Where did the idea of retiring at age 62 and living off the gov come from

[farmerbyron]

The SS debate seems to fall into 2 camps.

1. The old farts that have paid into this system their whole life so they get all defensive and oppose any efforts to reform for fear of losing benefits that they have paid for.

2. The young pups that can't see any way that they will ever see a dime that is being taken from them so it is just another tax to them.

The program is going to be extremely unsustainable when retirees outnumber the workforce so why shouldn't we let the program become optional? I mean we are going to just have to print money either way so let's at least try and create a light at the end of the tunnel for the younger generations while letting the older generation live out what they have been sold their whole life.

 

[VIKING]

I remember I was working in Newport News, Virginia and we were all having this same debate. At the time there was no way I would ever see a damn dime of what I was paying in. A bunch of the older hands and a couple of us younger guys had some pretty heated discussions. That was in 1970 and now we're having the same discussion except I'm on the other side...Oh well.

 

[Hobbes]

A few things to keep in mind:

Workers have been paying more into the SS trust fund than was paid out for decades building up a 2 Trillion dollar surplus.
Our congress critters, over the years, have borrowed that money and replaced it with IOUs, bonds payable on demand.
Today the baby boomers are retiring and now the amount that workers pay in equals the amount payed out, but soon it won't equal and SSA will have to start cashing some of those IOUs.
The SSA can cash those IOUs gradually and continue to pay full SS benefits until at least 2031.
Evem when the 2 Trillion dollar trust fund is redeemed and exhausted SS won't be totally bankrupt because they will still have the FICA taxes that are being paid in as a source of revenue that can pay 75 cents on the dollar even after all the IOUs have been redeemed. That's even if no changes are made to SS.

We have politicians and lobbyists today on both sides who don't want to pay back the money they borrowed from the SS trust fund.

Some of them are Democrats who don't want to pay that money back because they would rather spend that money on other things. (see ObamaCare_)
Others are Republicans who don't want to pay that money back because they would rather spend that money on other things. (see tax cuts and defense spending )

They can't come right out and say that of course so they resort to misinformation like "people are living a lot longer than they used to" OR "SS will go bankrupt and you will never see a penny you are paying in".

The bottom line is that there is a war on for your mind, to borrow a phrase, and lots of folks in DC that are desperate to brainwash us all, err, convince us all that SS must be "reformed" or ended altogether because it is "unsustainable".
It's only "unsustainable" if they refuse to sustain it and they convince you to go along.

 

[davek]

Does anyone have the numbers on what would happen to the sustainability of SS if they eliminated the FICA cap of $113,700?

 

[ignerntbend]

Anybody that hadn't never heard of FDR must have went to school in Oklahoma.

 

[Hobbes]

Does anyone have the numbers on what would happen to the sustainability of SS if they eliminated the FICA cap of $113,700?

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf

 

[mugsy]

Yep. A dramatic improvement of infant mortality rates has allowed a lot more people to survive childhood and adolescence in order to reach the age of 65.

What's important to understand though is that a man who reached the age of 65 in 1940 could expect to live another 12.7 years.
A man who reached the age of 65 in 1990 could expect to live another 15.3 years.
So, a 65 year old senior as of 1990 had a life expectancy that is a mere 2.6 years longer than in 1940.

When someone tries to tell me that SS needs to be cut because we are all living a lot longer I know that they are either:
1. Knowingly citing a misleading statistic to fool me into giving up my rights to my SS benefits
OR
2. They have already been fooled by the group in category 1 above.

And what about the much more significant argument that the combination of a declining birth rate and a greater percentage of the population (relative to the still working) are making it to retirement years? It is completely true that the ratio of payers to payees has gotten closer to 1:1 which endangers the system's stability - as with any ponzi scheme.

 

[dennishoddy]

11 years, 2 months and 9 days, and I'll be sucking the teet also. But whose counting.

If its the money you have put in without the gubberment putting in their share, how could you be sucking from the teat? Your just reaping your rewards..

 

[Cinaet]

Hey, it was the first word that came to my fingertips.

A lot of information came out since I got all defensive and stuff. So basically, whether it was a good idea or bad idea, (well, it was a bad idea) in the beginning, we dug ourselves into a giant hole and can't get out, I can't wait to see how obamacare comes out.

I'm not sure about this Brother Rat. I've never studied the topic. But I expect in order to understand how and why SS came about you'd have to start within the context of the Great Depression.