because you're too old or over-qualified.

[Old Codger]

2. Regardless

Of that how many will still be able to find jobs at anything past our current age of retirement... Believe me anyone over 50 or so right now has pretty slim odds on finding gainful employment...

[Thinkingabout]

6. I work with plenty of older than 50, it may be a minimum wage job but we are working past 50

and unless there has not been lots of funds put away SS or SSDI is not going to provide need funds to survive.

[davekriss]

20. Worst case scenario: 75-80% benefits paid

If absolutely nothing is done - retirement age is left alone, no means testing added, tax cap not removed - social security will still be able to pay 75% to 80% of benefits after the trust fund is exhausted in the 2030's.

While a benefit reduction of 20-25% will be incredible painful for many, it's not time to scrap one of the best programs ever in U.S. Government.

I remember the CBO scores of GWB's 2 tax cuts. The tax giveaway to the top 2% and corporations over ten years roughly equaled the social security short fall over 75 years. No benefit cuts until the rich start giving some of that money back!! Otherwise it amounts to class theft.

The easiest change: lift the tax cap! If done, benefits can be increased, not decreased.

[Thinkingabout]

21. Increasing the max cap is definitely a way to maintain. As I told a co-worker 40ish, who was

complaining about penalty place on 401 savings plans who said "I need my money now", that she will need it more later in life.

Another thing, right now not a lot of our younger folks are not participating in pension plans, not having the SS is going to be devastating, they will need it more than those with pensions.

[Thinkingabout]

4. If some reforms is not put into SS the money will run out and there will not be any SS or SSDI, we

have projection until 2036. The last reform in the 80's raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67 for those born after 1938, without this it would have been over in 2012. The MAX cap was also raised.

Remember, no reforms, there will not be SS or SSDI so how do you think this will be good?

[jeff47]

7. Yeah...SS has been 30 years from going bankrupt for about 70 years now.

For some reason, I'm not quite believing this is a crisis that must be fixed RIGHT NOW.

[Thinkingabout]

8. Did you know reforms occurred in the 80's?

[jeff47]

10. Yes. Did you know that after those reforms it was still going to be bankrupt 10 years from now?

That's a bit different than the current estimate, isn't it?

[Thinkingabout]

12. I think the year is 2036 or 2037. Do you think people are living longer on average that the

people were when SS is implemented?

[jeff47]

14. Now it is 2036. After the Greenspan commission it was in the 2020s.

Do you think people are living longer on average that the people were when SS is implemented?

Not significantly.

Overall life expectancy has gone up a lot, but overall expectancy also includes infant and child mortality. 6 year olds have never significantly contributed to Social Security funding.

Infant and child mortality has plummeted, but mortality of people who reach adulthood has not moved much since the first decade after Social Security was in effect.

This is not a situation where we need to make any reforms that take effect right now. And there are extremely trivial reforms that completely solve the problem - lift the cap on the payroll tax and not only is it solvent forever, we can actually increase benefits and it remains solvent forever.

[Thinkingabout]

16. The last reform did not begin immediately, it was started on people who were born after 1938.

It was a gradual process for those born after 1938 and the MAX caps has increased some also. Hillary's plan calls for those who make over $250,000 annually so they would pay the increase. I probably will not be here for the 2036 but I care about our future generations, I enjoy my SS and hope there are arrangements for the younger ones to enjoy the same. What happened to the socialists people, they should be racing to get these reforms in place.

[jeff47]

22. And the insolvency date accounted for that.

Seriously, do you think they did not account for the eligibility age going up when doing the math?

Hillary's plan calls for those who make over $250,000 annually so they would pay the increase.

Clinton's plan also introduces means testing to Social Security, providing a fantastic route to killing the program.

I probably will not be here for the 2036 but I care about our future generations, I enjoy my SS and hope there are arrangements for the younger ones to enjoy the same.

There is no funding crisis. We do not need to act now. The only people screaming "we must act now" are the people trying to cut Social Security.

I will be here for 2036. In fact, I'm not eligible for Social Security until after 2036. Your insistence that we must "reform" the program right now is not helping me and the rest of "our future generations". It's helping the people who want to create an artificial crisis as a means to damage the program.

[Thinkingabout]

25. This isn't a conspiracy theory and it isn't an artificial crisis. It is like your checking account,

if you continue to take out more money than you put in and when there isn't any more money left, might not be a crisis to you but it is to me. It is not to damage the program but to strength into the program. There are other programs which has been strengthened and that is good, like increasing the minimum wage, it has been helpful. Believe me when I say I am thinking about the future generation. Are you in a pension plan? Are you participating in a 401 type plan? If not you will need something extra than SS in retirement.

[jeff47]

31. Why yes, I am a fucking idiot!!

I understand precisely what the claim is.

The same people have made the same claims for decades while moving out the insolvency date every so often. As a result, they are as trustworthy as the people who have claimed hyperinflation is just around the corner since we left the gold standard.

The 2036 date makes some very pessimistic assumptions about the US economy. As a result, it's the earliest Social Security would have a funding problem. It is likely the actual date is further out.

Additionally, the fix is fairly simple, and does not have to be done RIGHT NOW to be effective.

The reason there are people clamoring for a fix RIGHT NOW is because of our current political situation. Their desire to cut and kill Social Security has no chance of passing about 5-10 years from now. The voters they need to support their plan will no longer be voting, and are being replaced by much more liberal voters. They need "reforms" now, or they will not be able to cut Social Security for many decades.

We don't need to help them destroy the program.

Believe me when I say I am thinking about the future generation.

Then try listening to that "future generation". Despite your insistence on treating us like 8-year-olds, we are adults and know what is going on.

Are you in a pension plan? Are you participating in a 401 type plan? If not you will need something extra than SS in retirement.

Your generation handing out retirement advice is a bit like an arsonist handing out fire prevention advice.

We've watched many of you be unable to retire. We are aware of financial planning. We even know about term life insurance and other similarly exciting subjects.

[Thinkingabout]

64. Bye, I have a life to deal with.

[jeff47]

70. Yes, I'm sure there's a 45 year old who is doing it wrong and needs to be informed. (nt)

[B Calm]

30. No I don't think people are living longer. I believe the inclusion of infant mortality rates

in calculating life expectancy is giving the false picture that we are living longer.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Do you know many people who are living past 65? I know lots of people who are still

living, lots in their 70's, 80's and 90's, know some who are 100, my aunt passed away this year and she was 100. Statistics say you are wrong.

[B Calm]

38. Of course their statistics say that I'm wrong, because they are not

not including the infant mortality rates of today from yesteryear in calculating life expectancy.

We all know people 70's, 80's and 90's, but some people have always lived longer. Are you ignoring all the people who died in their 40's, 50's and 60's you read in the obituary?

[Thinkingabout]

39. One of the fastest growing population ages is over 65 but believe what you want.

[B Calm]

40. Have you ever heard of the Baby Boomers?

My grandpa was born in 1882 and lived to be 87. Grandmother was born in 1884 and lived to be 89. Dad was born in 1917 and lived to be 91 years old.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Quiet familiar with the Baby Boomers, I am a Baby Boomer.

[B Calm]

42. Good then you do know why that age group is growing so fast.

[Thinkingabout]

44. Give me a link to your claim.

[B Calm]

45. There are claims for both sides. One side who preaches

we are living longer is republicans wanting to screw with Social Security. All you have to do is google infant mortality rate 100 yrs ago vs today or something to that effect.

[Thinkingabout]

48. Let me help you.

http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lifetransitionsaging/a/seniorpop.htm

Check the 2010 census records, they know the information.

[B Calm]

50. Let me help you

http://grannysvitalvittles.com/how-long-did-people-live-100-years-ago/

[DLevine]

47. The life expectancy of poor white women has decreased by 5 years. nt

[Thinkingabout]

49. is it over 65, things has changed on life expectancy since SS started.

[B Calm]

57. But the life expectancy hasn't changed, only the infant mortality rate.

Lets say it's the year 1900 and this young married couple had a set of twins. One of the twins died shortly after childbirth and the other lived to be ninety years old. Stating that on average the couple’s children lived to be 45 is statistically accurate but meaningless. Claiming a low average age of death due to high infant mortality is not the same as claiming that the average person in that population will die at that age. - See more at: http://grannysvitalvittles.com/how-long-did-people-live-100-years-ago/#sthash.9iHqve2H.dpuf

[Thinkingabout]

60. Did you go to the link I sent you?

Our population is aging because seniors are the fastest growing population in the world.

According to the Administration on Aging(AoA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States is experiencing a dramatic increase in the numbers of people who live to old age.

This phenomenon is creating challenges for Americans of all ages as they cope with Social Security, health care, housing, employment, and other national issues that are important to an aging population.


Did you see anything about infants here?

[B Calm]

62. Did you see anything about infants here? That's what I been telling you,

they are not showing it.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but I highly doubt you are going to live on average any longer than people 100 years ago.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Did you see the part about the fastest growing age group?

[B Calm]

67. And I explained that earlier too, BABY BOOMERS!

Listen, you go on believing you are going to live longer than previous generations, I don't want to burst your bubble any longer.

In the mean time republicans will keep mouthing this lie and chip away at social security.

[Thinkingabout]

68. Statistics do not concur with your opinion, I will stay with the statistics especially

Without you providing a link, I provided a link, no link, i dont believe.

[B Calm]

69. Have a long, long life!

And I did give you a link, you chose to ignore it. Whatever. .

[Yupster]

75. So all the bypasses and stints

haven't made any difference in life expectancy at all?

What a major rip-off then.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. You don't really have the facts about those reforms in line. The retirement age was raised for those

born in or after 1960, not 1938. For example.

[Thinkingabout]

26. No, I have the facts correct about the after 1938, the full retirement age did rise from 65 to 67.

Actually those born in 1960 is after those born in 1938. Currently the full retirement age is 67, it was achieved in increments. It may have gone from 1939 to 1960 but it started with those born after 1939.

[jeff47]

35. No, the full retirement age is still 66.

It won't hit 67 until people born in 1960 turn 67. Which is in 2027.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Let me inform you, I have migrated through this increase of age, I was born after 1938, my

full retirement age was 66, those who were born afterwards it is later, yes though it is true the full retirement age of 67 has not been met, it is still migrating, it will be 67 on full retirement.

BTW, early retirement is still 62 at a reduced rate.

[jeff47]

37. You will inform me by agreeing with my correction of your erroneous statement.

[Thinkingabout]

43. No since i said the reform raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, it is in increments, this

True so why should I agree to something different.

[jeff47]

46. And it's currently at 66 years. You decided to "inform" me it was....currently at 66 years.

Good thing you were here to inform me it is exactly what I said it was!!!

[Thinkingabout]

52. A flipper fibber, I dont need my post rewritten.

[jeff47]

54. Then what were you attempting to inform me of?

People born in 1949 are now eligible for Social Security...at age 66.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/1943.html

So what were you trying to inform me of?

[Thinkingabout]

61. Once more and I have other things to do. In the SS reform that in the 80's

Starting with those born after 1938, ie born in 1939, the full retirement age will increase from 65 to 67. This would be in increments.

[jeff47]

72. Which is exactly what I said. We're in the 66 increment, as I said.

So what, exactly, were you trying to inform me of?

[liberal N proud]

27. We could start with Congress replacing the money they stole from the SS Surplus

Then maybe this wouldn't be a crisis falling on the backs of the people who paid into the program.

[Thinkingabout]

29. I agree but it does not change the fact SS has been reformed to provide after 2012 and there will be

a need to reform because the last reform provided until 2036, what happens after this? Reform is needed, where should the reform begin, with Democratic party, it started with us and the GOP wants to end the program, it is time for the smart people to get the reforms done.

[HassleCat]

53. Only one reform is necessary

Remove the wage cap. People who earn millions would have to pay SS taxes on all their income. That would pretty much do it. Right now, it's welfare for wealthy people.

[hedgehog]

79. Removing the wage cap is the best way to begin addressing

wage imbalance - move some of the 1%'s money over to the 99% retirees.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. (*cough*)bullshit(*cough*)

the last *reform* was a con job that screwed workers. The next *reform* will be an even worse con job, depending on who gets elected, unless we insist on NO CUTS FOR ANYONE.

SS solvency can be fixed *forever* by raising the cap. That change would allow SS to increase benefits instead of decreasing them and would help resolve SSDI funding as well.

The 2036 date is not when SS runs out, it is when SS cannot meet full payouts under the worse case scenario. Benefits would continue to be paid, they would have to be reduced unless, horrors, congress made up the difference out of general revenue, you know, the way they do when they need another 1.5B dollar blimp.

[giftedgirl77]

5. Who's advocating raising the retirement age?

[JackInGreen]

9. Here

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/say-it-aint-so-hillary-clinton-youre-open-idea-raising-retirement-age

It's an option to be explored in Hills opinion apparently.

[giftedgirl77]

11. You mean the 3d paragraph where she explicitly states

that she is against raising the retirement age?

[JackInGreen]

13. But she'd consider it

If there were a way to ensure that folks in heavy labor stI'll got to retire early. So she'd consider it, though states she's not outright for it.
Still tetchy imo.
You can decide that her consideration and denial in the same paragraph mean she's against it but it sounds pretty damn wobbly to me. We should be expanding benefits, not considering instances in which we cold the age.

[Populist_Prole]

19. As I've heard it stated, chillingly accurate

"Janitors have to retire later because lawyers are living longer".

It's a technocratic view, seasoned with class disdain.

[jeff47]

15. She explicitly states she has not seen a proposal she likes, but would consider it. (nt)

[hollowdweller]

17. I worked for SS disability for 30 years. Already happening.

I retired in Feb.

What I saw pretty much the last 15 years or so was you have people, who were stuff like school cooks, cashiers, nurses and other jobs that involves standing and bending. These people by about 53 to 55 start developing disc problems or arthritis in the knees and hips.

They do not really have any retirement other than SS and a lot of times no medical insurance. Once you go over age 55 if you have no transferable skills and you are limited to lighter work than your past job then you are allowed.

So these people are using the program to retire essentially.

If you are over 50 you have to essentially be limited to sedentary to be allowed. 55 usually light work. That is assuming your past work is above that.

Back in the 80's and 90's it was relatively rare for me to see a disability claim on someone over 60. That's because back in those days we still had some remnant of unionism where I lived and so many could just take early retirement and wait for SS. Now the unions are gone and their influence on the non union jobs is gone too. So everybody has to depend on disability. The social safety net the private sector used to provide is gone.

I personally thing SS should do a study of the industries that have the greatest contribution to disability recipients and increase their premiums to help pay for it. They could get a break on this if they offer retirement for their employees.

My fear is what they are talking about. Kicking up the age limit for a medical vocational allowance. Meaning if you were 50, limited to sedentary work and could not do your past job that was greater than Sedentary and you had no transferrable skills to sedentary they could say you could still do unskilled or semi skilled sedentary work. That would prevent thousands from getting disability and there are really not enough of those type jobs to absorb those people. Talk is already underway to kick the ages up 5 years on the vocational grids.

They have already put the pressure on the ALJ's to allow less claims. This is radically cutting down on awards at the law judge level. They have also opened a fraud unit to help knock people off the rolls.

The big problem is you are going to have all these people with chronic health problems, in their mid to late 50's that nobody will hire if you cut them off. What do they do? Deal painkillers? Live with relatives??

It's one thing to hate on people who won't work. But to keep the rich rich we are down to fucking people who worked shit jobs all their lives because we don't want to spend an extra dime on SS taxes. It's a little sick really. We should think about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Bible.

[jwirr]

33. I took care of my severely disabled daughter for 45 years

and when I was 60 my back was so bad I could not lift her anymore. She weighs 80 pounds. You are dead on as to why there are so many healthcare professionals who are disabled between 50 and 60.

[Delphinus]

51. Thank you.

Your last paragraph says so much.

[DLevine]

55. Great post. Spot on. nt

[hobbit709]

24. How many will drop dead before getting their first retirement check?

[ViseGrip]

28. Lift the C A P !!! Everyone says this for years! Even Bill Clinton when he ran!

[meaculpa2011]

58. Since benefits are based on contributions...

how do you propose paying for the increased benefits if the cap was raised?

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. Yup. It's all about income inequality

In the past, approximately 90% of all wages were subject to SS tax, and the fund was healthy in perpetuity. But now, with so much of the new income going to the top 1%, those extra wages, anything over $118K, are not subject to SS tax. Now the amount of all wages subject to income tax is only 85%.

Many just say raise the cap, but I like the idea of an untaxed window. They could gave a window of income not subject to SS tax of, for example, between $125K and $250K. Then someone who makes $500K (or $5 Million) would pay SS tax on the first $125K and on the income beyond $250K. That way the additional burden is more on the top 20% (especially the top 1%) and not so much on the upper middle class. The size of the window (smaller or bigger) could be adjusted as needed to keep SS solvent forever.

[hollowdweller]

66. Rather than lifting the income cap just raise the tax for everybody.

If I remember correctly the tax for SS only has to be raised a few percent to make it solvent thru 2075.

The Trustees estimate that the 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined trust funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll?—?0.44 percentage point larger than the 2.22 percent deficit in last year’s report. For the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, lawmakers could: (1) increase the combined payroll tax rate during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.61 percentage points1 (from its current level of 12.40 percent to 15.01 percent); (2) reduce scheduled benefits during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 16.2 percent; (3) draw on alternative sources of revenue; or (4) adopt some combination of these approaches.

http://search.socialsecurity.gov/search?affiliate=ssa&query=stabilizing+trust+fund

Would you pay 3% more to guarantee that SS would be there for you and your kids? Maybe the cost of a couple pizzas a pay period?

I would. That's the question we should ask.

[TexasBushwhacker]

71. It would bother me if they raised it on everyone

instead of raising the cap. People who make more already get a break on the SS tax, plus they are more likely to have investment income that is taxed at the lower capital gains rate, and isn't subject to SS tax at all.

It wouldn't bother me personally to pay more. I make less than $30K but I'm single and got used to being VERY frugal when I was disabled. But if I was a parent making $20K a year, that $300 a year could be clothes and Christmas presents for their kids. It could be copays for medications or doctor visits, bus fare or gas for their car.

[Jimbo S]

59. Full Retirement Age is an outdated concept

Each year you put off collecting, the benefit increase 7%-8%. Maximum benefit when collecting at age 70.

[ladyVet]

73. I'm riding the bullet train to age 58.

I haven't worked in nearly eight years. No one will have me, and I can't do the kind of work I used to do (even if I could get a job). I have no viable skills. No way to get disability, because I have no insurance so no medical history -- and don't say I could be going to free clinics, because I know from people who go there that the doctors won't do anything they don't have to, it's hard enough to get them to do the bare minimum.

I've been trying to hang on until I'm 62, but it's looking more and more like I'm not going to make it before the program gets pulled out from under me. That pot growing idea is looking better and better. Heck, if I got arrested, at least I'd get three hots and a cot, and maybe a doctor visit or two.

[pnwmom]

78. Are you in a state without Medicaid expansion? And if you're a veteran,

is there any healthcare available for vets in your area?

[madville]

76. We will probably see bipartisan changes like the 1983 legislation

that came out of the Democratic Congress and was signed by Reagan. Bump the full benefits age up a year or two 20-30 years down the road, increase the payroll percentage a bit, raise the cap some, etc, etc.

Something will have to be done at some point with life expectancy increasing and technology/trade deals eliminating decent US jobs. It will be a bitter political pill for all involved.

[pnwmom]

77. Exactly. They've never shown it will save money, anymore than raising the Medicare age

would save money.

[PETRUS]

80. The past is prologue.

The retirement age was raised from 65 to 66 between 2002 and 2009. Here are the number of 65 year olds on disability by year:

[hedgehog]

81. Wow! Great Googling!