what will happen to the seniors (like my husband) who are already collecting? He’s 68.
I hope and pray (and VOTE!) that this doesn’t happen, but sheesh.
What are they planning to raise it to?
And I thought Republicans wanted to abolish SS, not raise the collection age.
I saw something today where one guy proposed 70.
Abolishing it outright is politically infeasible, even for the Republicans. Gradually increasing the age of eligibility is the stealth way of abolishing it. Eventually the eligible age will be so old that very few people will ever qualify, and so no one will ever expect to get it. At that point, quietly zeroing it out entirely will have little effect on their electoral support.
They would raise it for people who are XX age and younger now, not for people close to collecting or already collecting. Your husband will be fine.
Which, to be honest, was the way is was designed way back when Otto von Bismarck introduced old age pensions in Germany.
The way they usually do stuff like that is to grandfather (snerk!) in everybody who is currently collecting and slowly raise the qualifying age for new applicants.
They will not even propose raising the age for those already collecting - it will lose them too many votes. One of the groups that tends to vote Republican is the over 65s. If they even propose raising it , it will certainly not be raised for current recipients - although they may push off the eligibility date for full ( or even reduced benefits) for people who will be eligible in the next five years.
When an age increase was instituted in the 80s, my recollection is that it was phased in slowly. Born a year later, and your full retirement age was something like two months later.
I was around 20 when age increase happened in the 80s - and my full benefit age was changed from 65-67. I think they changed a whole group of people immediately to 66 and then increased the age by a month or two for each birth year until they got to 67
Yes, that was what I read. My savings are so meager that I’ll just die while on the job… J/K - sorta. I’m planning on 70 yrs old.
Or it is adjusting for increased life-spans.
Have life spans increased? Life expectancy certainly has (other than the last few years), but I thought that you’re life expectancy at, say, 60, is about the same.
No, it’s definitely about abolishing it.
If it were really about “life expectancy”, then you wouldn’t be discussing it at a time when life expectancy in the US has actually dropped for the first time in a long time.
Also, if it were about life expectancy, why would the richest country in the world, having a much lower life expectancy than a lot of other comparable countries in the world, always be in a state of imminent collapse because “it’s just too expensive”?
“Life expectancy” is the excuse, not the reason. The notion that the US “can’t afford” to take care of the elderly is pure propaganda, put out by the people who don’t want to take care of anyone.
That is a statistical anomaly due to covid and in no way reflects the steady increase of life span over the long term.
Some of it is. It is also a reflection of increased opioid use and suicide (more in some cohorts than others). From the CDC:
So in the most recent years only half of the decline is due to COVID, which I take to mean even without COVID the life expectancy would have dropped.
And so why is it critical to do it right now? Why not wait a couple more years, so the statistics catch back up?
And of course, you ignore that the US lags behind a lot of other countries. Why not wait until you catch up to the rest of civilized society?
Actual data: In 1950, the average American retiring at 65 could expect to receive Social Security for just over 3 years. Today retiring at 68, the Average American will receive Social Security for just over 11 years. How can we keep Social Security solvent if we do not account for the increasing life-span?
I don’t think Republicans bring this up as a reason when they are out speechifying, so your point is rather moot.
The urgency is driven by the fact that the trust fund will run out of money somewhere around 2034; at that point, incoming payroll taxes will be enough to pay only around 77% of benefits due. If you start making adjustments now, people have time to plan and absorb the changes, but the longer you wait, the more abrupt the changes need to be to maintain the solvency of the system.
As someone that is only a few months away from collecting SS, I sure hope nothing happens before then. I have already submitted my application and been approved.
Wasn’t that actually the way it worked when it was introduced in the US? I get the impression that living past 65 meant you were OLD back in 1935 in a way that it doesn’t today.
Most people retiring at 65 expect (although they may not get it) 10-15 years of retirement before they die, and I’m not sure that SS was meant to provide that sort of long-term pension for the entire population.