Oct 22, 2013

Representative Ryan Asking About Raising Retirement Age

     No big surprise here, but Representative Paul Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, seems to be interested in the effects of raising Social Security's normal retirement age. He recently asked Social Security's Chief Actuary to give him information about the effects of the last increase in the normal retirement age.


Anonymous said...

Where's the outrage??

Am I the only one on the planet that knows that Social Security has a

$2.8 Trillion Trust Fund


So We the People have to continually be on edge from here on out over potential cuts or worse???

What we're talking about here is CORRUPTION. An agenda being driven by BILLIONAIRES.

There is no justification whatsoever for cutting Social Security. NONE.

Anonymous said...

Whatever they can screw us out of they don't have to replace in the trust fund..

Anonymous said...

As an SSDI lawyer, I think the profession would benefit by eliminating Social security retirement and simply requiring anyone who wants to collect social security prove they are disabled!!

Don Levit said...

How can the trust fund have a surplus, yet, at the same time, we have been screwed from the use of the trust fund?
Don Levit

Anonymous said...

Because the surplus is in IOU's from the Government due to them borrowing the trust fund and put the money into the General fund.. Old people can't live off of IUO's in the mail box.. Wouldn't be prudent..

Don Levit said...

So the surplus is a liability owed to the fund. It is not a surplus which can be liquidated, as in a pre-paid investment. That's a cooky kind of surplus.
Don Levit

Anonymous said...

jebus donny, you're out of your element.

we've been over this before--just because the money isn't sitting somewhere doesn't mean SSA's trust fund isn't running a surplus. it means congress has taken from that surplus to pay for other things, but (and here's the part where you have to concentrate really hard) as far as accounting rules go, the surplus very much exists. that is, at least until they change the accounting rules ;)

Anonymous said...

I think it's telling that the federal government has never been willing to have an honest discussion about S.S. with the public. Now why do you suppose that is?

THEY'RE AFRAID OF IT. They can't talk about it because they want to dismantle it because they borrowed and spent the trust fund. So Obama, under the direction of Peterson and other corporate types, tries deceptive back door crap like his Payroll Tax Holiday and Chained CPI.

Do they really expect the public to "forgive" repayment of the trust fund?

That's a lot to ask. Too much.

Income Protection Insurance Redundancy said...

Thanks for sharing this update.

Anonymous said...

8:19 PM, October 22, 2013
Your points are valid, but the villains are the politicians who used social security funds as a piggy bank and changed the disability program to enable it to pay off the unemployable or limited employable (not because of long term disability but because of a changing economy, low or absent job skills, etc.) When Title II benefits became taxable, a type of means testing came in through the back door. Even though the program favors the low earner, the politicians (both parties) developed a new way to take from people who thought paying higher taxes when working would help contribute to a more secure retirement. But what was non-taxable became taxable. They already raised the retirement age and changed computation rules. What is the limit? If a business sold this type of deferred annuity and changed the rules after purchase, could you imagine the outcry?

Anonymous said...

@ 12:05, can you imagine what it would cost on the private market to get the type of coverage offered by SSA?

What we currently pay is a pittance. We either need to dramatically increase taxes or dramatically reduce payments. I vote for the latter because I have been smart/lucky enough to plan for my future.