Government Dependency

Arnold,

While I would likely agree with you on the vast majority of issues, increasing the SS retirement age makes no sense to me at all. If you need to cut the rate of growth of SS payouts, fine. There is no reason to think that the future mandated payout levels can be much of anything beyond an arbitrary relic of legislative history.

If you want the logic of 1935 to rule, then an appropriate rule would be that the SS retirement age be set according to the race and gender of the individual so that 2/3rds (educated guess, but certainly not less than 50%)of the individual’s birth cohort will not survive to draw a penny of SS.

Anyone who uses the words ‘solvency’ and ‘Social Security’ in the same sentence isn’t worth paying any attention to. They have apparently bought into the notion that the SS Trust Fund balance has some kind of economic significance, when at most it only serves as an authorizing mechanism for the Treasury to make up SS shortfalls. Any alternate authorizing mechanism that came into effect if/when the SSTF became exhausted would produce the exact same level of burden on the Treasury.

With 70% of SS recipients starting at age 62, even with a substantial payout reduction, it is clear that your desire to raise the retirement age is swimming against a strong current.

While it is understandable that academics don’t care much about their retirement age, most private for-profit businesses have little demand for the higher costs and lower productivities of over 50 age workers coming off the street. A company with over 50 age workers is a company that is working on a buy-out plan.

Regards, Don

While life expectancy has been going up, the aging process has not slowed down. If we follow the logical extension of your policy, someday people won’t be able to retire until 75 and then they will spend their entire retirement in assisted living, nursing homes, and hospices. So much for enjoying ones golden years. Frankly, I’d rather take an earlier retirement and die younger. I’ve had multiple grand parents who’s lives were extended past what anybody would want by modern medical technology. I don’t want to go through the same thing, especially not if it’s at the expense of the years 65-70.

The easiest solution for social security is to simply cap the total payouts to the total revenues you get from the 15% payroll tax. If the economy did not grow fast enough to raise wages, or if not enough people had kids, then everybody shares the pain.

I’m in favor of raising the age as well. People are living healthier into their 60s and 70s, and it isn’t reasonable to hew to 1930s standards of age.

But there’s probably ways to split the difference – let people choose from several payout options – a minimal payout at 65, better at 67, even better at 69, full at 71 (or whatever the actuarial numbers might justify).

Since so many people choose early retirement anyways, it’s clear that they’re not hurting for money. Might as well take advantage of that.

And yes, btw, if this means that a good chunk of the people die before they receive a full SS benefit… so be it. Social Security is not supposed to be a retirement plan. It’s supposed to be a ‘so you don’t have to eat cat food’ plan.

If you are in favor of raising the retirement age to reflect 1935 realities, can us younger ones go back to paying 1935 level taxes too? What about 1960 level payroll taxes as a compromise? Paying more for less does rather seem like a raw deal no matter how you slice it.

I sit at a desk and write things. It’s reasonable to think that I could continue doing this til I’m 70. It’s less reasonable to think that a carpenter or fence builder or nurse could keep doing what s/he is doing for that long – arthritis happens, and trick knees, and loss of physical strength.