Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system, [House Minority Leader John] Boehner said. He said he’d favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.
"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we’re broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke? We just need to be honest with people."
Jun 29, 2010
Will Republicans Run On This Issue Or Run Away From It?
From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Why does it seem government employees rarely if ever discuss government salary decreases. They seem to mention every other possible helpful solution but not
the salary decreases. I personally agree with him at least in part.But would recommend alj's and management salaries,and other staff attorney's salaries at $100,000 or more decreased.
Bacause, John, a large number of us have paid for a reasonable retirement for the past 40 or so years based on promises made to us by our government. What really matters is that the irresponsible political hacks of both parties have spent our money on items calcualted to buy votes instead of acting as good stewards of the "trust fund".
If retirement age is raised to 70, then many more will qualify for disability before. Most people by 65 or so have medical problems which, under the current grids, would qualify for disability. That would cost more money, overall.
Boehner demonstrates his lack of understanding of this social insurance program, that we all pay for it with the expectation it will be there when it is needed.
In addition, rarely is the benefit of social security to society mentioned. For one example, I did not have to support my mother/father in their old age, in part, because they were getting social security. That benefited me, in that I could spend my earnings to raise my children and save for my own retirement, etc. Also, society benefits when its elders have a "floor" of income on which to depend, no matter what.
Maybe the annual earnings test needs to be re-instated for ages 65-69. That would address some of Boehner's concerns.
A#3 hits the nail on the head. People who believe young(er) people get no benefit from the SS program ignore this key fact. Everyone with retired or disabled family members benefits by not having to support them. Which is why our retired parents can live on their own instead of moving in with their children when they can no longer work. The benefit both to parents and children are apparent to those who look at our society objectively. On the other hand, the Boehners of the world look at things through glasses of an unusual shade of orange. Or so it seems. /snark/
Raising the cap on the FICA/SE taxes would help a bit. I can see if they try to change payments to the wealthy thru a system that reduces your benefits based on AGI or something like it, that it will be more work in the FO trying to deal with the loopholes that are always bit into these types of laws. Kind of like the IRMAA issue that raised the Part B premiums causing extra foot traffic in already packed offices.
Post a Comment