1
   

GOP senators look to increase retirement age to SIXTY NINE

 
 
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:08 pm
GOP Senators May Make 69 Retirement Age

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Key Senate Republicans are considering gradually raising the Social Security retirement age as high as 69 over several years as they struggle to jump-start legislation that President Bush has placed atop his second-term agenda, officials said Tuesday.

Under current law, the retirement age for full Social Security benefits is 65 1/2 and is scheduled to reach 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

The possible increase to 69 over two decades or more was among the suggestions that Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presented to fellow Republicans on the panel last week as part of an attempt to give the program greater financial solvency, the officials said.

Grassley also suggested steps to hold down benefits for upper-wage earners of the future, these officials have said previously. They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying the discussions were confidential.

The disclosures surfaced as Bush campaigned in Pennsylvania for changes in Social Security, including creation of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers ?- a step that would be accompanied by a reduction in the promised government benefit.

Speaking to a convention of the Pennsylvania FFA ?- formerly known as the Future Farmers of America ?- Bush said he wants to "make sure the system is a better deal for younger workers" and assured older people in the audience that they would continue to get their promised benefits.

The students would get the same benefits that seniors today receive, Bush said, without mentioning that his plans involve a reduction in the benefits younger Americans have been promised in their own retirement.

In a fresh illustration of the political stakes surrounding the issue, Democrats charged that rural Americans would be hit hardest by Bush's plans, which they consistently describe as privatization.

"Rural Americans tend to be older and more likely to depend on Social Security. In fact, more than 90 percent of counties in America with high senior populations are rural counties. In 2001, 20 percent of rural Americans were 60 years old or older, significantly higher than the 15 percent of seniors living in metropolitan communities," Reps. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., said in a joint statement. The two co-chair the Democratic House Rural Working Group.

Republicans on the Finance Committee are scheduled to meet privately on Thursday as they continue searching for agreement among themselves on legislation that achieves the goals Bush laid out in his State of the Union address last winter.

The fate of the effort is unclear, and some Republicans in Congress have suggested in recent days that the issue may not reach the Senate floor until September at the earliest. House Republicans have said in the past it's possible they will wait for the Senate to act first before they plunge into the politically sensitive issue.

The president has called for a bill to create permanent solvency for the program, and he also wants the bill to give younger workers the option of establishing a personal retirement account financed from a portion of their payroll taxes.

Under current predictions, Social Security will begin to pay out more in benefits than it receives in tax receipts in 2017, and the trust funds will be depleted in 2041. At that point, benefits will be cut to adjust for the reduction in available funds.

Along with curbs in benefits or increases in taxes, raising the retirement age is one of three general approaches that lawmakers can consider as they try to improve the solvency of Social Security.

Officials statistics show that Americans, on average, can expect to live longer than was the case when Social Security was created, meaning that they will receive more in lifetime government benefits than projected. At the same time, there are fewer workers paying into the Social Security trust funds per retiree than was the case in past decades.

Raising the retirement age is unpopular, according to some surveys.

Several officials said Grassley's suggestion for raising the retirement age would be phased in, possibly over two decades or more. The details would depend on future demographic trends, they said.

Crafting legislation has proven to be a challenge in Congress, even though the president has campaigned energetically in an attempt to build public support for his proposals. With public opinion polls showing tepid support for personal accounts, many Republicans have been reluctant to embrace the idea.

For their part, Democrats are unified in their opposition and threatening to use the issue as a major theme in the 2006 elections, when all members of the House and one-third of the Senate are on the ballot.

SOURCE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 737 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:14 pm
Uh-oh. The 800-lb gorilla is out of it's cage.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:15 pm
I was born in 1942. In the regular reports the SS sends me I am told I can retire at 65 and ten months, but, to get full benefits I have to wait til I'm 70. I don't see the change.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:25 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
I was born in 1942. In the regular reports the SS sends me I am told I can retire at 65 and ten months, but, to get full benefits I have to wait til I'm 70. I don't see the change.


If you were born in 1942 then you can retire with full benefits at age 65 and 10 months. You'd get a higher amount if you delay your retirement up to age 70 (that's supposed to be an incentive.).

http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm

Right now there is a sliding scale for anyone born between 1937 and 1960. Those born after 1960 can retire will full benefits at age 67.

It looks like this proposal extends the scale farther along so that those born in say.. 2000 may not be able to retire with full benefits at age 70. (I've yet to see anything showing what the extended scale might actually look like though)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:29 pm
In a coupla decades the average retirement age will be "deceased"
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:30 pm
Born in '44. My 'full retirement' age is 67.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:35 pm
farmerman wrote:
In a coupla decades the average retirement age will be "deceased"


Not quite. lol Average life expectancy for a newborn increased by 6 years between 1970 and 2003. Their full retirement age hasn't gone up at all so far.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:36 pm
At 62 I was eligible to receive benefits, but if I work they take a bunch away. I can retire at 65 and ten months for a bit more, but can earn as much as I want without penalty. Then, at age 70 I can get almost twice the prior amount.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:38 pm
And yet people continue to elect the type of congress that takes everything away.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:41 pm
farmerman wrote:
In a coupla decades the average retirement age will be "deceased"


Laughing that's the whole point of increasing the age.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:52 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
At 62 I was eligible to receive benefits, but if I work they take a bunch away. I can retire at 65 and ten months for a bit more, but can earn as much as I want without penalty. Then, at age 70 I can get almost twice the prior amount.


The way the current system is setup you get 100% of benefits at age 65 and 10 months (because of your year of birth). (I typo'd on my earler post and wrote 62 and 10 months - I'll edit that.)

Anyone can retire at age 62. If you did that you'd take a cut of 24.17% for the 1st 46 months so your checks would only be 75.83% of the full benefit amount until the 46 months was up.

If you delay your retirement past age 65 and 10 months they'll add an additional 7.5% to your monthly check for each added year. If you waited until age 70 and 10 months that would give you 145% of full benefits.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 06:53 am
Unless I am mistaken, if you take early retirement, your monthly payments are permenantly reduced. They do not jump to the regular rate when you reach the "normal" retirement age. Of course the COLAs are still applied to your payments as applicable. I know that's how it has been for me, who has been collecting since 1990. I remember reading at the time that the amounts were computed so that based on actuarial tables and assuming you died at the appropriate time, you would receive the same total amount (compounding included) at the time of death regardless of which option you took.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » GOP senators look to increase retirement age to SIXTY NINE
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/13/2026 at 09:27:55