Older retirees may not save Social Security

Older retirees may not save Social Security
Report says raising age could harm some classes increase disability claims

WASHINGTON — Raising the retirement age for Social Security would disproportionately hurt low-income workers and minorities, and increase disability claims by older people unable to work, government auditors told Congress. The projected spike in disability claims could harm Social Security's finances because disability benefits typically are higher than early retirement payments, the General Accountability Office concluded.

"There's more to consider than simply how much money the program would save by raising the retirement age," said Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. The report shows an unequal effect on certain groups of people, he said Thursday, and many of them "would have little choice but to turn to the broken disability program."

"Some people just can't continue to work beyond age 62 for either health reasons or they're just not able to find jobs," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Just because we tell people they should work longer doesn't mean that there are employers out there willing to hire people." Workers older than 55 are less likely than younger workers to lose their jobs, the report said. But when older workers get laid off, they are less likely to find other employment.

The GAO report says that raising the age when workers qualify for full benefits would save money. But raising the age when workers can get early benefits would hurt the program's finances because of the expected increase in disability claims.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40262020/ns ... etirement/


But hey... It's the "GOP Way..." Let them eat cake...

:VeryScared:

Actually I believe extending the age to 69 was a popular bipartisan move. Hoping people die behind the plow before they start collecting?

And as long as the rules on age-discrimination in hiring are not enforced, why it's wonderful that we can force them to wait until 69 to retire...And if they can't find a job, well... "Let them eat cake."

I just love "compassionate conservatism."

It's not a "bipartisan" move...It's in the Deficit-Panel report, written by two out-of-work politicians, a former Dem, and a former GOP, who will never have to run for any office and can therefore say whatever they like, since they won't have any skin in the game.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Older retirees may not save Social Security
Report says raising age could harm some classes increase disability claims

But hey... It's the "GOP Way..." Let them eat cake...

:VeryScared:

So how do you propose to solve the future insolvency in SS. You can't tax us into prosperity. SS, medicare, medicade will take up in excess of 18% of GDP by 2050....Our tax capacity is around 20% total.

LJ, it is just standard economics combined with the birth rate, soon you will have one person collecting SS for everyone who is paying into the system. Unless you allow immigration amnesty for young Hispanics and other nations so that we have a big new pool of payers or raise the age and /or decrease the benefits.

Well, of course, the "compassionate conservative" answer to anything and everything is to "cut it."

I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

(And, trust me, this would probably affect ME more than any of you...) But that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, instead of the "Me first--screw you" society you envision.

The problem is, conservatives don't want to fix SS, they just want it to go away, same with medicare and medicaid. I guess they don't plan on ever getting old, or sick, or have relatives who do. If we let old and sick people just die that solves the problem.

LadyJazzer wrote:
I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

Looney Jerk's WEALTH DISTRIBUTION PLAN.....

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, of course, the "compassionate conservative" answer to anything and everything is to "cut it."

I've already offered my solution at least 10 times: Take the cap off of the SS contribution. Make ALL earned income subject to it...Period. The problem would be solved within 5-10 years, and would STAY solved for the next 500 years.

(And, trust me, this would probably affect ME more than any of you...) But that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society, instead of the "Me first--screw you" society you envision.

So your solution is to add an additional tax on all income above the current cap-Increasing the taxes on those by 12.4%? Is that correct? Do you realize taxes change economic activity?

Any civilized country is based to some extent on wealth distribution....it's just a fact. Without it we have a feudal society......well, maybe that is what you conservatives are hoping for.