4 ms·

Senators are considering raising the retirement age to 70

26 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

vondur 4y ago
It's a commonly held belief in the US that anyone proposing to reduce benefits or increase retirement ages in the Social Security program is political suicide.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  perhaps evidence of past election results reinforce this
- treeman79 4y ago
  They started taxing social security as a way to reduce it without seeming like they were.
- Gunax 4y ago
  Social security is going to run out of money soon. It's tragic that we cannot seem to agree that it needs to be fixed, nevermind how to fix it. I'm not trying to start a flamewar. But this seems like a flaw in democracy. Why aren't we angry and upset? Why is the public so passive? I like democracy, but maybe I have failed to understand that it is just a projection of regular human flaws. As individuals, we are poor at planning long term. Maybe that applies to groups also.
mcsniff 4y ago
Retirement is a financial status, not an age. Gov wants to hold their eymployee pensions until 70? Good luck, most people have already vested and will just exit when they are ready.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  What are you talking about? The article is about raising the vesting age. And it's not about "employees".
- toast0 4y ago
  This is about the (us) social security 'full retirement age', which is the age at which the baseline benefits calculation are set; take benefits earlier and get less per year, take benefits later and get more per year. It's probably a sensible change, but old people vote, so good luck senators. Best to phase that in over a long period. Maybe work on making the actuarial tables closer to reality as well.
- olliej 4y ago
  Um, most people have not vested already. Most people don't have vesting involved in their income at all, at any point in their lives. For people who do have 401(k)s and similar, the "retirement" age determines when you can start withdrawing from your retirement funds without suffering significant tax penalties. This is of course assuming you can save enough in your 401(k) (or similar) to retire given the anemic limits on savings that are - as usual for things that benefit tax payers rather than billionaires and corporations - not tied to inflation.
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    What makes you say 401(k) limits are not tied to inflation? They’ve been going up pretty consistently every year since I’ve been paying attention.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > For people who do have 401(k)s and similar, the “retirement” age determines when you can start withdrawing from your retirement funds No, it doesn’t. (I mean, yes, those programs do have an age that does that, but it is not the “retirement age” that is under discussion, which is the Social Security “full retirement age”, which is a separate thing from what you are talking about.)
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    401k withdrawal begins at 59.5 years old. This is for social security.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Gov wants to hold their eymployee pensions until 70? No, they want to shift to the “full retirement age” (which is, oddly, not when maximum benefits apply) up to 70 – and consequently, reduce benefits at all ages – for Social Security, the public, almost-universal safety-net retirement program.
hirvi74 4y ago
I'm willing to be there will be some exclusionary policy, so that this does not affect the senators nor their peers. Rules for thee, but not for me. I think senators need to have their cognitive functioning tested annually, and the results should released publicly.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood the topic of the article that I trust you read.
  - hirvi74 4y ago
    I reread the article just to make sure I did not miss anything, and my opinions have not changed. What are your opinions on the matter?
- mcv 4y ago
  The article seems to be about US senators, and I think most people would agree that they should retire earlier, not later.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Senators and their peers don't rely on Social Security for most of their retirement income, so they are fairly well insulated from any change to Social Security benefits even without any explicit carve-out.
noncoml 4y ago
Government wants people to work till 70 but no one wants to hire anyone over 50.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Government wants people to work till 70 No, A mostly-Republican group within government wants people to need to work until they die. Cutting Social Security benefits (which is what the “full retirement age” shift is about) and the other things discussed in the article are just what they think they might be able to get away with politically at the moment using the idea that they are “protecting” Social Security by addressing it’s fiscal health.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Many other segments of the population also get much less work than they would be willing to accept. Time to cut the standard working week ?
olliej 4y ago
Kind of BS, but can we introduce a mandatory retirement age for senators so that they have to actually live under the policies they create? That would also resolve the perpetual senator problem.
- toast0 4y ago
  Probably not. Mandarory retirement in general was made illegal, and anyway, the requirements for Senate office holders are in the constitution and don't have a maximum age. Could be an amendment though; or perhaps a Senate rule. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-...
knightofmars 4y ago
Nonsense, they need raise the social security cap on income. This is typical USA politics. Move the retirement goal post instead of fixing the system.
- Gunax 4y ago
  Does that help if you have to also pay more benefits out?

26 points by LinuxBender 4y ago

It's a commonly held belief in the US that anyone proposing to reduce benefits or increase retirement ages in the Social Security program is political suicide.

mistrial9 4y ago
perhaps evidence of past election results reinforce this
treeman79 4y ago
They started taxing social security as a way to reduce it without seeming like they were.
Gunax 4y ago
Social security is going to run out of money soon. It's tragic that we cannot seem to agree that it needs to be fixed, nevermind how to fix it. I'm not trying to start a flamewar. But this seems like a flaw in democracy. Why aren't we angry and upset? Why is the public so passive? I like democracy, but maybe I have failed to understand that it is just a projection of regular human flaws. As individuals, we are poor at planning long term. Maybe that applies to groups also.

mcsniff 4y ago

Retirement is a financial status, not an age. Gov wants to hold their eymployee pensions until 70? Good luck, most people have already vested and will just exit when they are ready.

hgsgm 4y ago
What are you talking about? The article is about raising the vesting age. And it's not about "employees".
toast0 4y ago
This is about the (us) social security 'full retirement age', which is the age at which the baseline benefits calculation are set; take benefits earlier and get less per year, take benefits later and get more per year. It's probably a sensible change, but old people vote, so good luck senators. Best to phase that in over a long period. Maybe work on making the actuarial tables closer to reality as well.
olliej 4y ago
Um, most people have not vested already. Most people don't have vesting involved in their income at all, at any point in their lives. For people who do have 401(k)s and similar, the "retirement" age determines when you can start withdrawing from your retirement funds without suffering significant tax penalties. This is of course assuming you can save enough in your 401(k) (or similar) to retire given the anemic limits on savings that are - as usual for things that benefit tax payers rather than billionaires and corporations - not tied to inflation.
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  What makes you say 401(k) limits are not tied to inflation? They’ve been going up pretty consistently every year since I’ve been paying attention.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > For people who do have 401(k)s and similar, the “retirement” age determines when you can start withdrawing from your retirement funds No, it doesn’t. (I mean, yes, those programs do have an age that does that, but it is not the “retirement age” that is under discussion, which is the Social Security “full retirement age”, which is a separate thing from what you are talking about.)
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  401k withdrawal begins at 59.5 years old. This is for social security.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Gov wants to hold their eymployee pensions until 70? No, they want to shift to the “full retirement age” (which is, oddly, not when maximum benefits apply) up to 70 – and consequently, reduce benefits at all ages – for Social Security, the public, almost-universal safety-net retirement program.

hirvi74 4y ago

I'm willing to be there will be some exclusionary policy, so that this does not affect the senators nor their peers. Rules for thee, but not for me. I think senators need to have their cognitive functioning tested annually, and the results should released publicly.

hgsgm 4y ago
You seem to have misunderstood the topic of the article that I trust you read.
- hirvi74 4y ago
  I reread the article just to make sure I did not miss anything, and my opinions have not changed. What are your opinions on the matter?
mcv 4y ago
The article seems to be about US senators, and I think most people would agree that they should retire earlier, not later.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Senators and their peers don't rely on Social Security for most of their retirement income, so they are fairly well insulated from any change to Social Security benefits even without any explicit carve-out.

noncoml 4y ago

Government wants people to work till 70 but no one wants to hire anyone over 50.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Government wants people to work till 70 No, A mostly-Republican group within government wants people to need to work until they die. Cutting Social Security benefits (which is what the “full retirement age” shift is about) and the other things discussed in the article are just what they think they might be able to get away with politically at the moment using the idea that they are “protecting” Social Security by addressing it’s fiscal health.
euroderf 4y ago
Many other segments of the population also get much less work than they would be willing to accept. Time to cut the standard working week ?

olliej 4y ago

Kind of BS, but can we introduce a mandatory retirement age for senators so that they have to actually live under the policies they create? That would also resolve the perpetual senator problem.

toast0 4y ago
Probably not. Mandarory retirement in general was made illegal, and anyway, the requirements for Senate office holders are in the constitution and don't have a maximum age. Could be an amendment though; or perhaps a Senate rule. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-...

knightofmars 4y ago

Nonsense, they need raise the social security cap on income. This is typical USA politics. Move the retirement goal post instead of fixing the system.

Gunax 4y ago
Does that help if you have to also pay more benefits out?