There's an op ed in the New York Times pushing for increasing Social Security's full retirement age. I think the authors never encounter anyone working at a job requiring standing all day other than employees at Starbucks. The people who clean their offices, repair their cars, care for their elderly relatives and mow their yards are invisible to them. They're under the illusion that everyone is like them and works in an office, which is not true. They don't realize that most people don't make it to full retirement age now and the major reason isn't laziness, but illness. People live longer but bad knees, bad backs, diabetes and many other health conditions still reduce people's ability to work at any job as they age. To say they can just apply for disability benefits is a "let them eat cake" solution. Do they have any idea how brutal Social Security's disability programs are?
Politically, any further raise in full retirement age isn't going to fly, now or later. You can't win on this. Give it up.
6 comments:
Isnt that what they said the last time they raised it and what they said about raising it in France?
Congress does not rely on those funds to retire. They have zero concept of what work is and what retirement is and what $2000 in RIB is like for us subjects. So guess what, eventually they will do it, just like they did it the last time and they are going to move Medicare entitlement too, most likely to FRA to keep cost down as long as they can.
Freak about RIB all you want, the big sleeping super volcano is Medicare, it is what is going to collapse.
Life expectancy for 62 year olds has gone up 3 years since 1983 when Congress raised FRA. BTW, those people affected have not yet reached FRA yet and won't until 2027.
When all you see are disabled people it's easy to think that every 62 year old is disabled. In 30+ years of taking retirement claims, probably 10 to 15 % said they were disabled. Most said they were filing because they wanted to get their money before SSA ran out.
Just filing for your disability isn't the answer to be sure. That is a very slow and cumbersome process. Many people who work hard jobs are worn out by the time they reach 60. I'm still working at age 77, but it's a desk job and I'm not on a salary so I don't have the pressures that come with that. As usual, they aren't looking at the people with more money to pay more money and then the programs won't run out of money.
I can’t imagine working at 77. I’m so sick of working.
Let's be clear: You don't just wear out physically as you age. I'm a knowledge worker and I can feel my mental decline in my sixties. That scares me. Move full retirement to age 70? How would I qualify for a job? Heck, you want to increase the full retirement age? Then do something about rampant discrimination against older workers. I see nothing. Ageism is alive and well, and your fifties and sixties are a dead man zone.
there is a point to this, average lifespan is increasing. If one retires at 67 and lives to 82, that's too long. Agree that folks who actually do physical work normally have something give out prior to age 60. Agree with ageism.
Post a Comment