The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

SS would be solvent if the Feds stopped raiding it for other programs. Raising the age is ridiculous argument when they could stop raiding it.

And if you can’t understand the welfare comment then you’re not educated enough to participate in this thread.

Social security hasn’t been raided. It’s just obligation added to the national debt. It’s not actually impacting the availability of benefits.

Thank you for pointing this out. A dollar is a dollar regardless of whether the USG receives it from taxes, social security, or borrows it. The solvency issue is really a bigger government spending issue that persists regardless of which political party is in power and is not dependent on any one program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

You do understand that SAHPs do work, right? They do a lot of work which adds value to society for which they do not receive a paycheck. By giving them an amount equal to 50% of their spouse’s SS benefit, the government is acknowledging, to a certain extent, the unpaid labor of caretakers.

You do realize you are not working for pay when staying at home, right? Working for pay is what funds SS. And spare me the societal value speech. Society doesn’t benefit. Your spouse does. This is and will be an easy benefit to cut.

Btw you forgot to add to your speech that many stay at home spouses have worked at some point. They should collect their check based only on their earnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

Then they wouldn’t get the spousal benefit. They’d receive their own benefit.

50% of the spousal benefit is sometimes higher than one’s own benefit, regardless of how long one worked.

This 100%. I worked 10 years, but only 6 after college (fulltime). My average earnings are ~40K because that was 30+ years ago. We are HHI, so my spousal benefit will far exceed what I get myself

Here is the real welfare queen.

Don't need your "welfare". We are doing quite well on our own thank you

So despite this statement - “We are HHI, so my spousal benefit will far exceed what I get myself” - you’ll only collect the benefit based on your contributions right? Because you don’t need welfare and are so high income, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

SS would be solvent if the Feds stopped raiding it for other programs. Raising the age is ridiculous argument when they could stop raiding it.

And if you can’t understand the welfare comment then you’re not educated enough to participate in this thread.

Social security hasn’t been raided. It’s just obligation added to the national debt. It’s not actually impacting the availability of benefits.

Thank you for pointing this out. A dollar is a dollar regardless of whether the USG receives it from taxes, social security, or borrows it. The solvency issue is really a bigger government spending issue that persists regardless of which political party is in power and is not dependent on any one program.

You are both incorrect. By law social security goes into a defined trust and has been raided over the years. Fortunately to date the Gov has not defaulted on the debts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/10/social-security-myths-debunked/

So no, it’s not just an obligation added to the national debt. Those treasury bond IOUs are housed in Parkersburg WVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

PP is an idiot. There won’t be any age change for anyone over the age of 35. Any change has to provide the impacted population ~30 years to adjust their personal savings.

55 is the age that will not be any change for whenever changes are made. Not 35. Even at 50 expect big changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

It is not what it is deserved -- it is what will happen. Numbers are numbers. Anyone who is your age that thinks there will not be changes is just sticking your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

SS would be solvent if the Feds stopped raiding it for other programs. Raising the age is ridiculous argument when they could stop raiding it.

And if you can’t understand the welfare comment then you’re not educated enough to participate in this thread.

The raiding argument is nonsense and holds no water. The age has to be changed. There is no math that works without moving it up.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows what is needed. Someday it will be done. Age increase, SS tax increase, reduction in payments, some sort of means test. Without each part nothing is fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

This is the right answer.

You do know that almost no one who is a SAHM or Dad never worked, right? Also, most work later in their kids' lives.

Then they wouldn’t get the spousal benefit. They’d receive their own benefit.

50% of the spousal benefit is sometimes higher than one’s own benefit, regardless of how long one worked.

This 100%. I worked 10 years, but only 6 after college (fulltime). My average earnings are ~40K because that was 30+ years ago. We are HHI, so my spousal benefit will far exceed what I get myself

Here is the real welfare queen.

Don't need your "welfare". We are doing quite well on our own thank you

So despite this statement - “We are HHI, so my spousal benefit will far exceed what I get myself” - you’ll only collect the benefit based on your contributions right? Because you don’t need welfare and are so high income, right?

We will collect what the current law/SS allows us to collect when we turn 62 or 65 or 67.

Given that we pay close to 50% of our income in taxes (Federal, state, Medicare, FICA) yearly, some years over 50%, I'm 100% certain we have paid in much much more than we will ever received back in services from the government. We help fund most "welfare" programs much more than you ever will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should get rid of the spousal benefit for SS. Everyone has the option to work, women are not limited by an expectation they stay home. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t get SS. This will encourage more people to work, which is what the system needs. Having to provide payment to 2 people when only one person paid in, results in a deficit to the system. The country can’t afford this.
I also agree with getting rid of the cap, not just increasing it. Tax the person that made $1 million and $2 million just as you would the one who made $150k.

Stay at home moms provide a tremendous benefit to our society. They take care of lots of societal unpaid matters that other people don't have time to deal with. Who do you think runs the girl scout troop, the PTA, the Sunday School. Who has the flexibility to take kids to doctors appointments.

People who stay home to take care of kids make our society better and provide value you obviously don't appreciate. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not value.

Oh please I did all that volunteering while working full time. You don't have to SAH to run the girl scout troop or take kids to the doctor.

Social security was started to prevent people from being impoverished in old age. It’s an insurance program. SAHM’s (and dads!) exist. Put two and two together before you further engage in the mommy wars.

DP. Don't care. The SAHP should live off the one social security payment just like they live off the one working salary. How is it remotely fair that a non-contributing person receive social security on top of the social security payment to the working parent.

I concur. However, if the working spouse dies, then the remaining spouse should be able to continue to draw, IMO. I'd accept that compromise. But you can't make it retroactive.
For now, those who chose to SAHP in the 60/70/80s/etc. should still get their benefits as that was what they planned for retirement.

Isn't this how it works already? The non-working spouse receives the same amount of benefit as the working spouse who passed away, but they loose their own benefit (which was half of their spouse's benefit). I'm no SS expert so I could be wrong.

The non working spouse is not the issue that is breaking SS and it would not even help in any meaningful way to change the rules. What is needed is higher payments, lower pay outs, age increased to 70 at least, and a means test of some kind -- maybe not from the start but at year 5 or so. Each of those has to be enacted.

Absolutely not. SS is not welfare. No working should equal no payment (except for collecting if your spouse dies).

And no one should be forced to be working until 70. Once you are past 40 you’ll understand age discrimination is real. And cognitively a 70 yo is not the same as a 60 yo.

No way SS makes it if bottom age does not move to 70. 72, 73, or 75 will get extra to wait. You are not forced to work to 70- but you will not get SS until then. This will only impact people below 55. For someone 30 today -- 70 will be where 60 is now.

Not sure what your welfare comment means.

I am a 42 y/o fed on task to retire at MRA (age 57) and counting on SS at age 62 (my DH is older so the calculators come out in favor of collecting mine sooner and delaying on his). You cannot change the retirement calculation on people this far along in their careers (I’ve been working for the government 15 years now). It’s too late to go back and pick a higher earning career and make my plans around not collecting SS or having to work longer.

You really think people under 55 deserve to have things changed on them in mid life?

Good grief. So much cluelessness in this post.

- Is your point really that any change that makes you unable to retire at 57 is unfair, and bad policy? Seriously? You might have to work longer. Deal with it.
- Do you really think you can't change careers at 42? Gimme a break. I understand that 15 years as a Fed, with your limited cognition, probably doesn't qualify you do do much of anything else, but give it a whirl.
- You're an idiot.

[jsteele]

The original poster has suggested that it would be good to lock this thread at this point.