4 ms·

Honestly, I don't think its such a bad idea. Life expectancy in 1935 was 62. Today its 79. So if we want the program to be solvent, we have to adopt one or more

Honestly, I don't think its such a bad idea. Life expectancy in 1935 was 62. Today its 79. So if we want the program to be solvent, we have to adopt one or more of the following solutions: keep increasing the SS-eligibility age in tandem with life expectancy, increase the FICA tax, cut benefits

monocasa 10y ago
I mean, the FICA taxes were increased in 1983 in part as preparation for the Boomer's retirement. When that bubble is past us, we shouldn't need to increase again for a couple generations, even accounting for increased average lifespan.
jellicle 10y ago
You could also choose what the U.S. is choosing now, which is to reduce U.S. life expectancy.
hx87 10y ago
Grandfathering would be unjust though.
crdoconnor 10y ago
Dependency ratios (the number of workers compared to the number of people dependent on workers) may actually be lower than they were in the 60s simply because fewer people are having children. Even if that weren't true, the idea that we have to keep putting the age up is predicated upon productivity remaining static. Productivity has gone up consistently and will likely continue to go up. Curiously some people are breathlessly optimistic about automation when it's a convenient scapegoat for high unemployment but immediately lose all faith in it when it comes to social security projections. These people probably don't have our best interests at heart.
anigbrowl 10y ago
You left out adding more people into the system, although that's usually considered in the context of demography rather than mortality. One accounting reason to consider it from this perspective, though, is that adult immigrants have typically been raised and educated at some other country's expense so their productive entry to the US workforce is free of any debt overhang, ie no public monies were spent by the US on educating so they're basically coming to help out with the national debt for free. Of course the flip side of this is a brain drain for countries that see too many people leave.

monocasa 10y ago

I mean, the FICA taxes were increased in 1983 in part as preparation for the Boomer's retirement. When that bubble is past us, we shouldn't need to increase again for a couple generations, even accounting for increased average lifespan.

jellicle 10y ago

You could also choose what the U.S. is choosing now, which is to reduce U.S. life expectancy.

hx87 10y ago

Grandfathering would be unjust though.

crdoconnor 10y ago

Dependency ratios (the number of workers compared to the number of people dependent on workers) may actually be lower than they were in the 60s simply because fewer people are having children. Even if that weren't true, the idea that we have to keep putting the age up is predicated upon productivity remaining static. Productivity has gone up consistently and will likely continue to go up. Curiously some people are breathlessly optimistic about automation when it's a convenient scapegoat for high unemployment but immediately lose all faith in it when it comes to social security projections. These people probably don't have our best interests at heart.

anigbrowl 10y ago

You left out adding more people into the system, although that's usually considered in the context of demography rather than mortality. One accounting reason to consider it from this perspective, though, is that adult immigrants have typically been raised and educated at some other country's expense so their productive entry to the US workforce is free of any debt overhang, ie no public monies were spent by the US on educating so they're basically coming to help out with the national debt for free. Of course the flip side of this is a brain drain for countries that see too many people leave.