Thread: Raise Social Security retirement to 70, means-test benefits

Jun 29, 2010

Boehner: Raise Social Security retirement to 70 and means-test benefits

05:45 PM

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio speaking to reporters outside the White House on June 10.CAPTIONBy Charles Dharapak, APHouse Republican leader John Boehner, who would become House speaker if the GOP takes control in November, said in a newspaper interview that big changes are needed for Social Security, including eventually raising the retirement age to 70 and reducing or ending benefits for retirees with "substantial" other income.

"We're all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected," Boehner of Ohio told editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "And I think that raising the retirement age — going out 20 years, so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement — and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."

He also said automatic benefit increases should be linked to the Consumer Price Index, not wage inflation, which tends to be higher, and that benefits should be means-tested. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?" he said.

"We just need to be honest with people," he said. "I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy, but I think if we did those three things, you'd pretty well solve the problem."

Though he said Social Security is the most important entitlement needing reform, Boehner also said that should Republicans retake the House, they will attempt to repeal the health care overhaul championed by President Obama.

Watch Boehner's remarks on Social Security. The paper has also posted clips of his responses on the BP oil spill, immigration and seeking the vice presidency.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... enefits-/1

Most politicians don't know what a day's work is because they haven't done one. They spend their time playing the fiddle and raising money. But if you work for a living it's just opposite. Trying to work until you're 70 is not likely for most people.

TRY getting a job! Then work till 70

Problems with social security lies with the misuse of funds by our government and using the fund as welfare for people who have never worked. IMO

very true oldguy. They use the social security fund for other purposes. Which not too long ago I heard someone was going to investigate that since it is actually like a trust fund and should not have other money drawn from it. Of course the federal government is not on our system.

Originally Posted by uniteasone

very true oldguy. They use the social security fund for other purposes. Which not too long ago I heard someone was going to investigate that since it is actually like a trust fund and should not have other money drawn from it. Of course the federal government is not on our system.

Is it true that members of Congress do not have to pay into Social Security?

A: No, it is not true. All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984. They pay into the system just like everyone else. Thus all members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.

(Prior to this time, most Federal government workers and officials were participants in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) which came into being in 1920--15 years before the Social Security system was formed. For this reason, historically, Federal employees were not participants in the Social Security system.)

Employees of the three branches of the federal government, were also covered starting in January 1984, under the 1983 law--but with some special transition rules.

1) Executive and judicial branch employees hired before January 1, 1984 were given a one-time irrevocable choice of whether to switch to Social Security or stay under the old CSRS. (Rehired employees--other than rehired annuitants--are treated like new employees if their break-in-service was more than a year.)

2) Employees of the legislative branch who were not participating in the CSRS system were mandatorily covered, regardless of when their service began. Those who were in the CSRS system were given the same one-time choice as employees in the executive and judicial branches.

3) All federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984 are mandatorily covered under Social Security--the CSRS system is not an option for them.

So there are still some Federal employees, those first hired prior to January 1984, who are not participants in the Social Security system. All other Federal government employees participate in Social Security like everyone else.

This change was part of the 1983 Amendments to Social Security. You can find a summary of the 1983 amendments elsewhere on this site.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Older workers are discriminated against. I dont think raising the retirement age to 70 is a good idea. Some older workers will end up homeless or end up having to take a reduced SS check unfairly because they are forced to retire due to discrimination.

Furthermore, workplace protections have been eroded over the years. Jobs are much more exhausting than they use to be. Many times workers are expected to do two or three different jobs. If they want to up the retirement age, then they will have to do something about workplace stress and abuse. They will also have to do something about the discrimination that older workers face.

The way things are, I think the retirement age should actually be reduced to about 60. Cant have it both ways. Clean up the corruption and abuses in the workplace, or let people retire earlier. Raise the minimum wage to at least double what it is now. That will bring in more tax money and more SS money. It will also stimulate the economy. And I dont want to hear employers whining how they will be so poor...blah...blah...blah.

During the last 30 years, protections in the workplace have been eroded and our country has eroded along with it. Strengthen the worker and you strengthen the country. Our best years as a country were when the worker was strong and protected by laws and unions.

that's good to know johndoe. And there was some other info there too.

Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Originally Posted by oldguy

Problems with social security lies with the misuse of funds by our government and using the fund as welfare for people who have never worked. IMO

Yes like all the illegals from Mexico! Their government teaches them how - we know this. Social Security was not set up to give to people other than what worked for it - it even screws some of the people that worked for it - so our government really messed up bad giving it to strangers.

"If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?" he said.

Because people like me are paying $300 or $400 a week for 50 years that's why. Stop giving my money away and acting like getting some of it back is wrong. Funny how they can give out trillions of dollars to their bankster friends is ok, but people like me getting some of the money I payed in to ss is a crime. John Bonner is hack just like all the other asses who rule over us are.