tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post4697936481591117099..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: Social Security, Inflation, and Punishing the PoorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-31903964005120468512012-12-23T01:33:16.882-06:002012-12-23T01:33:16.882-06:00Kurt:
As my paragraph "5" begins, "...Kurt:<br /><br />As my paragraph "5" begins, "Even if Social Security was on the table, and should be -- neither of which are true -- and even if there was an urgent need to fix it now -- which there is not -- there are better, more equitable, ways to create the added revenue we may need for Social Security many years on down the road."<br /><br />Paragraph 5(c) addresses your suggestion. Indeed, it's already in the law. That is, as 5(c) discusses, recipients have options regarding when they wish to start receiving benefits. Those are options, not a mandate.<br /><br />Those who are very well paid, but so love their "work" that they would probably do it without pay, have the option of continuing to work -- putting more into Social Security, and ultimately getting out more per month than if they'd retired and started drawing Social Security earlier. These folks have jobs similar to how Senator Bob Dole once described the vice presidency: "Indoor work with no heavy lifting."<br /><br />On the other hand, there are others who do not love their work. It is hard, boring, dangerous and demeaning. It involves very heavy lifting, or its equivalent. There's very little reward, either financially, emotionally, or with social esteem. Such folks might understandably want to retire earlier -- even though, by so doing, they will get less per month than if they'd waited.<br /><br />In 5(c) I suggest those ages, and percentages of full benefits, are subject to being tweaked.<br /><br />However, my primary point is that this discussion is all beside the point -- at this time. We should be focused on budgets, debt, and deficits. Any discussion of Social Security reforms at this time is both premature, and worse, only a diversion.<br /><br />And, sadly, it is primarily being driven by those whose predecessors fought the very idea of Social Security's creation, and who have, themselves, been fighting it ever since -- with suggestions that it should be abolished, or privatized, or have significantly reduced benefits, as today with a proposed recalculation of the its inflation index. That index could be made more precisely applicable to the elderly, but that would require an increase in their payments. This effort is simply directed at a way to cut the benefits they've earned and been promised.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467682953748756539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-5095072275932788942012-12-22T19:15:27.819-06:002012-12-22T19:15:27.819-06:00Nicholas,
Why can't we just raise the retirem...Nicholas,<br /><br />Why can't we just raise the retirement age? As you know, when Social Security was created, the life expectancy was much shorter than it is today. People today, compared to 50 years ago, are much healthier at age 62, and 65, and 68 , and 70, etc. If we want to create a safety net, why not start at age 70? Kurt Johnsonkurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864834032563327100noreply@blogger.com