GOP proposes details of disastrous Social Security Reform - Massive cuts etc

[Badger]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

On top of this, It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the increase in life expectancy is very class and income correlated. Raising the retiremen age is basically requiring janitors and landscapers to work longer because lawyers and  business executives are listed in longer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

Except that's not the trade off "modern medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living" is offering.  Once one reaches a state of advanced decrepitude and senility, your average life expectancy is only a few more years regardless of whether you reach that state at age 60 or 90.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

Except that's not the trade off "modern medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living" is offering.  Once one reaches a state of advanced decrepitude and senility, your average life expectancy is only a few more years regardless of whether you reach that state at age 60 or 90.

This is verifiably false.

Then verify it as false please. The quick Google I did brought me sources that indicated it was true. I didn't just say what I said off the top of my head as if I were a President-elect or something.

[DC Al Fine]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

Except that's not the trade off "modern medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living" is offering.  Once one reaches a state of advanced decrepitude and senility, your average life expectancy is only a few more years regardless of whether you reach that state at age 60 or 90.

This is verifiably false.

Then verify it as false please. The quick Google I did brought me sources that indicated it was true. I didn't just say what I said off the top of my head as if I were a President-elect or something.

May I suggest an enema?

So are you going to verify this? I'm interested in the answer.

[DC Al Fine]

I think some age changes would make sense to bring social security more in line with ERISA that governs other retirement plans. A typical IRA provides a window from a minimum age of 59 1/2 to begin collecting income to a maximum age of 70 1/2 to reach an end of deposits and mandatory withdrawal. I don't see a problem with moving to a social security early retirement age of 59 1/2 while moving the maximum with full benefits to 70 1/2. It would allow workers with both social security and an IRA to better plan for their retirement since both pieces would be working on the same schedule.

Keeping them on the same schedule would also help with the frontloading problem retireees face. Making one's savings last depends disproportionately on market returns/withdrawals taken in the early years of retirement. Someone retiring in their early 60's must rely 100% on private savings/pensions, which combined with a market downturn early in retirement can devastate the long term viability of a retirement plan.

[KingSweden]

I think some age changes would make sense to bring social security more in line with ERISA that governs other retirement plans. A typical IRA provides a window from a minimum age of 59 1/2 to begin collecting income to a maximum age of 70 1/2 to reach an end of deposits and mandatory withdrawal. I don't see a problem with moving to a social security early retirement age of 59 1/2 while moving the maximum with full benefits to 70 1/2. It would allow workers with both social security and an IRA to better plan for their retirement since both pieces would be working on the same schedule.

Keeping them on the same schedule would also help with the frontloading problem retireees face. Making one's savings last depends disproportionately on market returns/withdrawals taken in the early years of retirement. Someone retiring in their early 60's must rely 100% on private savings/pensions, which combined with a market downturn early in retirement can devastate the long term viability of a retirement plan.

I agree with both of you. Aligning SS with ERISA is a terrific idea, which means it's something that neither party will rver do

[Saint Milei]

Excellent proposal

[Ban my account ffs!]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

The life expectancy went down last year, dude. 

Don't worry... baby boomers will get theirs.  And yours too.

[Torie]

The class difference in life expectancy really bothers me. Given that, the benefits lower class folks get as a group are worth less. I think the only way out of the box, is to means test the whole damn thing Granted, there is some of that now, since what lower income folks put in, generates putting aside life expectancy, a higher return. But it is not enough, particularly as life expectancies increase, and in particular for the middle to upper middle class. Heck, these days it seems men are living into their 90's in droves. That did not used to be the case.

The Pub plan as described is insane, and won't go anywhere. Somebody didn't think it through very well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

Except that's not the trade off "modern medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living" is offering.  Once one reaches a state of advanced decrepitude and senility, your average life expectancy is only a few more years regardless of whether you reach that state at age 60 or 90.

This is verifiably false.

Then verify it as false please. The quick Google I did brought me sources that indicated it was true. I didn't just say what I said off the top of my head as if I were a President-elect or something.

May I suggest an enema?

So are you going to verify this? I'm interested in the answer.

I'm not really clear on what Ernest thinks he is disputing.

Many elderly people live for years or decades with significant age-related physical and mental limitations. Older people have much higher rates of chronic disease, disability, incontinence emergency department use, hospitalizations, etc., more of them report having difficulty with routine tasks like driving, showering, preparing food, cleaning the house, or using the bathroom, and they are much more likely to have difficulty with chronic pain, memory problems, loss of motor skills, poor balance and coordination, the list goes on. And there are wide disparities by income, race and ethnicity, and geography in terms of when declines become noticeable and how rapidly they progress.

Our quality of life changes dramatically as we age, and improvements in our ability to keep people alive past a given age don't necessarily correspond with improvements in a person's typical quality of life at that same age.

The bolded part is what I am disputing, and I thought I made that abundantly clear.  Either you're changing the bar from what you were originally proposing, or you think some impairment in quality of life is the same thing as "advanced decrepitude and senility".  For me the term "advanced decrepitude and senility" means being unable to live independently, and the statistics I was able to find indicates that the amount of time we spend in that unhappy final period of life have not significantly altered despite advances in longevity and medical care.

[BoAtlantis]

It's far more practical to raise the payroll tax cap.

Raising the age requirement is even unpopular among Republicans. That would probably disgruntle 45-64 year olds, arguably his strongest voting bloc. They would fear the prospect of having to work extra years before retiring.

GOP is a big favorite to win in 2018 and 2020 with or without passing it but if they were smart they would reject all SS reforms or at least delay it till Trump's 2nd term.

[Deblano]

It's far more practical to raise the payroll tax cap.

Raising the age requirement is even unpopular among Republicans. That would probably disgruntle 45-64 year olds, arguably his strongest voting bloc. They would fear the prospect of having to work extra years before retiring.

GOP is a big favorite to win in 2018 and 2020 with or without passing it but if they were smart they would reject all SS reforms or at least delay it till Trump's 2nd term.

I used to be in favor of raising the retirement age up a few years, but I realized that would be highly unlikely to be popular, and probably isn't even a good idea in practice.

It's one of those ideas that sounds good on paper (to some folks, I guess), but doesn't really bear fruit.

[BoAtlantis]

It's far more practical to raise the payroll tax cap.

Raising the age requirement is even unpopular among Republicans. That would probably disgruntle 45-64 year olds, arguably his strongest voting bloc. They would fear the prospect of having to work extra years before retiring.

GOP is a big favorite to win in 2018 and 2020 with or without passing it but if they were smart they would reject all SS reforms or at least delay it till Trump's 2nd term.

I used to be in favor of raising the retirement age up a few years, but I realized that would be highly unlikely to be popular, and probably isn't even a good idea in practice.

It's one of those ideas that sounds good on paper (to some folks, I guess), but doesn't really bear fruit.

Fertility rate isn't exactly rising so without accepting more immigrants, it'll get harder to support retirees. Illegal immigrants in particular create tax revenue but can't even collect SS benefit.

Older people may not acknowledge it but illegals skew young. They'd most hurt younger people, not 45+ year olds.

[publicunofficial]

I don't think anyone is prepared for how ruthless and quickly the GOP is going to implement what they want this year. I seriously think it will be North Carolina on a national scale.

[pbrower2a]

If the life expectancy becomes something like 100 years old, are we still going to have the retirement age at 65?  Honest question, as I am sure there are decent arguments to keep it at that (e.g., "Who the hell wants to HAVE to work more than 40 years anyway?!"), but seriously consider the life expectancy in the United States when this program was founded ... we didn't budget for this, and the only way to "re-budget for it" is to find the revenue to do such, probably in the form of more taxes.  The GOP isn't down with that, quite obviously.

Unfortunately living to 100 (on average) does not imply remaining physically or mentally fit enough to do useful and well-compensated work past 65 (on average). Or having any more years during which you can "enjoy your retirement" rather than sitting drooling in front of a television between hospitalizations and diaper changes.

Think about making this trade yourself. Suppose advanced medicine, improved safety, and higher standards of living can offer you another 20-30 years of advanced decrepitude and senility in exchange for another five years of work during which you remain relatively mobile and alert that you would otherwise be free to spend as you please. Does that sound like a worthwhile exchange to you?

People in bad shape around age 60 don't usually make it to their seventies. People with good life habits and no debilitating genes are the ones who remain alert and active until they drop dead or get some degenerative disease.

People used to die of starvation so they never got to die of heart attacks, cancer, Parkinsonism, or senile dementia. Is that a fair trade-off? I would hope so.

We typically trade one hardships for another set, and we hope that we get something in return. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

God I hope Democrats make a use of the filibuster that puts the McConnell years to shame. Resistance must be total.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The solution to rising life expectancy and increasing cost of pensions is pretty simple: tax the rich more.

[Hermit For Peace]

What are these aging individuals going to do for work since they won't be able to retire until later in years?

Who wants to hire them?

Serious question. No one commented on my previous post about this matter.

Easy to say raise the retirement age, but employers do not hire older workers, and it doesn't matter if it's against the law or what. It happens in real life.

So who is going to hire these older workers that are forced to retire at an older age?

Bad plan.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The class difference in life expectancy really bothers me. Given that, the benefits lower class folks get as a group are worth less. I think the only way out of the box, is to means test the whole damn thing Granted, there is some of that now, since what lower income folks put in, generates putting aside life expectancy, a higher return. But it is not enough, particularly as life expectancies increase, and in particular for the middle to upper middle class. Heck, these days it seems men are living into their 90's in droves. That did not used to be the case.

The Pub plan as described is insane, and won't go anywhere. Somebody didn't think it through very well.

Because means-tested social welfare programs are so popular in the US!

I suppose that would be a far more politically effective way to dismantle Social Security than what the likes of Paul Ryan are advocating.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Reduce Revenue? That doesn't make a program solvent. Some people clearly need to get their head out of the clouds.

The logical outcome of Starve-the-Beast ghoulishness infecting the Republican Party. No wonder Ronald Reagan is beloved by the right-wing donor types.  Unfortunately for them, a different kind of ghoulishness altogether has been rapidly taking over the Party over the past few years, and so I somehow doubt that the majority of Republican voters who would not be insulated from the undermining/dismantling of Social Security (and Medicare, for that matter) would simply stand by as  Paul Ryan and the billionaires who bankroll him and the other cheerleaders for the elimination of "entitlements" do exactly that.