Reply to What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:

1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.

2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.

3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.

Opinions?

[/quote]
None
Every indication is that [b]productivity increases[/b] should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living.  In fact, it’s the only news that’s important.
It is much ado about nothing.[/quote]

Retirement security person here. Many eager researchers have looked for this relationship, but they haven't found it.[/quote]

Really, because the research is out there, despite what "many people are saying".

Guess The Social Security Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis don't count as 'eager" researchers.
[img]http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/issuebriefs/208/figure3.gif[/img][/quote]

That's a chart on benefits as a percent of GDP during 1957 to 2004. It's silent about what happens to us from 2016 through 2034 or later. It's also agnostic about productivity's role, by which I mean those rises and dips in the line could be due to anything from wage growth to productivity growth to changes in GDP (the denominator) itself for any number of reasons affecting GDP. If there was some narrative accompanying that graph that talked about productivity that might be interesting. But the SS Trustees take productivity growth into their projections for the future based on "intermediate" (basically, most likely, although that's been debated) and it doesn't solve the problem.

Signed, retirement person[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics