Raising Social Security Retirement Age Is No Simple Fix

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Geez. The idea is to raise the ages so that sufficiently more folks die before SocSec pays them anything. Anyone that thinks this system was created for anything other than to increase taxes is a fool.

JD 9:34PM May 13, 2011

Raising the age requirement isn't the answer. The problem is in Washington DC. This fund has been borrowed from for years and not repaid. Quit supporting the illegals, quit paying for all the children being born and stop the war - this would save the government a lot of money. Also Obama needs to quit giving the money away like it is his - it is the taxpayers money not his!
Every time a soldier is killed that means the government is out more money to support his children and the soldier is no longer here to be with his/her family. I'm not against the benefits that the soldier's family recieves, but the war is costing the Americans too much money and too many lives and for what? Let the Middle East continue to kill each other and not Americans!!

Jane of IN 3:55PM December 02, 2010

This article is a lot of crap. SS is the most fradulent scheem ever perpetrated on a group of people. The Idea is sound but the gov from the Get go used the system to rip off the people. To start with 1n 1935 the gov thought people lived to 59 so they set the retirement age at 65 figuring most wouldn't get anything It was actually a tax during the depression to raise money. Next if you or you spouse dies you lost one or the others benefit. The SS cost of living is a scam. next they started stealing money from the system in 1982 and now the gov owes trillions. the Gov only credits you with 35 years so if you work 45 you don't get anything for 10 years of payments. They tax you twice on the same money. Every year they raise the retirement age people are penalized between 20 and 40 thousand. You also have to wait an additiona month to get your first check another 1 or two thousand. Also people are not really living that much longer. What actually happened the Gov figured on keeping most of the money for their retirements and now people are living to maybe 75 so they want to raise the reitrement age to get that money. What if you work in construstion and can't keep up after say age 60 what happens.

dr of CA 8:27PM November 17, 2010

Does anybody really believe anything the CORRUPT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tells you?? I sure do not.

eat me of AZ 5:19PM November 01, 2010

They'll just print the money to pay for it. It'll cause inflation, sure - but then they can pay back all those Social Security IOUs (and China) with nearly-worthless money, while taxing us at the same rate. What do they care? As long as they have power now, any problems later are someone else's.
Therein lies the problem with elections. Our leaders have their eyes on a horizon of 2, 4 or 6 years, depending on their office. There is NO long-term thinking or planning in our government. America is the Forest Gump of nations, succeeding despite incompetence.

Rich of CO 3:55PM November 01, 2010

When you say about Social Security "the program has a surplus exceeding $2.5 trillion, and this cushion would grow for a number of years until eventually being sapped by the benefit payments to millions of retired baby boomers", I assume you are referring to the so-called value of the federal government IOU's and not to actual funds in any kind of trust. While this may be true, where is the money going to come from to "redeem" these IOUs in the future? The real crisis is that Social Security payments are projected to fall short of benefits paid out within a few years. This means that benefits will have to come from these IOUs and they will have to be redeemed by general tax funds. Something has to change in the near future or general taxes will have to be increased to pay for this or, as they have been doing for years, the Congress will simply raise the debt limit and the Treasury will borrow more money. Sooner or later the bill will come due.

BBrain of NH 11:16AM October 31, 2010

Raising the retirement age would be a grave injustice. Those in their working years are paying more for higher education (loans), more for housing, more for health care and now the government is contemplating burdening them with the cost of the boomers' retirement and then have them pay again with reduced benefits when they get to retirement age. Injustice aside, it is terrible long-term planning...they don't have enough money to put aside sufficient for retirement as it is. Even with advanced warning (that the Boomers had too...we knew decades ago that this was coming), they won't make it. Essentially you would be punting the football down the field and creating a big problem in the future...a lot of retirees without pensions, many without so much as a 401K match from their employer and now without even Social Security until they are seventy. Do you really want to see a seventy year old carpenter or garbage collector or you name it? It REALLY isn't fair to inflict ALL of the pain on those 20 years out who are not as motivated or unable due to work obligations to attend SS/Medicare rallies. It is abusive, unethical and objectionable.

Mark of NY 8:44PM October 29, 2010