# What happens if we raise the Social Security age? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921 "2004-11-15T20:11:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jebert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ec9cab/32.png) [@jebert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jebert)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/1 "2004-11-15T20:11:54Z")
A friend mentioned that the Social Security eligibility age was set to 65 at a time when US life expectancy was 64. Based on numbers here [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/mortality/life\_expectancy/north\_america.html](http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/mortality/life_expectancy/north_america.html) the equivalent for today would be 77. What would be the effect on the US economy of raising the Social Security eligibility age to 77? (I understand that this would be politically impossible; this is truly hypothetical.) Clearly SS taxes could be a lot lower. But a lot more people might stay in their jobs longer. Would this crowd more young people out of jobs? Or would the economy expand to accommodate the greater number of workers? What other changes in the economy might we observe? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/2 "2004-11-15T20:23:00Z")
Riots in the streets I expect…and a whole lot of folks nodding their heads wisely and saying ‘I told you so’ about Bush. Clearly something has to be done about Social Security…equally clearly the government will continue to just bumble along until the system collapses as no one wants to be the one to make the hard choices. -XT ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/3 "2004-11-15T20:27:52Z")
One of the original intents when SS was enacted was for older people to retire so younger people might have jobs. Given how current this is, I’m surprised how little I’ve seen on the retirement age raise in the media recently: [http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm](http://www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm) The increased retirement age was enacted a number of years ago, but as you can see, it’s affecting, or about to, those now around 65. ---
**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:** [November 15, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/4 "2004-11-15T23:11:40Z")
I suspect you would see a lot more people 65-77 applying for SS disability payments. And many would qualify, as that age group begins having health issues at a much higher rate that the rest of the population. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/5 "2004-11-16T00:34:22Z")
Plus whoever attempted to put such a thing into effect could bend over and kiss his a\*\* goodbye in terms of his political career. Us old folks vote. In all seriousness, there are many people who actually resist retirement because they enjoy their jobs. However, many have also made their retirement plans based on the SocSec program and it would be a grave injustice to pull the rug out from under a person who is, say 58 or so and has little time to make adjustments. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/6 "2004-11-16T01:10:13Z")
An _abrupt_ shift would be catastrophic, but it may be possible to ease into it by adjusting the retirement age forward gradually, say one year adjustment for every three calendar years: 2004: 65 2007: 66 2010: 67 2013: 68 2016: 69 2019: 70 2022: 71 2025: 72 2038: 73 2031: 74 2034: 75 If someone is now 58, his retirement gets pushed from 2011 to 2014. A system of supplemental payments can be set up (i.e. demonstrate that you have below a certain level of assets and get early payments - essentially a safety “grandfather” clause, heh-heh). It’ll be disruptive, but if nothing is done by the time the first wave of baby boomers reaches 65 around 2011, there may not be a lot of money left for subsequent retirees. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/7 "2004-11-16T01:17:14Z")
SS clearly has a design flaw in that what worked pretty well 50 years ago becomes increasingly harder as demographics change. One might ask: What happins if we DON’T raise the SS age? Pick your poison. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/8 "2004-11-16T01:28:25Z")
No, **BraingGluton** , the age lifting has to be done even more slowly than you suggest. What has to be done is that the age gets lifted for those who are not yet in the workforce. Someone who is, say, 20 now would be able to expect SS to kick in in 2069. Instead, his age could be raised to 68 or 70 so that he will not get SS until 2072 or 2074. We could scale that back a little so that someone now 20 gets to retire at 65. Someone now 19 gets to retire at 66. Someone now 18 gets to retire at 67, and so on. Eventually we could even reach a point were someone 8 now has to wait until he is 77 to retire. The upside to this plan is that it is much less politically volitile. We do not reduce the benifits curently being recieved. We do not reduce the benifits that anyone currently paying into the system expects to recieve. The down side to this is that it will not really lead to lower taxes anytime soon. Ideally we would enact some sort of formula so that the retirement age could be revisited every 10 years or so and adjusted in the way (or some similar way) that I described. It could lead to a much more sustainable system. One which keeps many more workers per retiree paying into the system. Unfortunately, I think **xtisme** is right. We will tinker with it. Bush might even get a small amount of privatization into the system. But the major overhaul it needs will not be done until some crisis forces our hand. Something as bad as the great depression, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/9 "2004-11-16T01:42:31Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > No, **BraingGluton** , the age lifting has to be done even more slowly than you suggest. [De Niro] You talkin’ to me? You talking to _me?_[/De Niro] > [@](#): > > What has to be done is that the age gets lifted for those who are not yet in the workforce. Someone who is, say, 20 now would be able to expect SS to kick in in 2069. Instead, his age could be raised to 68 or 70 so that he will not get SS until 2072 or 2074… Will your system hold together that long? I’ve already given up on the Canada Pension Plan, fully expecting there to be diddly-squat left by the time I reach 65 (in 2034). Both nations will face a major squeeze starting in 2011, and better a little bit of pain over a long time then a huge agonizing (but relatively brief) crunch. > [@](#): > > The upside to this plan is that it is much less politically volitile. We do not reduce the benifits curently being recieved. We do not reduce the benifits that anyone currently paying into the system expects to recieve. But all you’re really doing is saying “we’ll put off dealing with the problem now, on the expectation that we’ll definitely get to it 45 years from now”. I don’t think you have 45 years to spare. > [@](#): > > The down side to this is that it will not really lead to lower taxes anytime soon. Ideally we would enact some sort of formula so that the retirement age could be revisited every 10 years or so and adjusted in the way (or some similar way) that I described. It could lead to a much more sustainable system. One which keeps many more workers per retiree paying into the system. Personally, I think you’d be better served by a gradual _and predictable_ shift. Under the math I proposed, people contemplating their own retirements know exactly when they can expect to draw SS benefits. The idea of reviewing the entire system and making shifts every ten years introduces unpredictability. How will the Social Security Senate Subcommittee decide in 2014? In 2024? Who knows? ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/10 "2004-11-16T02:07:20Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] [De Niro] You talkin’ to me? You talking to _me?_[/De Niro]Oh, my gosh. I am very sorry about the confusion. Please accept my sincere appology. I was involved with **BrainGlutton** in another thread about possible Bush changes in Social Security, and my brain apperently only saw the first letter of your handle. I could offer the excuse that I am on pain killers associated with a tooth extraction, but I know they had nothing to do with it. I am sorry. > [@](#): > > Will your system hold together that long? I’ve already given up on the Canada Pension Plan, fully expecting there to be diddly-squat left by the time I reach 65 (in 2034). Both nations will face a major squeeze starting in 2011, and better a little bit of pain over a long time then a huge agonizing (but relatively brief) crunch. Well, yes, I think it will. Social Security will start seeing a pinch in the same time frame, but the “pinch” is in the form of the Social Security Surplus (SSS) begining to shrink. And even that assumes that we do not do some accounting magic on the revenue side of the equation. We do have time to fix the system. If we act now. If we wait for a decade or so, however, we will be faced with massive tax increases or benifits cuts to current recipients. > [@](#): > > But all you’re really doing is saying “we’ll put off dealing with the problem now, on the expectation that we’ll definitely get to it 45 years from now”. I don’t think you have 45 years to spare. No, we have to deal with the ponzi aspect of Social Security _now_. I agree we do not have 45 years to deal with it. I think a very good argument can be made, however, that current payers into the system need not expect to retire until a few years later than their grand parents did. I don’t think such a thing would be nearly so politically devastating as cutting the benifits of current retirees or even of those who expect to retire anytime in the next 20 years. If we combine such a change with a minor privatization aspect, so that those paying in can be assured that some portion of their contribution actually belongs to them, it is politically feasible. IMHO. > [@](#): > > Personally, I think you’d be better served by a gradual _and predictable_ shift. Under the math I proposed, people contemplating their own retirements know exactly when they can expect to draw SS benefits. The idea of reviewing the entire system and making shifts every ten years introduces unpredictability. How will the Social Security Senate Subcommittee decide in 2014? In 2024? Who knows? No, I don’t mean leaving it completely up to some subcomittee. That’s basically what we have now. The only reason that the retirement age is at all stable is because it is so politically volitile. What I meant was that we re evaluate expected longevity every decade or even every 2 decades. But the important thing is that any such changes are automatic, and they do not affect those currently retired nor just about to be. ---
**Author:** ![jgroub](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b77776/32.png) [@jgroub](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jgroub)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/11 "2004-11-16T03:12:06Z")
How about just eliminating the ceiling on taxation? IIRC, anything you make over $86,000 or $89,000 is not subject to the social security tax. While this doesn’t affect too many wageearners (what, the top 20% or something?), the amount of money raised would be huge. IMO, this limitation is stupid, and there’s a lot of money left lying on the table, so to speak, by failing to tax these earnings. Since they have already raised the mandatory retirement age to 67 in a phase-in that goes up by a couple of months a year, they could (and should) continue this gradual phase-in until the age goes to at least age 70, if not age 72, making that the new “mandatory” retirement age, as 65 is now. Then they could give increased benefits for those retiring, say, at 75 or 77 (like 70 is now), with extremely limited benefits to those retiring at age 65 or 67. I don’t think age 70 is too old to be working so that people will get all sorts of health problems - at least, no more that people who were 65 did 50 years ago. I think these things would be politically doable, and would go a long way towards “saving” social security. In answer to the OP, I don’t think this would make the taxes any lower. SS is in bad shape, and these things would only fix it for awhile; say 40 or 50 years. As for changes this would cause in the economy, I haven’t given this much thought, and the other posters have ignored answering it. I agree that healthcare costs would rise as these even older people still had to work. But hopefully that will send us to a socialized medicine system. OK, enough with the politics. Anyone else have thoughts (or better yet, evidence) on the effects on the economy? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/12 "2004-11-16T12:39:44Z")
How do we know that there is going to be a problem with the solvency of social security? How is this estimate derived? What figures are used in that estimation? From what I’ve read, fears of the solvency of social security are based on _very_ low estimates of the performance of our national economy. _pervert_, I’ve asked this of you in particular before. You’ve not given an answer, so far as I know, but you continue to put forth the argument that solvency is a problem. Fine. Just tell me how you know this. I have suggested changes to the social security system, but they are more in terms of bringing fairness to the middle class into the tax system - social security and the overall system as well. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/13 "2004-11-16T14:06:05Z")
**pervert:** \*I think a very good argument can be made, however, that current payers into the system need not expect to retire until a few years later than their grand parents did. \* As **aahala** and **jgroub** pointed out, this is no longer at the level of “argument”: it’s an established fact. The SS standard retirement age has **already** been phased up to 67 for contributors with several decades before retirement, although you can still opt to retire at 65 with lower benefits (or at 62 with even lower ones). This is all laid out in the “Social Security Benefit Statements” that Uncle Sam sends you every year once you’re “vested” in SS (i.e., have been contributing to it long enough to qualify for benefits). I see no reason why the standard retirement age couldn’t be inched up to 68 or 69 for future generations of retirees, though I do not know if the SS Administration is currently planning to do so. As for increased healthcare costs due to people in their sixties working an extra few years, I doubt there’d be that much of a difference. If you have people continuing to work into their mid-seventies, though, you’d probably be looking at more health problems. As for socialized medicine, we’ve already got a socialized-medicine system in place for workers and retirees over 65, namely Medicare. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/14 "2004-11-16T16:35:40Z")
We’re talking about Social Security and what can be done to save it. The last projection I saw was the system would “run out” of money about 2042. We are unlikely to ever reach that point, because it’s going to hit the fan as these paper entries representing the “Social Security Trust Fund” are redeemed by the government. The government will have to increasing balance these so-called redemptions by ever increasing public debt offerings, the amount of which far exceeds anything we have ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/15 "2004-11-16T17:05:06Z")
> [@aahala](#): > > We’re talking about Social Security and what can be done to save it. The last projection I saw was the system would “run out” of money about 2042. That’s what I’m talking about too, but the system doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Current estimates of the point of insolvency of approximately 2038 appear to rely on an estimate that the GDP will show a growth rate of 1.6% during that time. This is an exceptionally low estimate. See this “do-it-yourself” estimation model, for example. [http://www.simcivic.org/SSSS.html](http://www.simcivic.org/SSSS.html) If you assume a GDP growth rate of 3.1%, for example, it projects solvency through 2070. Predictions are based on something, no? So, when you tell me calamity is imminent, don’t balk when I ask, “How do you figure that?” We can then determine what the range of possible outcomes might be and make a personal estimate of the likelihood of these outcomes. I don’t think a GDP growth rate of 1.6% is likely. Do you? We have fallen for scare tactics in the past about the solvency of SS, and the result was to increase our payroll taxes. The result of this was to generate large surpluses that we have allowed to be applied to other purposes in exchange for an IOU. One of the most recent other purposes was a large tax cut for the wealthy. I don’t like that, so I am not interested in running around in a panic in response to Chicken Little scrambling through the barnyard. ---
**Author:** ![jebert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ec9cab/32.png) [@jebert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jebert)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/16 "2004-11-16T18:33:30Z")
As I said in the OP, raising the age would pretty much be politically impossible. But as a hypothetical, what would happen to the employment picture? Let’s say that those who are physically able continute to work until 77. I see 2 basic possibilities: 1. The economy would grow because we now have more workers producing more goods and services. 2. Unemployment would grow because we only have so many jobs, but we now have an additional 12-year demographic group of people needing employment. In reality, there is likely to be some degree of both. But would one of these outcomes be dominant - a little bit of economic growth with a large increase in unemployment, or a small increase in unemployment with a lot ot economic growth? My first impression is that the demand for goods and services is more or less fixed, and this would limit the potential for economic growth, resulting in a large increase in unemployment, especially among the young. I’ll leave it to the doper economists to develop other scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/17 "2004-11-16T18:35:08Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > [ > > Personally, I think you’d be better served by a gradual _and predictable_ shift. Under the math I proposed, people contemplating their own retirements know exactly when they can expect to draw SS benefits. It may be predictable, but it’s still a huge change, and not gradual at all for individual people. I’m 42, and now my SS age is now 67. Under your plan it would jump to 75, or maybe more. That’s a lot of extra years to plan for, for someone in the middle of his working years. Ed ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/18 "2004-11-16T20:37:02Z")
Actually, **Hentor the Barbarian** , I did respond to your question in the other thread. I just did not respond reagrding the statistic you wanted, namely GDP. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5470644&postcount=21) for instance is a post directly answering your question. Specifically I said this: “_[…]the simple facts that people are having less and less children while living longer and longer lives. And, unlsess I am very much mistaken, they are not based on any sort of functional projection. That is, the assumptions do not require that people live to 150 and begin habving partial children. All that is required is that current demographic trends continue. A rather reasonable assumption IMHO._” In the interests of furthering discussion, I have found this: [THE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS](http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR03/tr03.pdf) on page six, it contains some of the assumptions about the future used to create the report. _"The actual future income and expenditures of the OASI and DI Trust Funds depend on many factors, including the size and characteristics of the population receiving benefits, the level of monthly benefit amounts, the size of the work force, and the level of workers’ earnings. These factors will depend in turn upon future birth rates, death rates, immigration, marriage and divorce rates, retirement-age patterns, disability incidence and termination rates, productivity gains, wage increases, inflation, and many other demographic, economic, and program-specific factors._" You can look at the accompaning chart. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/19 "2004-11-16T21:47:44Z")
Ooo, I know! I know! More people will die before the gubmint has to pay out. It’s perfect! ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921/20 "2004-11-17T00:34:55Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Actually, **Hentor the Barbarian** , I did respond to your question in the other thread. I just did not respond reagrding the statistic you wanted, namely GDP. Actually, what I want is why you believe so strongly that Social Security is headed for insolvency. You seem to be saying that it is because the anticipated number of people paying in will be going down, and the anticipated number of people taking out will be going up. Is this correct? I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. But let me ask you a few specific questions. Are you saying that GDP is not relevant to estimations of the solvency of Social Security? Why not? If you do believe it to be relevant, how do you feel about an estimated GDP of 1.6%? Do you expect the American economy to perform at such a poor rate over the next 30 years? Can you allow that Social Security may _not_ be inevitably headed for insolvency? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-happens-if-we-raise-the-social-security-age/274921.md?page=2)