Retirement Age Stars In Soc. Sec. Debate
Prominent Group Of Actuaries Say Raising Retirement Age Necessary With Longer Life Spans
-
Photo
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive
Social Security
How it works, the shortfall and Bush's proposal, and facts on recipients.
The next president and a new Congress will come under increasing pressure to act to fix the Social Security system. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama rejects any increase in the retirement age while his GOP rival John McCain opposes tax increases as a possible fix.
The American Academy of Actuaries, which advises policymakers on risk and financial security issues, wants any potential solution the White House and lawmakers might consider to include raising the retirement age from the current range of 65-to-67-years-old. The group provided The Associated Press with an advance look Thursday of its recommendations.
Current benefits are supplied by payroll taxes from today's workers, all of whom pay a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on income up to $102,000. Their employers match it, for a total tax of 12.4 percent. The tax applies only to earned income, not to passive income such as dividends and interest.
Benefits are projected to exceed the Social Security system's tax revenues in about nine years. The program's trustees have said the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041 without changes.
A major problem, the actuaries say, is that people are living longer. That means they are drawing more money from the program.
When Social Security started in 1935, the average American's life expectancy was just under 60 years, according to the Social Security Administration. By comparison, people now eligible for Social Security can expect to live on average a little past 76, the agency says, "meaning workers have more time for retirement and more time to collect Social Security."
For many years, 65 has been the retirement age to receive full benefits. But under changes in 1983, only people born before Jan. 2, 1938, can collect full benefits at 65. Those born after that date face a gradually rising retirement age for full benefits until it reaches 67.
You just can't have people living longer and longer and longer, and have the program with a frozen normal retirement age of 67. It just doesn't make sense.
Bruce Schobel, American Academy of Actuaries"You just can't have people living longer and longer and longer, and have the program with a frozen normal retirement age of 67. It just doesn't make sense," said Bruce Schobel, the chairman of an academy task force on retirement security principles. "Eventually people will have a larger and larger proportion of their lives spent in retirement until you reach the point where we just can't afford it."
The academy is not staking out a position on when people should retire and acknowledges that saving Social Security will take more than just raising the retirement age.
"All that we're suggesting is that some increase in the retirement age should be part of any package," Schobel said.
Obama already has rejected such advice. "We will not raise the retirement age," Obama said in June at a campaign event in North Carolina.
Obama has, however, called for a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year, compared with the current $102,000 threshold.
"Barack Obama is opposed to raising the retirement age. He believes we should strengthen Social Security while protecting the middle-class families that rely on it," said Jason Furman, Obama's campaign economic policy director. "To that end, he would like to work with Congress on a plan to ensure that people making over $250,000 pay a little more to strengthen this vital program for generations to come."
McCain originally said everything was on the table to fix Social Security. He recently has amended that position, saying he would not increase payroll taxes. "I want to look you in the eye: I will not raise taxes or support a tax increase," he told supporters Wednesday.
Former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who served as a McCain adviser until he resigned earlier this month, told The Washington Times this month that a bipartisan deal to save Social Security might include raising the retirement age to 70 over 30 years.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



First, Administrations have to stop raiding the SSA fund for spending on other purposes. Second, the cap has to be raised to about $250K or more. Third, no more talk about privatization. I have three young sons that know very little about puts, calls, margains, etc. You can bet that every scam artist in existance would love this concept. These are only a few but we have to stop kidding ourselves. Unless we take some painful steps to cure SSA, it will go out of business within 10 years.
Or how about just taking peoples money, and not giving any money out at all?
The system would not go bankrupt that way too. And the problem is solved. I wonder who this influential group of actuaries are?
I''m with you, give me my money back, and now, with interest. The SSA taxes has done nothing for me, but caused me to be poor when I was just starting out in life. It was nothing to see almost $200.00 taken out of my paycheck back then.
Posted by maxify55 at 03:47 AM : Aug 01, 2008
It''s always the same with you folks. YOU don''t want to pay for the government we have so you BORROW that money. You continue to borrow as we continue to watch the lives our fathers built for us fall down around us. You continue to borrow as MORE of the budget goes to pay INTEREST on that loan. EVERY election you some people come out with the same tired old lies about Trickle Down and Balancing the Budget then you expect us to listen to you when it comes to fixing the nations retirement system?? NO THANKS!!
Yeah, don''t fix the problem, make an accounting change.
Maybe the American Academy of Actuaries should have a little less influence. This is the same old insurance game of coming up with reasons not to pay so the profits continue to roll in. How do these idiots sleep at night?
1. Stop raiding the SS fund for other projects. This is the biggie. If we can''t do anything else we MUST do this one thing.
2. Elimiate, not merely raise, the upper income limit.
3. Beyond a certain income, say $150000 or $200000, have those deductions graduated; the more one makes, the more one pays proportionally.
4. Consider taxing assets as well as income for our wealthiest citizens. But let''s not go overboard here; and such a tax should be temporary.
5. Make members of our three branches of government pay into the system as well. Cheap symbolism, maybe, but this insures our representatives have a stake in fixing SS. They do not now.
6. And raise the retirement age. Band aid or not, it is still part of the solution.
I''ve been paying into Social Security for over 45 years, now. I am too young to retire but when I do, I would like a reasonable income for as long as I live - however long that is. Lest you think your ol'' buddy Lloyd is being a bit of a whiner, let me assure you that given what the Social Security Administration tells me I can expect as income, I will never get back what I put in....
Not to mention if Congress could keep its grubby paws out of the "trust fund".
That is far too much time off for the bosses to approve!
How can the billionaires keep up their standard of living if the wage slaves aren''t kept chained to their benches until they drop?
Why don''t we solve both problems by fixing our broken immigration system and allow low-skilled laborers to obtain permission to work in the U.S.? These workers will be paying Social Security taxes, contributing enormously to the amount of money available in the fund.
It all goes back to the change from "Personnel" to "Human Resources" - since 1980, the human element of the economy has become just another cost of production rather than an element of income generation.
Posted by Element51
By removing the cap it sounds like you want other people to pay for your benefits. I already pay around sixty thousand dollars per year in stare and federal taxes. Enough already. Let the people who receive the most benefit pay more. If you are going to remove the cap, remove the cap on how much we will receive back. It should be proportional to what we put in.
Guess they just couldn''t get us involved in enough wars-that is the pattern, economic crisis then start a war to divert attention and reduce population. But then the middle east scrap ain''t over yet.
By removing the cap it sounds like you want other people to pay for your benefits...." Posted by rhs648 at 04:38 PM : Aug 01, 2008
Why not? Element51 has been paying for other peoples'' benefits for however long (s)he has been paying into the system. So have I. In fact, you are paying for other peoples'' benefits right now, even as you read this rebuttal.
When all three of us retire, other people will be paying for part of our benefits. Some of your retirement income will be footed by folks entering the workforce; some of whom, in fact, earning more than you do.
As much income as your tax bill implies, I have to disagree with your assertion that benefit caps also be removed. Part of my reasoning goes back to a concept called Noblesse Oblige. Simply put it means from those who have much, much is required. Specific to this example you are (or should be!) putting enough money into a private account to fund a very comfortable lifestyle upon retirement, with out the the additional income you might be getting from a removal of benefit caps. In any case, we are seeing far too much "Noblesse" in recent years and not nearly enough "Oblige".
The SS account should be dedicated to SS only. It is not a cookie jar.
-
by
August 4, 2008 2:22 AM PDT
- Stop spending SS money on illegal aliens and their families. Stop paying money on fakes, who get their children to act retarded so they can collect money before their even an adult. Stop disability to fakes, but pay for real disabilities. Stop loaning SS money to the government. Make the Fed Gov repay all the past loans, at 18% just as we have to pay. If that bankrupts the Fed Gov then change the way the Feds run things.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 33 Comments