Personal Finance >
Retirement
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedTo combat the coming crisis in Social Security, the federal government should raise the retirement age
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Agree | 20% | 13 votes | Total: 64 votes | |
| Disagree | 80% | 51 votes |
Agree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSocial Security is on the verge of being broke - or broken. We now have more and more people having to pay into a system that is paying out to even greater numbers. The current system provides reduced retirement benefits from age 62, and full benefits for qualified workers between the ages of 65 and 67 (depending upon whether or not they were born before 1938).
The current Social Security system provides retirement benefits, survivor benefits, and disability benefits. The system was established in 1935 as a temporary measure to provide a minimum level of income for the elderly, the disabled and their survivors. This Depression-era program has since become a permanent part of our social, political, and economic landscape, and is known as the 'third rail' of politics in that no politician wishing to be elected will even hint at terminating it.
The base for social security comes from wages of covered employees (which includes most jobs in the private and public sectors) in the form of a tax. The full tax is 7.65 percent of an employee's wage. The portion of the tax that pays for old age, survivor, and disability insurance (OASDI) is 6.2 percent of pay up to the maximum base of $106,800 per year. The remainder of the tax is used to pay for hospital benefits under the Medicare program.
At the rate the Social Security fund is being consumed, by 2015 it is likely to be exhausted. With the average age of the American population increasing year on year, there will be fewer active workers paying into the system. Eventually, there will be so many elderly and others eligible for benefits, and so few workers contributing to the system; it will collapse under its own weight.
Given the political impossibility of getting rid of Social Security entirely, it then becomes essential that the government find a way to ensure its long-term viability; not just small patches around the edges, but a profound change in the way Social Security operates.
One of the first things the government should do is stop raiding Social Security to pay for other pet programs that it can't get Congressional funding for. Most profound, though, is a recognition that Americans are living longer and, despite lack of access to health insurance and the skyrocketing costs of medical care, staying healthy longer than they did in 1935. It is time, then, to take another look at the retirement age. Is it really necessary to force people to retire at 65? Many people are healthy, alert and capable of productive work well into their 70s. Does it not make sense to allow them to do so, thus delaying their entire into the entitlement pool? Social Security, then, could be used for those who are disabled and unable to work.
If the retirement age was raised to say 72, it would delay benefit payments to millions over the next few years. There have already been changes in the age for full retirement, and such a move would be met with howls of displeasure from many who are close to the current age. Government leaders, however, get selected to make the hard decisions, and this is one that is long overdue.
Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Disagree
You have slaved all of your life and now you are at the age of 65. You want to rest a little and enjoy some of your accumulated wealth, however, you have very little. You now have very little because the cost of living has escalated, and you have spent a lot of your income on just trying to live. Now, someone has an even brighter idea- let you almost wilt on the vine until you get to be age 70 and then you can collect all that's due you!
Where did this idea originate? Certainly not from those who have broken their backs trying to reach age 65. It cannot be that those who were the backbone of their communities, villages, towns and cities came up with that brilliant idea. Then, who did? It had to be those who have the luxury of wading in a pool of bank assets and retirement goodies. Yes, they did it, but you ask the reason why.
Could it be that these people with the whim of making all of the faithful workers wait so that they can have more money available in the Social Security System for their friends and families. Is this their way of preventing tired workers from resting a little?
"No!, No!,No!" and doubletimes "No!" is the appropriate reaction to this plan. Already thousands of people die before they reach the age of 65. Their Social Security pile is given to the next of kin, but they never got a chance to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Another group are so sick at the age of 65 that they can only lift a weak finger to sign the checks that come in for them to pay the doctors and nurses and nursing homes that are their caretakers. The designated age of 65 in and of itself is enough. Those who choose early retirement at the age of 62 are perhaps the wiser ones. They have a little penalty attached to their drawing from the fund earlier than scheduled, but what is a couple of dollars compared to a few more years of misery and toil?
What happens to a person's body at the age of 65 is that it is almost worn out. To make an individual press on to the age of 67, 68 or even 70 is called torture. They are grayheaded seniors, grandparents, with aching limbs and frequent causes to see a doctor. Much of their income is used just trying to keep going, but going to work on a 40 hour job is oppressive. Even those who try to do this find themselves wishing they had made another choice. "Give it to the young!" is good advice. There are just some jobs that need to be taken over by those who are young, fresh, and up to the rigor of the demands. When seniors can impart their knowledge to that group and then step down gracefully, the transition is worthwhile. Everybody benefits. This is not called "age discrimination", but it is called, "common sense".
Those of us who watch our friends hobble to a job simply because they are not old enough to retire at 65 see what hardships exists. Those of us who watch, on the other hand, our friends sit back and relax, sipping cool lemonade and being fanned at a spa or resort, can compare the difference. One is wise, and the other is otherwise. Life is brief, and if a person can get the luxury bonus of collecting the due amount of their Social Security benefits- why not. I believe the benefits far outweigh the agonizing benefit. I have seen seniors snap into health when they retired at the age of 62. I have seen them live longer, enjoy their families in a more meaningful way. I have witnessed the pressure, which loomed on them like a heavy cloud, just lift, and surprise- they have been able to see the wonderful "bright side" of living. Those who have experienced this will tell you that they wouldn't have it any other way. They did Part I, Part II, and Part III of their lives, and now they are ready to enjoy Part IV. The best news is that Part IV can be followed by Part V, and retirees who have the option of retiring earlier than later will be in a better position to tell it.
Learn more about this author, Toni Doswell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
