Post User Polls

Should we have to work longer to save Social Security benefits?

Under current laws, workers can start receiving Social Security benefits at 62 years old. But as the Baby Boom generation ages, the program is approaching a tipping point at which it will be paying out more money than it's taking in.

By Jodi Westrick  |  September 3, 2010; 12:07 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should the US help the Afghan bank? | Next: Would you pay more for cage-free eggs?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



There are other ways to help keep the retirement system strong. Raise the payroll tax cap, use means testing for benefits. It's easy for someone who has a high salary to save for retirement, and a job that is interesting and not physically demanding to say working until age 70 is no big deal - and they can delay receiving benefits under the current system if they want. I always enjoy hearing members of Congress, secure in their lavish retirement package, preach austerity to we average working slobs.

Posted by: greyK | September 3, 2010 1:46 PM

Social Security is funded by workers who are following along behind the retirees.

If America enforced its immigration laws and brought in people who are skilled, educated and productive, they would earn higher salaries and pay higher taxes to SS and Medicare.

It's really a simple math calculation.

You can't allow millions of illegal aliens and their children, who live and work in the country, taking from the overall system far more than they contribute to it, and expect the system to work.

The last two administrations (and their Congresses) refused to enforce or amend our immigration laws, and because of this, today we have a population where nearly 30% will contribute negatively to the system.

Immigration laws the road map for a successful SS plan were clearly defined. Congress chose to "tinker" with both and as with any plan that works well, leave it alone.

Hopefully this next Congress will understand that our country can not support millions of indigent illegal aliens AND our aging citizen population.

If Obama has his way, he will kill off the seniors with reduced medical benefits and grant amnesty to the indigent illegal aliens --- a very important reason why voters must recognize just how powerful their vote is and use it wisely.

Posted by: asmith1 | September 3, 2010 2:35 PM

Republicans voted against the establishment of Social Security.. so don't trust them to do what is right in securing or keeping Social Security solvent. Republicans also voted against Medicare and of course against much needed Health Care help for a nation who's health care ranks 12 among the world's wealthiest nations.
Don't let Beck, Palin and Limberger fool ya..
their interests are all self serving.
Americans paid into Social Security and were told they could get their money back at age 65. It's THEIR money. If Bush squandered that money in Iraq, well, that's on Bush,,, not the seniors.

Posted by: bozhogg | September 4, 2010 8:28 AM

I think the first step in getting us out of this problem is to let the SS trustees invest the money where the highest rates of return can be achieved within prudence. Basically, stop being an enabler of Federal deficits. Instead, invest in stocks, bonds, overseas markets, etc. Cast the net far and wide. With only a modest increase in the rate of return from the current 2% to say 6%, the money will double in 12 years rather than 36 years. The implications are that in a short period of time the trust fund will be flush with cash. It surely beats the alternatives.

Increase the retirement age. Slow the draw on the fund.

Index the increases to either less than the rate of inflation OR less than the rate of economic growth, whichever is lower.

Of these ideas, the first is the most preferrable. Just by increasing the rate of return, the problems can be VERY easily solved. The last 2 are draconian that hopefully won't have to be enacted. To prevent them from being enacted, the SS (and medicare) trustfunds must be allowed to get a higher rate of return. That means the private markets, which means stocks and bonds, possibly even overseas markets. But it also means that by doing that draconian measures won't be necessary.

Posted by: A1965bigdog | September 5, 2010 12:30 AM

Apparently ASMITH1 has spent too much time listening to Lou Dobbs or Fox News, because it was just reported a few days ago that were it not for illegal immigrants, Social Security would be in far worse financial shape than it is. The reason? Social Security taxes are deducted from their pay like everyone else, but for the most part, they will never get to benefit from the program.

Regardless of how one feels about illegal immigrants, the Social Security system has benefited from their presence.

Posted by: alert4jsw | September 5, 2010 2:03 AM

My husband and I have been contributing to SS for over 40 years. Our retirement ages have already been raised to over 66. Between us and our employers, we have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars. We will need SS as part of our retirement. If we are not given what we deserve, then the US government has just taxed us at an incredibly high rate for 40 years! You bet that is money we are ENTITLED to receive. It is our's, and we will probably never live long enough to even get back what we put in, let alone all the interest that should have accrued.

Posted by: bbonnet | September 5, 2010 2:36 AM

As I'm sure others have pointed out, beginning in 2037 (27 years from now), SS will only be able to support 76% of full payments. This 24% shortfall can easily be fixed by allowing Bush's tax cuts for the rich to expire, by raising the FICA cap so that the rich put into SS a fairer proportion of their actual income, by means testing, and so on.

If someone really wants to work beyond 65 and remain competent in their job, then by all means they should be allowed to continue. But to force workers to work until the age of 70 is a dumb and callous solution. Most people look forward to retirement, having put in 30 to 40 years in difficult and often stressful jobs. They should be allowed as many years as possible to enjoy the fruits of their labor. While some at 65 may be healthy enough to travel, play sports, study and so on, they may not be able to retain this level of health at the age of 70 (especially if they continue working in a stressful job). Many older people have chronic health problems, which are best remedied by early rather than later retirement. Time for the elderly is precious This is really a inhumane solution and I find it appalling that it is being considered, especially given the distant nature of the problem and the many simple, fair ways of solving it.

In addition to these humanitarian issues, delaying retirement is also dumb for economic reasons (i.e., retirement allows less expensive (and in some cases more productive) younger workers to be hired), but I've said enough already.

Posted by: dougd1 | September 5, 2010 4:10 AM

if everyone in the tea party just didnt accept this commie socialist SS and medicare then maybe it could survive the radical tyranny that is the Obama Hitler Stalin regime

Posted by: Chops2 | September 5, 2010 4:28 AM

I would have liked to see the breakdown of the poll by age. I would bet the 43% who voted to up the age are younger people.

The fact is that there are many people like me who were high income earners and for over 20 years paid the top amount into SS. I paid in over $200K over my working life and my employer matched it. We were told that SS was a trust fund not a ponzi scheme. My SS full payout retirement age has been unilaterally raised to 66. The benefits have been reduced.

Is this fair? No. And it makes me very angry to see the rich dudes in Congress even talk about it, especially the young ones. If they fiddle with this too much they will have a huge Baby Boomer revolt on their hands. I was prudent enough to save and can live without SS, but there are many who either couldn't save or spent high incomes on Mega Mansions and toys and have no nest egg.

Posted by: Afraid4USA | September 5, 2010 6:11 AM

There are certain jobs that are impractical to work passed 55 or 60.Military personel,emergency services,pilots, surgeons,building riggers,miners and many other hazardous occupations,forcing people to work till 70 will only amount to more worksite deaths.It may be ok for senators and Judges, but they dont form the bulk of the workforce.Generally it should be up to the worker and their employer to come to a sensible conclusion.

Posted by: judyterry | September 5, 2010 6:17 AM

first remove the cap to keep it solvent...
second means test and offer a deduction for social security not received...
third, get more workers into the system, maybe goverment workers...
fourth, suspend international agreements...

Posted by: DwightCollins | September 5, 2010 6:20 AM

Extended the age isn't the answer. Allowing investment is.

Posted by: logicprevails | September 5, 2010 7:00 AM

Extended the age isn't the answer. Allowing investment is.

Posted by: logicprevails | September 5, 2010 7:07 AM

I have never once read or heard an advocate for raising the retirement age admit that even people over 50 find it difficult to be hired. How on earth are people over 60 going to find jobs, considering the discrimination and hostility older people face?

Posted by: skylark1 | September 5, 2010 8:26 AM

The question should be "When CAN we retire?"

How many jobs are open for those over 60, much less 65, 68? Those folks have risen through the ranks - usually to positions with higher pay and companies are getting rid of them in order to hire younger workers who will work for less pay.

Posted by: Utahreb | September 5, 2010 8:37 AM

The Social Security Trust fund is filled with IOUs. There is no market where these 'securities' can be sold. It is a debt that we owe ourselves. As we dip into it we have to turn that into real cash money. We either raise taxes (raise the cap or the rate) which is kind of like making the taxpayers pay for SS twice, reduce the benefits in amount, or reduce the number of beneficiaries. Dems won't tinker on the cost side and Reps won't tinker on the revenue side so we are left with a third choice. Exchange SS bonds for Treasury bonds. That is, convert our debt we owe ourselves into a debt we owe other people - like the Chinese, brilliant. I support a higher retirement age and a higher cap if we need it. I don't support more borrow and spend. Others make good points about age discrimination - making bad policy and going deeper into national debt because we won't or can't enforce compliance with the current discrimination laws is thinking that two wrongs makes a right.

Posted by: markvenable | September 5, 2010 9:15 AM

Comment to Dwight above, Federal workers hired after 1983 are already in SS. Only those hired before that time are not in the system

Posted by: markvenable | September 5, 2010 9:19 AM

Its very hard to find a job today when you are 56. Imagine what it would be like after the eligibility age for social security has been raised to 70 and you need to find a new job at age 66.


Posted by: seraphina21 | September 5, 2010 9:21 AM

Having retired from the great telcom co. after 30 plus years its always amusing to hear the "work until 70" babble,when higher management openly stated "there is no place here for people much over 40" after a series of injuries and ailments among an aging workgroup doing such daily tasks as the 200 pound lifting requirement,,climbing 40 foot poles and working in the midst of high power.
Certainly these days most employers would be happy to have 70 year old workers,television news for instance.

Posted by: gonville1 | September 5, 2010 9:23 AM

When companies like Cisco have a "Logan's Run" for those over 40 so they can pay younger workers less, waiting until 70 to retire looks really bleak.

If we had any common sense like Canada, we would issue 4 million TEMPORARY work permits to illegal aliens to force them and their employers to pay taxes and social security from their paychecks.

That would deny, however, Glenn Beck Christians the Rovian wedge issue of demonizing Mexicans.

Posted by: areyousaying | September 5, 2010 9:34 AM

Wow, another incredibly horrible program that will end up costing the country billions or trillions to fix. It must be a democratic program like MC. People are living far longer than when the system was put in place, there are fewer people funding it, IT WILL GO BROKE if hard choices are not made. How this became an issue about immigration is a bit weird, but event the govt admits that illegal immigrants pay far more into this than they get out of it, maybe this is why the feds want to shut down Arizona's program, they would have to face the truth about another disastrous democratic social program that failed (is failing). The truth is that state and federal govt's put their faith in their budgets on expanding economies and birth rates, the country's birth rate has been level for many years, we got to pay up some time baby, the time is near. Since they don't let smart people make policy and since less than smart people vote for those with the best sound bites, nothing good is going to come of this. Until congressmen start working for the future of my grandchildren, not just the needs of their state today, we are screwed.

Posted by: jbairddo | September 5, 2010 9:42 AM

Eliminate spousal benefits. If a worker has chosen to support a spouse while working, then they can continue to support a spouse while retired.

Posted by: anonmom | September 5, 2010 9:54 AM

for most 'blue collar' workers, they've started working younger and bodies break down earlier in life. by 55 most need to begin cutting back on hours, which is when white collar workers are at their highest income levels. for those riding a desk, most haven't begun work until their 20's, and their work doesn't take as big a toll on their bodies.

think about what an extra 3 years of working will do to the medicare system. how many more joint replacements and major accidents will result in extending retirement age.

to save the system - make ALL earnings subjet to SS withholdings.

i don't really think that 68 year old bus drivers, carpenters, plumbers and mechanics is good for the individuals or the nation.

i'd rather see the age cut to 62 and let the young have more opportunities to work. too many young people have no work as it is.

and a very unpopular opinion - i'd like to change the system so that all retired seniors receive the same amount in benefits. assuring that all seniors and all children are well cared for should be the primary goal of our entire social servives network.

Posted by: boblesch | September 5, 2010 10:35 AM

Once again, this is another manufactured issue which republicans keep raising.
Fact #1 : SS is in SURPLUS and it will be until 2037. Only minor adjustments will required to keep it in surplus then.
Fact #2 : SS is self-funded by the payroll tax and contributes NOTHING to the deficit.
Fact #3 : The payroll tax is obcenely regressive with billionaires paying a minuscule fraction of that paid by the middle class in percentage terms - because any income ABOVE $106,000 is not subject to this tax. It is the bottom income that should be exempt NOT the top.
I bet the majority of the low-information, ignorant, redneck american voters are not aware of these basic facts. And they will take this country down in flames by voting for the same republican bozos that caused the 8-year long trainwreck under G Bush.

Posted by: southmouth | September 5, 2010 10:55 AM

There should be no cap on earnings for contributions to social security. And the self-sufficient wealthy, at retirement should not be eligible for social security benefits. That said, the wealthy should not be required to risk giving up their standard of living because they lack social security benefits. There must be a guru somewhere who can develop a reasonable threshold where the cutoff would be.

An interesting thing I discovered recently is that a man who got a divorce and then remarried died. He had been a high earner while married to the second wife. His social security benefit was significant and more than his wives. Yes, I said wives. AND , both the divorced surviving spouse and his widow are receiving his full benefits - double dipping. The first wife should be out of the picture.

Posted by: DavidinDallas | September 5, 2010 10:55 AM

Per Southmouth:
"Once again, this is another manufactured issue which republicans keep raising.
Fact #1 : SS is in SURPLUS and it will be until 2037. Only minor adjustments will required to keep it in surplus then.
Fact #2 : SS is self-funded by the payroll tax and contributes NOTHING to the deficit.
Fact #3 : The payroll tax is obcenely regressive with billionaires paying a minuscule fraction of that paid by the middle class in percentage terms - because any income ABOVE $106,000 is not subject to this tax. It is the bottom income that should be exempt NOT the top."

Well said - AND

The Social Security SURPLUS has been raided by Congress over the years to fund various programs - my "favorite" was the Bush tax cuts which went primarily to the wealthy. So are the Republicans seriously suggesting that lower income Americans (those that have jobs anyway) work harder and longer so that the better off can enjoy a nicer lifestyle? I don't agree.

Let the wealthy repay Social Security through a higher tax bracket. Then we'll see if we need to tinker with it.

Posted by: shadowmagician | September 5, 2010 11:05 AM

The future of social security cannot be separated from the uncertain future of our society as a whole. Nor can the intake in social security taxes really be separated from other taxes.
Over the last decade the United States total non farm payroll has declined. At least, in the available records since 1939, it is the first time that has happened. In the last decade we lost about 25% of goods producing jobs. In that category, we returned to an employment level last seen in 1950. That data probably suggests that we are headed towards a period where a smaller part of our population is actively working particularly in the primary jobs that actually produce the goods that we consume.
Another big factor will be how much the human lifetime is extended and what longer lifetimes really mean. It is one thing to really extend the time a person experiences something close to their peak performance. It is quite another to extend the time it takes a person to die. Most people living at anything close to their peak performance are not going to be anxious to retire. Most likely the big problem in that case will be finding something useful for them to do. In contrast, people dying slowly are a big drain on society. If we wind up with a large population of people in that state, most likely the more healthy of them will have to be pressed into service to care for those who are beyond taking care of themselves.
In any case, we are likely to be headed towards a society where active workers get to immediately consume a smaller part of their product. How the rest will be accounted for is a problem. It could be some form of income tax. It could be savings. Possibly the tax will be on businesses to make it less obvious. Clearly working this kind of process out will require a difficult change to the social contract. Expectations about the sharing of work and its rewards are likely largely built into human biology. But we are going to have to face a world that our biology has not prepared us for.

Posted by: dnjake | September 5, 2010 12:09 PM

I think every Newspaper who does not inform
the Public, that this whole conversation about Social Security going bankrupt, is a farce, an outright lie. Social Security is and will stay solvent, if politians refrain from tying it to wall street. How much more suffering would have been inflicted on the American economy and millions of unemployed ?

Posted by: wave06 | September 5, 2010 1:00 PM

If both parties but mainly the Democrats, listened and did what Pres. Reagan wanted and locked it so they couldn't withdraw it,we wouldn't be in this problem. But because its as steady flow they didn't want to. What Pelosi and Reid need to do is stop the spending and fill it back up. Quit all entitlement programs that go to illegals.

Posted by: bsl7678 | September 5, 2010 2:15 PM

It seems there is an attempt to redefine Social Security as a welfare program based on an individual's current assets instead of a retirement program based on contributions and length of service irregardless of other provisions he or she has made for old age. This is in keeping with other trends to enable contractual obligations to be abridged or evaded altogether. What is happening to the concept of honor?

Posted by: vadata060440 | September 5, 2010 2:46 PM

It seems there is an attempt to redefine Social Security as a welfare program based on an individual's current assets instead of a retirement program based on contributions and length of service irregardless of other provisions he or she has made for old age. This is in keeping with other trends to enable contractual obligations to be abridged or evaded altogether. What is happening to the concept of honor?

Posted by: vadata060440 | September 5, 2010 2:55 PM

There are other ways to save Social Security.

1. Lock the lock box. Congress has been raiding it for funds since the LBJ administration.

2. Stop the fraud.

I know two Indian families. Both are legal residents who became citizens. Both brought over family members including elderly parents. In spite of signing papers saying their elderly parents would nor be a burden on society their parents all receive social security payments. They are foreigners. They paid nothing in to Social Security. Yet they are getting money from me and other taxpayers. Liberals say that to not pay them would be cruel.

Stop any foreigners and illegals from receiving ANY US government support or funding. Stop giving away my money. You will be surprised how many BILLIONS of dollars will be saved. If India wants to support these people here—fine. Just don’t expect me to pay for it.

Also, charge the native countries for all the services (medical care, education, SS, or whatever) that their nationals now receive from the largess of the US taxpayers.

We are darn tired of giving money away because it makes Democrats look good.

Posted by: FredChatard | September 5, 2010 2:58 PM

Social security is an important lifeline for many seniors. However, we all know of those who "bank" their benefits, and don't need them for their day to day living.

As others have mentioned, an area ripe for overhaul is the spousal benefit. As the law is currently written, a spouse who never worked (or contributed to SS) can collect 50% of their working spouse's benefit while they are both alive. When the worker spouse passes, the benefit is bumped up to the full level for the nonworking widow/widower. This spousal benefit clearly should be means tested, and phased out entirely for a wealthy couple. The spousal benefit has many other opportunities for being "gamed", and is ripe for change in this era when the SS system could be running short of cash in a few decades.

Posted by: Beagle1 | September 5, 2010 3:10 PM

"Old Geezer" Simpson should have his
congressional pension cut, along with
the high flyers in Congress who want to
trim SS benefits or to hand Social Security]over to Wall Street! Raising
the retirement age to 68 would be okay,
but it seems outlandish that people can
retire at age 62 if they want to!

Posted by: jhdh | September 5, 2010 3:16 PM

Investment is not the answer. I lost 20% of my portfolio in the stock market crash while following every piece of conservative, prudent advice I could get my hands on-remember "buy and hold" and "diversify"? Did all that and many lost more.

Posted by: maryannevans2 | September 5, 2010 3:38 PM

Like many of the older workers here, I'm not for limiting benefits or raising the age.

I've worked for over 40 years. For most of my life my earnings were right at the threshold of tax/no tax. So I've paid the most in and at the same time paid the highest percentage of taxes.

Decreasing benefits or increasing the age at this point would be like increasing the tax on me. Actually, worse.

I have a slow-growing cancer. I'll be fine for the next few years, but Social Security rules won't allow me to retire early just because I have it. I would like to enjoy a few years of retirement before I die. I don't think I will be able to collect any Social Security if the age is raised.

We should raise the tax threshold. Having one at all is class warfare by the rich against working people

As for those who think private investment is the way to go, well they should look at what happened to my conservative investment portfolio under George W. Bush. Those folks just want Wall Street Bankers to steal my money. I will lose a lot more if the Republicans come to office again.

Posted by: colonelpanic | September 5, 2010 5:45 PM

Easy answers. 1. Remove the tax cap. 2. Do something about "foreigner fraud."

Easy answers except: our government is in bed with the rich and with foreigners.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 5, 2010 5:46 PM

JDH wrote:

Raising
the retirement age to 68 would be okay,
but it seems outlandish that people can
retire at age 62 if they want to!

----

Well JDH I do not think it is outlandish to retire at age 62.

Consider my situation, will you? I have a slow-growing cancer. I have an 80% chance of living ten years. That means I will not reach the later retirement age that would pay more. I'd like to.

It would be nice, not outlandish, to enjoy collecting some benefits before I die.

I cannot understand why conservatives hate us cancer patients so much. I hear that most conservatives are Christian, which means it is a very cruel religion that would not allow a terminally ill person a few years to enjoy life before dying in pain.

But, those are Christians and conservatives for you.

Posted by: colonelpanic | September 5, 2010 5:54 PM

Employers don't want to hire anyone over 55. If you want to survive politically, don't screw with people over 55. They vote. They still care about our nation. Raise the age of retirement and you will leave these people desitute and in the poor house.

Who is behind these generational war? Don't you believe you will ever reach that age?

Do you want them to flee to live in the third world so they can afford to eat?

Posted by: alance | September 5, 2010 6:10 PM


> What is happening to the concept of honor?

We're talking money here. None of the moneyed interests involved have much concern with such quaint concepts as honor.

Posted by: TexLex | September 5, 2010 6:12 PM

Do raise the age limit, but do also make a category of retirement for people who are too ill to work more. Make it reasonable.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | September 5, 2010 6:37 PM

It is unreasonable, not to say unjust, to legislate that workers already having labored for decades with their sweat and muscles should have to work for several MORE years to receive what they already should have earned by age 66-67.
How much more reasonable it would be to INclude income now EXcluded from calculation of SS taxes. Even building in a 'no add'l tax' gap between the current maximum level of taxation (some $106K/yr) and say maybe $500K/yr, then picking up the normal SS tax from that higher figure upwards would increase income to the SS system AND have the added benefit of "allowing" those with higher incomes to show their appreciation for the system of workers, infrastructure and American values which enabled their greater degree of wealth in the first place.
Taking perspective across a broader field of options: cutting the defense budget by a miniscule percentage would allow more funding to be diverted to SS solvency; so would a successful killing of extension of Bush's tax-cuts-for-the-most-wealthy-1%.
The concept of mandating diminished payments to the disabled, the widowed and dependent children just so that people making half a million a year can keep that extra $15,000 or whatever is antithetical to every concept of compassion, Christianity and equality upon which so many people observe this country to have been founded -- and yet those same people fail miserably to integrate into their approach to social issues such as this.

Posted by: TimBear | September 5, 2010 6:54 PM

Yes, but there need to be laws and incentives making it possible for older workers to find and keep jobs. Age discrimination is a huge problem for older workers.

Posted by: Itzajob | September 5, 2010 7:54 PM

2037.

Let me spell it out -- Two Thousand and Thirty Seven.

That's TWENTY SEVEN big ones.

We can't even project what the economy is going to be tomorrow, and we're worrying about TWENTY SEVEN years from now???

Heh, heh.

How many realize we've been raiding the SS fund to pay for bridges to nowhere? wars for no reason? tax cuts for the wealthy?

WAKE UP YOU FOOLS!!!

All this talk about Social Security is a FEAR TACTIC so that Washington can rob you of your retirement to pay for their fun and games.

Stop raiding the fund. Raise the cap. Simple. And everybody's happy. Except the pols with their fingers in the cookie jar...and ideologues who believe only the wealthy deserve a decent retirement life.

Posted by: ethanquern | September 5, 2010 9:27 PM

Democrats should keep working until they are 100. They started the whole joke, they should suffer.

Posted by: stinkingtuna | September 5, 2010 9:48 PM

When to retirement is up to the individual. I retired at the age of 57 when I grew tired of working and I've really enjoyed the last 12 years. Hopefully I'll enjoy another decade or two doing only what my urges move me to do.

Posted by: gun313 | September 5, 2010 9:54 PM

The elites who continually bemoan Social Security are hypocritical because they continually thwart all efforts to raise Social Security's tax cap (currently set at $100K). The elites who effectively govern this country have ALWAYS favored regressive taxes and -- conversely -- have ALWAYS opposed progressive taxes. The governing elites of this country absolutely HATE the fact that Social Security redistributes wealth away from short-lived people and toward long-lived people. The greed and avarice of the governing elites will ultimately weaken and destroy the U.S.

Posted by: nbahn | September 5, 2010 10:45 PM

I retired at 35 and I do not see it as my responsibility to work longer than I need to; for those who will need to rely on Social Security I am sorry but you should have planned better.

Posted by: dctax4u | September 5, 2010 10:57 PM

All that is needed to secure the future of Social Security is means test it. The sooner the better. We should do the very same thing with the premium on Medicare. Free medicare part A should be for middle income and poor the rest of us can pay the premium. Right now we have the wealth using the tens of thousands they receive from Social Security to travel the world and send the grandkids to elite colleges. Social Security was designed to help the poor and lower middle income, but upper middle income and the rich have confiscated it and they are bankrupting the country. It is past time for a change!!!

Posted by: Howellstephen75 | September 5, 2010 11:45 PM

I want to quit paying into the pension and health care plan of the members of Congress. Also, I am feeling kinda vindictive today, so I hope that John Boehner loses everything at his age of 63 and has to start all over again like so many other Americans have had to do in the past two years. And may he know what it feels like to be at the mercy of Repubican office holders who just don't give a fig about him or his problems.

Posted by: Sandydayl | September 6, 2010 4:40 PM

People like Alan Simpson and John Boehner, who sit on their rumps attending meetings while sucking on the government teat, could probably work well into their hundreds without any loss of ineffectiveness, although Boehner may have to give up golf and tanning beds. Many normal Americans, however, have jobs which are very physically and mentally taxing and I think people should be able to retire with full benefits just as current law provides. Lifting the cap on the Social Security tax should permit the system to continue paying full benefits well beyond the year 2037, when the system will only be able to pay about 75% of the projected benefits absent changes. Of course, there's also the chance that the system will be able to pay full benefits into perpetuity if the rate of our economic growth exceeds the conservative estimates built into the current system.

Posted by: ejs2 | September 9, 2010 12:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company