Presidential Contenders Spar Over Social Security Changes

News
Social Security
By Toi Williams / June 4, 2015
Share
Share

Several of the contenders vying to compete for the presidency in 2016 have had a lot to say about Social Security in the past few months. Social Security is an important issue for a wide range of voters, not just senior citizens. Millennials are now a major force as voters and currently comprises the majority of the American workforce. Everyone that is paying into the system want answers on how the stability of the public benefits program will be ensured for the future.

The presidential candidates on the Republican side have caused some controversy with talk of raising the national retirement age for those that retire in the future. Currently, the retirement age for full Social Security benefits is age 65 for those born in 1937 or before. It rises in two-month increments for those born in 1938 and later, increasing to age 66 for those born between 1943 and 1954 and rising to age 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida have made similar proposals to increase the normal retirement age to 69. Presidential hopeful Rand Paul is in favor of raising the retirement age for younger workers. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has also made recent comments regarding raising the retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 68 to 70 in an interview with CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

Bush, who is said to still be exploring a presidential bid, said during the interview, “We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from 65 to 68 or 70.” He claimed that the move would help sustain the retirement system for “anybody under the age of 40.” During the interview, he also mentioned being open to reducing Social Security benefits for wealthy people and their beneficiaries

Democratic contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for the expansion of Social Security benefits in the past, commented on Bush’s statement with a statement of his own. Sanders remarked, “At a time when more than half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings, it would be a disaster to cut Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age.” He went on to say, “It is unacceptable to ask construction workers, truck drivers, nurses and other working-class Americans to work until they are 68 to 70 years old before qualifying for full Social Security benefits.”

Related Posts
About the author

Toi Williams

When it comes to professional writers, very few match the level of Toi Williams. Although she has only been a published writer for 10 years, During that time her work has impacted millions of readers. Today, the majority of Toi’s work focuses on personal finance and finance-related topics although she delves into the world of healthcare as well. Toi is originally from Columbus, Ohio, having grown up with a father who was a prolific writer and professor, and a mother who was a business executive.

Leave a comment:

2 comments
Carroll George - June 5, 2015

The Social Security system is supported by workers. The ratio of persons now on Social Security is well over twice what it was in the 30s, and workers are paying the bill. Because the WWII Boomers, a more than twice the number of persons in their age group put more than twice the amount in the Fund that accounts for the 2033 or 2030 reserve, the government did not have to increase the retirement age to keep the ratio of beneficieres to supporting working taxpayers at an affordable ratio.

Social Security is a pay as you go. My almost 6 times my share was paid for by the Boomers extra 15 or so extra trillion dollars, a national debt hidden in the Social Security Fund. Government recorded all that 2033 reserve the Boomers put in there, but they did not record that us olsters used it all up by 2010 when they started increasing the national spending by converting those IOU notes deposited when the annual excesses were used for other government expenses.

Those Boomers are already retiring, changing from tax paying contributors to benefit receivers, a simple fact that will bankrupt the economy. One possibility would be to reward them from the Social Security Fund to charitably delay their retirement for as many or as few years as they choose, perhaps a 10% reward for their retirement kitty for charitably donating , per year of delay, their benefits and tax to the unfunded Social Security, saving their children and grandchildren from that gargantuan bill of paying their benefits over twice as long a period as the system was designed for.

The official retirement date could be changed to a reasonable like 70 but give the retirement reward counting from the present retirement date. Retirees children and grandchildren are paying the bill. That should affect how potential retirees would respond to the hard facts.

Reply
Carroll George - June 5, 2015

The WWII Boomer age group contained more than twice the normal persons in an age group, so they deposited more than twice the normal amount in the S.S. fund during their working years that the government shows as the reserve. What the government did not record was how all the Boomer surplus was paid to developing increase in life expectancy.

Those Boomers are now retiring and all of their surplus 15 or so trillion dollars has been paid to us oldsters. That will surely bankrupt our economy. Why cant we give anyone, from the Social Security, a reward for most charitably delaying their retirement as many years as they choose for the charitable gift to the common good of their benefits and payroll tax. The retirees children and grandchildren, are paying that monstrous bill should appreciate that, otherwise our economy will go bankrupt under the terrific load of the Boomers changing from an excess number of contributors to an excess number of takers.

Reply
Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: