Reply
Periodic Contributor

OLDER Americans and AARP should agree to defer social security benefits

Everyone talks about the patriotism of older Americans.  My hat goes off to the 'Greatest Generation,' (born between 1901 - 1927) and the 'Silent Generation, (born between 1928-1945). 

 

At age 63, I am part of the baby boomers, that massive group, about which everyone is wringing their hands due to fear of a bankrupt Social Security system.  In the meantime, our nation is accumulating a massive and crippling debt which our children and grandchildren will inherit. 

 

Personally, I am tired of getting emails from AARP encouraging me to contact my elective representatives on behalf of the rights of us old folks.  I would rather see articles and petitions which encourage us to be part of the solution.  In fact, I think we should be advocating for the government to delay and or reduce our social security benefits. 

 

I want to encourage older Americans who have the means to support themselves to not become part of the incessant whining about OUR RIGHTS.  I know we all have a bunch of 'bucket lists items' and feel we have 'PAID OUR FAIR SHARE,' but I think this is a selfish attitude. 

 

I would like to see more from AARP encouraging us to do the same. 

0 Kudos
412 Views
23
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@RichardM11393 wrote:

 

 . . . .  In fact, I think we should be advocating for the government to delay and or reduce our social security benefits. 

 

I want to encourage older Americans who have the means to support themselves to not become part of the incessant whining about OUR RIGHTS.  I know we all have a bunch of 'bucket lists items' and feel we have 'PAID OUR FAIR SHARE,' but I think this is a selfish attitude. 

 

I would like to see more from AARP encouraging us to do the same. 


Of course, any American could just not file for their Social Security benefits and the funds would never be removed.

 

However, the system needs fixing - not just for now but for the long term for those who come after and want their benefits that they have paid into for their working career.  The Actuaries say that SS needs to be analyzed and plans made to fund it for 75 years.

 

It is not just the money coming out that is causing the problem - it is the amount of revenues that are coming into the system.  In 1955, we had 16.5 people paying into the system for (1) person on benefits; today we have (2).  Robots don't have to pay into the system - maybe they should.

 

If you make the program need based - they it is no longer a social justice program, it is just another welfare program - far from the initial design.

 

Those with a higher benefit for having a higher salary during their working years, are already taking a cut based on the benefit formula bend points.  In comparison, those who had the lowest salary during their working years reap a higher benefit because of these bend points.

 

Those with higher income that are already receiving benefits pay taxes on their benefit which in turn goes into the Trust Fund so they add even more revenue to the kitty.

 

I support Congressman  John Larsons (D,CT) Social Security 2100 Act

He introduced it in 2019.  HR 860  - seems fair and up to the time that the Covid virus hit, it did the trick money wise - a mix of added revenues, some benefit increases and some benefit decreases.  I do not know what the shortfall is currently because of the virus and massive unemployment.

 

 

Silver Conversationalist

First we need to identify the problem.

Medicare and Medicaid are not the problem.

Pensions are not the problem.

Illegal immigrants are not the problem.

NPR, PBS, NEA, NEH, are not the problem.

Food stamps and welfare are the problem.

 

While these programs aren't perfect, their cost is chump change.

No one needs to stop cashing SS checks.

The problem is the distribution of wealth.

 

Wealth inequality in the United States is high and has increased sharply in recent decades. This increase—alongside a parallel increase in income inequality—has spurred increased attention to the implications of inequality for living standards and increased interest in policy instruments that can combat inequality. Taxes on wealth are a natural policy instrument to address wealth inequality and could raise substantial revenue while shoring up structural weaknesses in the current income tax system.

 

This issue brief provides an overview of the distribution of wealth in the United States to inform discussion of a potential net worth tax—or other reforms to the taxation of wealth—in the United States. This brief draws from “Net worth taxes: What they are and how they work,” by Greg Leiserson, Will McGrew, and Raksha Kopparam.1

Download FileTHE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR A NET WORTH TAX

A net worth tax is an annual tax imposed on an individual or family’s wealth, or net worth. Wealth is the difference between the value of a family’s assets and liabilities. Assets are things a family owns, including both financial assets such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and ownership stakes in closely held businesses, and nonfinancial assets such as a car, house, or real estate. Liabilities are a family’s debts such as mortgages, credit card balances, and car loans.

 

Wealth is distributed in a highly unequal fashion, with the wealthiest 1 percent of families in the United States holding about 40 percent of all wealth and the bottom 90 percent of families holding less than one-quarter of all wealth.2 Notably, 25 percent of families have less than $10,000 in wealth. The share of wealth held by the wealthiest families substantially exceeds the share of income received by the highest-income families.

 

Wealth disparities have widened over time. In 1989, the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population held 33 percent of all wealth. By 2016, The highly skewed distribution of wealth is one of the primary reasons the burden of a net worth tax would be highly progressive.3 Moreover, systematic differences in wealth across age, race and ethnicity, and educational attainment mean that a net worth tax would shift the burden of the tax system not only from poor to rich, but also from younger families to older families and from families of color to white families. Median wealth for a family with a head of household younger than 35 years old in 2016 was $11,000, while median wealth for a family with head of household age 65 to 74 was $224,000. (See

 
 
 

Median wealth for families in which the survey respondent was white and not Hispanic or Latino in 2016 was $171,000. Median wealth for families in which the survey respondent was black or African American and not Hispanic or Latino was $17,000, and median wealth for families in which the survey respondent was Hispanic or Latino was $21,000. Median wealth for all other families was $65,000. (The sample for the Survey of Consumer Finances is too small to disaggregate wealth among the diverse groups that make up this population.)

 
 
 

Families in which the household head has a 4-year college degree had median wealth of $292,000 in 2016. In contrast, families in which the household head had attended some college or has an associate degree had median wealth of $66,000, and families in which the household head has a high school diploma had median wealth of $67,000. Families in which the head did not have a high school diploma had median wealth of only $23,000.

Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Donald Trump
0 Kudos
379 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

RichardM11393 posted..

 

I want to encourage older Americans who have the means to support themselves to not become part of the incessant whining about OUR RIGHTS.  I know we all have a bunch of 'bucket lists items' and feel we have 'PAID OUR FAIR SHARE,' but I think this is a selfish attitude. 

 

================================================

 

Its sad that many have the idea that when I retire I will get from SS enough to live the way I have.  They do not understand or want to understand that IF ABLE its up to each citizen to save for retirement.  Much of that thinking is from our Congress...making promises that are not keep and/or are not achievable.

0 Kudos
349 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@KidBoy2 

 

Yep, seems that "3-Legged Stool" has been replace with ONE leg and it is hard to get it to stand up.

0 Kudos
488 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

If I were wealthy enough, I'd forgo benefits.  But I planned my retirement assuming social security, and at 53, I can't back away now.  

 

I'd much rather see the cap removed from income.  Anything you earn over $137,000 is now free from deductions.  Make all earnings subject to FICA. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressive wrote:

 

 

I'd much rather see the cap removed from income.  Anything you earn over $137,000 is now free from deductions.  Make all earnings subject to FICA. 


They also DON'T get a benefit calculation for anything over the current cap.

That is the reason for the cap - it is in direct proportion to the top benefit paid.

 

Removing the cap does little to fix the problem because with a higher cap, comes a higher benefit even if it adjusted with another bend point.

0 Kudos
341 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Raise the cap back to where Reagan had it  so it covers 90% of income and raise it so 90% of income - about $300,000 today -, and continue to tax benefits for the well to do retirees, returning that revenue to the SSTF and Social Security current benefit payments are secure for the next 75 years.

 

This is rejected by GOPers and their lemmings because???? it saves the system by taking money from those who can afford it instead of increasing the cost (rate) for those who cannot afford it????

 

VOTE THEM OUT

THEN

LOCK THEM UP

Honored Social Butterfly

It will take more than those actions, OlderScout66 -  but there are lots to choose from - all or part.

Office of the Chief Actuary's Estimates of Proposals to Change Social Security : Proposals to Change... 

 

I like this one particularly - a great starting point.

John Larson's (D, CT) Social Security 2100 Act 

 

But I also like some of the Republican ideas to add into the mix.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
492 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@RichardM11393 wrote:

Everyone talks about the patriotism of older Americans.  My hat goes off to the 'Greatest Generation,' (born between 1901 - 1927) and the 'Silent Generation, (born between 1928-1945). 

 

At age 63, I am part of the baby boomers, that massive group, about which everyone is wringing their hands due to fear of a bankrupt Social Security system.  In the meantime, our nation is accumulating a massive and crippling debt which our children and grandchildren will inherit. 

 

Personally, I am tired of getting emails from AARP encouraging me to contact my elective representatives on behalf of the rights of us old folks.  I would rather see articles and petitions which encourage us to be part of the solution.  In fact, I think we should be advocating for the government to delay and or reduce our social security benefits. 

 

I want to encourage older Americans who have the means to support themselves to not become part of the incessant whining about OUR RIGHTS.  I know we all have a bunch of 'bucket lists items' and feel we have 'PAID OUR FAIR SHARE,' but I think this is a selfish attitude. 

 

I would like to see more from AARP encouraging us to do the same. 


Not when most seniors are struggling to buy food, prescription drugs and pay rent.

 

I would rather see Trump's tax scam rescinded and stop allowing corporations who make over ten billion dollars in profit to pay nothing in taxes!!!!!!

 

 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

 

I would rather see Trump's tax scam rescinded and stop allowing corporations who make over ten billion dollars in profit to pay nothing in taxes!!!!!!

 

 


That doesn't have anything to do with Social Security or Medicare - they have a dedicated (by law) revenue stream - a couple of them, some of which ONLY the more well-off pay.

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

 

I would rather see Trump's tax scam rescinded and stop allowing corporations who make over ten billion dollars in profit to pay nothing in taxes!!!!!!

 

 


That doesn't have anything to do with Social Security or Medicare -

But it does with the national debt the topic's author brought up.

 

they have a dedicated (by law) revenue stream -

And I never stated otherwise.

 

a couple of them, some of which ONLY the more well-off pay.

When the "well-off" incomes hit a cap, they pay nothing into Social Security  .... and THAT'S the problem!


 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
0 Kudos
396 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

 

I would rather see Trump's tax scam rescinded and stop allowing corporations who make over ten billion dollars in profit to pay nothing in taxes!!!!!!

 

 


That doesn't have anything to do with Social Security or Medicare -

1.  But it does with the national debt the topic's author brought up.

 

they have a dedicated (by law) revenue stream -

2.  And I never stated otherwise.

 

a couple of them, some of which ONLY the more well-off pay.

3.  When the "well-off" incomes hit a cap, they pay nothing into Social Security  .... and THAT'S the problem!


 


1.  SS Trust Fund - those special Treasuries - are actually debts to the US balance sheet - The US Treasury also pays the Trust Fund interest on that debt - well at least until we have cash one in to pay benefits.

 

2.  Sorry took it the wrong way

 

3.  The purpose of the cap is to limit benefits.  There is a direct proportion to the annual income cap and the annual maximum benefit.  Raise the cap, you raise the benefit even if we added in another bend point.

That's the problem with only raising the cap to help out the ole system - it does not work to completely fix the program - other changes have to also be done.

0 Kudos
341 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@RichardM11393      As a person that lived in a Communist/socialist society, I will not support that type of political and economic  type of policies.
I know for a fact that they don't work as well as they are touted. and to think that individuals will  accept that type of society is a dream. 
I truly believe that neither Capitalism and or Socialism  are the answers to any society.There needs to be a combination of both economic policies to be able to engage in a society that would work for all.
There will always people that will be entrepenours and individualists. that could not exist in a complete socialism type or economy, any more than there are people that will never be individualists or entrepenours in any society.
So you need a combination of both types in order to have a society that may contain  some sort of equality.
I also believe that no society has reached that perfection. therefore we have societies that  are what we have seen, in Russia, China and societies like the USA EU and other European countries.  Lately, we have seen the emergence of authoritarian types of societies that are nothing but wana be dictatorships or monarchies.
There is much evolution to be had and eventually we will see how we all evolve

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

Rather than asking the beneficiaries to sacrifice, it would make more sense to ask the administrators to fix the plan. 

Periodic Contributor

Imagine what would happen if there was a special interest lobby group called 'Responsible Americans,' who lobbied to help as individuals by agreeing to work longer and deferring social security benefits longer.  AARP has documented quite well that many Americans are living longer.  Why not give them the option to work longer without being penalized for not taking SS when the government currently mandates.  Those who feel they need the SS benefits sooner can take them.  Those who want to defer them should be given that choice without being penalized.  Win win for everyone.

 

I guess I am still thinking like a great president from the past who said, "Ask not what your country can do for YOU, but ask what YOU can do for your country.'  Seems like a better idea than having political arguments.

0 Kudos
368 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@RichardM11393 wrote:

Imagine what would happen if there was a special interest lobby group called 'Responsible Americans,' who lobbied to help as individuals by agreeing to work longer and deferring social security benefits longer.  AARP has documented quite well that many Americans are living longer.  Why not give them the option to work longer without being penalized for not taking SS when the government currently mandates.  Those who feel they need the SS benefits sooner can take them.  Those who want to defer them should be given that choice without being penalized.  Win win for everyone.

 

 


We already have a really great incentive to wait until 70 to file for benefits - I waited.

There is NO penalty to wait to file - work or not work -  waiting until 70 to file  - your benefits grown at about 8% per year .

 

You have lost me with your comments here ??  What are you trying to say???

Periodic Contributor

I am asking why not wait even longer.  Even with the 8% increase in benefits per year, I suspect the government still does better.  Why not offer the same 8% per year increase is someone works until they are 75. 

0 Kudos
426 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I am asking why not wait even longer.  Even with the 8% increase in benefits per year, I suspect the government still does better.  Why not offer the same 8% per year increase is someone works until they are 75. 

One thing I question whether they could offer 8% considering Social Security invests only in US government securities. The other question is when do I get my money back. I believe we calculated that if I start taking my benefits at age 70 I will break even at about age 85. Taking your benefits at 75 unless they guarantee that you will receive them means that you will be leaving money on the table should you die before say age 90the 

0 Kudos
384 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

 

1.  One thing I question whether they could offer 8% considering Social Security invests only in US government securities.

 

2.  The other question is when do I get my money back. I believe we calculated that if I start taking my benefits at age 70 I will break even at about age 85. Taking your benefits at 75 unless they guarantee that you will receive them means that you will be leaving money on the table should you die before say age 90the 


1.  It is about 8% per year of your FRA benefit.  Maybe they think you will die before filing.

It is actually 1/2 of 1% per money - it increases your PIA.

 

It was changed in 1977 - as government always does - it is an incentive to get you to do something that they want you to do -

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/11/SSR79-26-oasi-11.html 

In enacting the 1977 amendments, Congress intended to avoid weakening incentives for workers to remain in or return to the labor force by increasing the delayed retirement credits available. With wage indexing of earnings records, earnings after 65 do not increase benefits as much as they did before indexing and therefore an increase in the delayed retirement credit was warranted to accomplish the desired result. In addition, the Congress wished to have the widow's or widower's benefit include the delayed retirement credits that the worker had earned before his death.

 

2.  Get your money back ?????

Does not compute - your benefit is calculated based on salary during your working career.

I think you must be talking about figuring out the best age to take your benefit and the break even that would be associated with taking it early or later.

 

0 Kudos
357 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

2.  Get your money back ?????

Does not compute - your benefit is calculated based on salary during your working career.

I think you must be talking about figuring out the best age to take your benefit and the break even that would be associated with taking it early or later.

 


Dead people do not collect Social Security or any other benefits. If I waited until 75, I would be in my 90s before I broke even and got my money back. I hope to live to my mid 90's but .....

0 Kudos
338 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

@RichardM11393 

 

The current law would have to be changed because right now the delayed retirement credits stop at 70 even if you continue to work or don't file for benefits.

 

It use to be that the vast majority of beneficiaries file for early benefits between age 62 and their FRA.  Many did it at 65 - now whether they thought this was their FRA or it was just simplier when filing for Medicare at age 65 - who knows????

 

But now . . . .   Government has data and stats on everything.

Information about trends in employment at older ages and the age at which individuals claim Social Security benefits can help policymakers assess the effectiveness of current policies in influencing the timing of retirement and benefit claims.

  • Both the labor force participation rate (LFPR) among older Americans and the age at which they claim Social Security retirement benefits have risen in recent years. For example, from 2000 through 2018, the LFPR among individuals aged 65–69 rose from 30 percent to 38 percent for men and from 19 percent to 29 percent for women.
  • Since 2000, the proportion of fully insured men and women who claim retirement benefits at the earliest eligibility age of 62 has declined substantially.

SSA Research - Employment at Older Ages and Social Security Benefit Claiming, 1980–2018 

Honored Social Butterfly

If you want people to work longer before retiring perhaps you might want to promote healthier lifestyles, and decent medical coverage. And as Manic mentioned, get the more fortunate to pay their fair share, based on their increased income levels. 
The Social Security system overall is pretty good, and it just needs some tweaking...not running it into the ground...hint, hint, like they are trying to do with the Post Office. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@williamb39198 wrote:

If you want people to work longer before retiring perhaps you might want to promote healthier lifestyles, and decent medical coverage. And as Manic mentioned, get the more fortunate to pay their fair share, based on their increased income levels. 
The Social Security system overall is pretty good, and it just needs some tweaking...not running it into the ground...hint, hint, like they are trying to do with the Post Office. 


"They" being Republicans!

 

 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png