# Pros and cons of raising the retirement age **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587 "2010-07-05T04:21:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/41 "2010-07-09T19:57:09Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > What’s that supposed to imply, that because I studied journalism for a minute back in the 1980s, I’m supposed to know everything about everything, including SSA policy changes like raising the retirement age? Journalism major doesn’t even mean I’ve ever worked as a reporter, nor does it mean that all journalism majors are up to speed on any possible topic. There’s a million different subjects one could study and report on and be knowledgeable about; I can’t possibly know about it all. It means that I’d expect you to be better than the average person at getting and processing information about the world. You are wise to be worried about retirement now, but the information on retirement age and Social Security is easy to find. I don’t know why you are complaining that CNN never told you about it - it is not exactly breaking news. ---
**Author:** ![Dogzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@Dogzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogzilla)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/42 "2010-07-09T20:09:18Z")
CNN didn’t exist when I began working. How was I supposed to know what I don’t know? Why would I go digging for information about something if I’ve never even heard the issue mentioned? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/43 "2010-07-09T21:53:57Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > What’s that supposed to imply, that because I studied journalism for a minute back in the 1980s, I’m supposed to know everything about everything, including SSA policy changes like raising the retirement age? Journalism major doesn’t even mean I’ve ever worked as a reporter, nor does it mean that all journalism majors are up to speed on any possible topic. There’s a million different subjects one could study and report on and be knowledgeable about; I can’t possibly know about it all. So why did you bother to bring it up in the first place? > [@Dogzilla](#): > > Yes. The financial decisions I made when I was 10 were really stupid. :smack: Thank you for enlightening me. Knew I shouldn’t have majored in Journalism. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/44 "2010-07-09T22:15:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I somewhat agree. I’d say no cap at all on taxing earnings. Why should there be? There’s no cap on Income Tax, in fact the opposite. The idea is that SS is a contributory program, not a tax. There is a cap on the earnings subject to contributions because there is a cap on the benefits the contributions are meant to fund. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/45 "2010-07-10T01:20:15Z")
The industrial states tax levels were released today. Out of the top 30 states, we are number 26. We have to increase taxes to pay for our programs. we have to start with dumping the Bush tax cuts that benefited the wealthy over the poor. Want to fix our deficits and save the programs. Raise taxes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/46 "2010-07-10T01:38:27Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > More like, I’m angry that this information never found its way to me until I was well into my 30s. Prior to that, all information I’d seen, heard, read, or been told indicated that 65 was retirement age and not until I’d been working a good 15 years did I finally learn that, in fact, there is another retirement age that takes effect eventually, but nobody ever talks about it. You have to read that SSA statement to catch it. It’s on wiki. It’s on the SSA website. It’s been discussed and debated. If you don’t know it, it’s \*entirely your fault. \* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/47 "2010-07-10T01:39:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The idea is that SS is a contributory program, not a tax. There is a cap on the earnings subject to contributions because there is a cap on the benefits the contributions are meant to fund. Yes, indeed, that was the \*idea. \* However, it’s not the reality, so the cap can go away now. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/48 "2010-07-10T02:34:39Z")
> [@Iridescent\_Orb](#): > > Advocates of increased retirement ages often use the concept of percent of life in retirement. For example, say life expectancy is 60 years and retirement age is 55. This means that on average a person will spend 5/60 = 8.3% of their life in retirement (or 91.7% of their life “not in retirement”). If life expectancy increases to 80 years, the new retirement age would be 91.7% x 80 years = 73.3 years, which provides an average of 6.7 years of retirement. > > The basic idea is that the ratio of work years to retirement years remains relatively constant, and the benefits of increased life expectancy should be shared between society as a whole (by requiring individuals work longer) and by individuals themselves (by increasing their retirement years). Naturally, exactly how to cut the pie is a source of considerable debate. > > The above example is an admitted simplification, but hopefully it illustrates the general idea. I think there is also some resentment us younger people are feeling about the issue. We pay higher taxes for benefits we don’t get to collect until a later date (but to be fair we do live a few years longer so it evens out). [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/ptax2\_2.jpg](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/ptax2_2.jpg) SS & medicare taxes were barely 12% back in the 70s (split between employers and employees). Now they are at 15.3%, and are probably going to go up. I have heard medicare might have to go to 10% alone (up from 2.9%) to keep the system solvent. And medicare does not have a cap, unlike Social security (thank you bill clinton and the 93 budget, he probably saved medicare with that one). So with SS we can talk of removing or lifting the cap. Not so with medicare. But the fact is younger people are going to be asked to pay ever increasing taxes for a retirement system that will not help them until they are older and older. Paying 12% to retire at 65 is different than paying 15.3% to retire at 67, which is different than paying 20% to retire at 70 (which kids being born right now may end up doing). Also life span (vs life expectancy) has not gone up ‘that’ much. Life expectancy has gone up, but that is due to lower childhood deaths. Life span at 30 was 71 back in the 50s, 73 in the 80s and 77 now. So a white male at 30 can expect to live about 6 years longer than in the 50s. Lifespan at 60 has only gone up 5 years from the 1950s to today. So people aren’t living very much longer. It just appears that way because child mortality skews life expectancy tables. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html) Thinking about it, the fact that lifespan at 60 has gone up 5-6 years but the retirement age has only gone up 2 really isn’t ‘that’ bad of a deal. But there are still the issues of unemployment and people who can’t work until 70. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/49 "2010-07-10T02:45:21Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I think the best idea is to raise Rand Rover’s taxes and spend it on ourselves. Of course you do. You are a violent person, and you make it worse by lacking the courage of your convictions. You aren’t man enough to come take my stuff yourself, so you enlist the government to do it for you. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/50 "2010-07-10T02:50:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Of course you do. You are a violent person, and you make it worse by lacking the courage of your convictions. You aren’t man enough to come take my stuff yourself, so you enlist the government to do it for you. They have better guns than I do. Besides every time I try to build my own prison system I get in trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/51 "2010-07-10T02:50:22Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The industrial states tax levels were released today. Out of the top 30 states, we are number 26. We have to increase taxes to pay for our programs. we have to start with dumping the Bush tax cuts that benefited the wealthy over the poor. Want to fix our deficits and save the programs. Raise taxes. The so called Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of this year and on January 1st this will automatically result in some fairly substantial tax increases. On quite a number of things. I expect that President Obama will avoid this issue until late in the year, and then extend the Bush tax cuts indefinatly for reasons due to the slow recovery of the economy. He is not stupid. I will be very surprised if he lets them sunset out and return to previous status. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/52 "2010-07-10T16:30:56Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Of course you do. You are a violent person, and you make it worse by lacking the courage of your convictions. You aren’t man enough to come take my stuff yourself, so you enlist the government to do it for you. Personal insults aren’t allowed in Great Debates, **Rand Rover**. This is a formal warning not to do this again. And **Wesley Clark** , I’m not sure why you felt it necessary to include **Rand Rover** in your OP. I’m sure it’s a reference to things he’s said in other threads but it comes off as a personal dig. EDIT: Please think twice before doing something like that in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/53 "2010-07-10T18:51:51Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Of course you do. You are a violent person, and you make it worse by lacking the courage of your convictions. You aren’t man enough to come take my stuff yourself, so you enlist the government to do it for you. Of course we do. That is the purpose of government; to protect the weak from the strong. You are stronger than I am, by virtue of your wealth; I balance that by collectivising with other poor people to overcome your advantage. Of course, you find that annoying, because you believe the natural order is for the wealthy to exploit the poor, but social systems always find a way to equalize an imbalance of power. The pendulum swings back and forth, and some times the poor exploit the rich, but the natural rhythm of economics soon corrects that, always seeking that balance between the social classes. The natural order is redistribution of energy to achieve entropy. If wealth is a form of stored energy, nature abhors that imbalance, and seeks to redistribute it. You can fight nature, but you can’t win. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/54 "2010-07-10T20:56:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As has been mentioned, physical stamina isn’t much of a part of the job I have. Plus, with my experience and the library of software I have accumulated, I can program twice as fast as someone twenty years younger than me. My health may not be quite as good, but on the other hand I don’t have to take time off for sick kids. > > When employment comes back, raising the retirement age might be good for this group. Lots of companies don’t want to hire older people because they feel they will not stay long enough to pay back the training investment. With a higher retirement age, this is less of an issue. Employment is not coming back. The jobs are gone. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/55 "2010-07-11T05:10:03Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Employment is not coming back. The jobs are gone. Actually, in a lot of companies today people are working their butts off because the companies are too scared to hire people needed to keep up with an increase in demand. This is not to say everything is wonderful, but unemployment will eventually drop. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/56 "2010-07-11T05:55:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Actually, in a lot of companies today people are working their butts off because the companies are too scared to hire people needed to keep up with an increase in demand. This is not to say everything is wonderful, but unemployment will eventually drop. It might, but the problem is many of those new jobs will be contract jobs. Jobs with no security, no benefits, possibly no matching FICA taxes, etc. Right now most of the new jobs are contract and temp positions. Unemployment will hopefully drop someday. But we need about 15-30 million jobs to make things right. Its not just the 8 million jobs lost recently, but another 3 million equivalent lost by people being cut to part time. Plus the last 10 years haven’t seen job growth keep up with population growth (we added 30 million people, but -3 million jobs in the last 10 years). So really, you need 500k jobs added a month for 3-6 years to really get things at the level they were in the 90s. Thats probably not going to happen. Point is, I think employers have people over a barrel and will for a long time. If they want to only offer contract jobs with huge workloads and no benefits they can do that for the time being and probably for years into the future. I’m looking into leaving the country, but don’t know how to find science jobs overseas. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/57 "2010-07-11T11:13:01Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I think there is also some resentment us younger people are feeling about the issue. We pay higher taxes for benefits we don’t get to collect until a later date (but to be fair we do live a few years longer so it evens out). The problem is, “One man, one vote.” In a democracy, we give a vote to each individual regardless of their contribution to society. You can inherit a fortune, be a lazy good-for-nothing, and vote against raising taxes for the wealthy. You can blow off working hard in school, spend your days carousing with losers, get a half-assed job because of it, and still vote to extend your unemployment benefits from the public coffer. We are all susceptible to the tragedy of the commons and–on average–we all think the next guy over should pay our way. We’re all against big government for others and for big government for ourselves. We are currently spending about 1/3 more than we take in; the highest 1% of income earners pay 40% of our federal taxes–about double what their share of income is. The lowest 50% pay about 3% of federal taxes. We’ve long since gotten away from everyone having an equal stake. And government grows dramatically each year. Under Mr Bush we overspent ridiculously and now under Mr Obama we are overspending even more. To my delight, Mr Obama had very good support among the young who will, indeed, be the ones holding the bag when the piper comes calling for our collective profligacy. For me as a fiscal conservative, at least it cannot be said that they young did not help to make their own bed. In short, as long as there is one vote for one man, we will vote ourselves funds from the public coffer and expect the “public” to be the next guy over. Currently that next guy is just being born, since our “one man one vote” policy has allowed us to vote into office people who are willing to borrow from future proceeds the money to pay benefits now. In my view it’s utterly pointless to argue whether we should have higher taxes or smaller government until we do this: agree collectively that we will not spend any more than we take in. We will not be voting to do that, and as a consequence we will inevitably go bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/58 "2010-07-11T16:28:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We are all susceptible to the tragedy of the commons and–on average–we all think the next guy over should pay our way. We’re all against big government for others and for big government for ourselves. That’s a terribly slanted way to frame it. One could just as easily say that we all contribute to the law of large numbers; statistically, a sound balance is achieved–on average. Thus, “one man, one vote” is the proper way to operate. But I should add that I agree with your general tenor – although I think we’d disagree on many particulars. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/59 "2010-07-11T17:13:25Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The problem is, “One man, one vote.” > > In a democracy, we give a vote to each individual regardless of their contribution to society. You can inherit a fortune, be a lazy good-for-nothing, and vote against raising taxes for the wealthy. You can blow off working hard in school, spend your days carousing with losers, get a half-assed job because of it, and still vote to extend your unemployment benefits from the public coffer. > > We are all susceptible to the tragedy of the commons and–on average–we all think the next guy over should pay our way. We’re all against big government for others and for big government for ourselves. > > We are currently spending about 1/3 more than we take in; the highest 1% of income earners pay 40% of our federal taxes–about double what their share of income is. The lowest 50% pay about 3% of federal taxes. We’ve long since gotten away from everyone having an equal stake. And government grows dramatically each year. > > Under Mr Bush we overspent ridiculously and now under Mr Obama we are overspending even more. To my delight, Mr Obama had very good support among the young who will, indeed, be the ones holding the bag when the piper comes calling for our collective profligacy. For me as a fiscal conservative, at least it cannot be said that they young did not help to make their own bed. > > In short, as long as there is one vote for one man, we will vote ourselves funds from the public coffer and expect the “public” to be the next guy over. Currently that next guy is just being born, since our “one man one vote” policy has allowed us to vote into office people who are willing to borrow from future proceeds the money to pay benefits now. > > In my view it’s utterly pointless to argue whether we should have higher taxes or smaller government until we do this: agree collectively that we will not spend any more than we take in. We will not be voting to do that, and as a consequence we will inevitably go bankrupt. LOL, nice. However when you say the top 1% pay 40% of federal (income) taxes, you neglect all the other taxes out there. Sales taxes, fuel taxes, FICA taxes, sin taxes, etc. all tend to be regressive. At the end of the day we sadly have a fairly flat tax in the US. The well off pay more in federal income tax and the working class pay more in FICA, gasoline and sales taxes. It is misleading to only discuss federal income taxes (which only make up 1/3 or so of all tax revenue). That is like me discussing taxes but only discussing FICA taxes for social security. The wealthy pay a very small % of those because they are capped at 106k. After the recession is over and more people are back to work, hopefully we will start getting the deficit under control. There is no attitude of shared sacrifice anymore and everyone wants high services plus tax cuts. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587/60 "2010-07-11T18:18:27Z")
I have very little sympathy for most of these arguments. A person in their thirties and forties should know that there are issues with Social Security and though I believe I will get benefits, I know that they are uncertain in timing and amount. That means that everyone has prior warning that they need to plan to take care of themselves to a fairly large extent. Getting to sixty and complaining that you just couldn’t possibly do it really isn’t my problem. If you decide to major in journalism or history and pursue an intellectually stimulating, but not financially rewarding career then you simply need to take your salary, subtract ten percent and put it away every year. If your plan assumes that markets always go up, then you will fail. Complaining that the recent market volatility destroyed an otherwise sound plan is nonsense. If you had a decent plan, then that plan would include leeway for an adverse stock market. The returns of a prudent individual over the last couple of years really isn’t that bad relatively to what one might expect. Social Security is one area where there is a pretty decent measure of fairness. You can measure what you put in vs. what you get out. Any proposal that suggests that we raise the cap, tax higher incomes more or means test benefits exacerbates the wealth redistribution scheme that Social Security is now, and is likely to further. Not just wealth re-distribution from the rich to poor, but from the young to the old. I would be thrilled to be able to pay a tax and opt out of the system if I could. In the meantime I wish more people would acknowledge their hands reaching into my pockets as they talk about raising caps and means testing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-retirement-age/545587.md?page=4)