Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Don't raise the Social Security retirement age cont'd

A reader writes in with some good further thoughts on Social Security. Pay particular attention to No. 3:

(1) You indicate that some people work on their feet and strain their backs. True, but it's also true that the Dilbert comic strip is not a work of fiction. Sitting in a cubicle in front of a computer screen will eventually drain your body, mind, and spirit. Most of us retire because we have to. A fortunate few retire when they want to. Very very few retire just because their age matches some magic number on some government agency's website.

I retired because life in Dilbertville had become unbearable. If I had stayed longer, I believe it could well have been fatal.

(2) If you're really paying attention, you'd know that the actual full Social Security retirement age has always been 70.

People born when I was (1944) are told that their full retirement age is 66, and that they can begin collecting benefits up to 48 months earlier at a reduced rate. What seems to be much less well-known is that you can begin collecting benefits up to 48 months later at an increased rate.

As a person with a degree in mathematics and who is perfectly capable of using numbers to deceive, I regard that as an exercise in deception. It would be much more straightforward and honest to simply state that the full retirement age is 70 and that you can begin collecting benefits up to 96 months earlier at a reduced rate, and then publish a single reduced rate table. When you understand that the retirement age is actually 70, then it's obvious that the political talk about raising the retirement age has got absolutely nothing to do with actual retirement ages and is really just code for adjusting the benefits tables so that most people will retire with less benefit.

(3) If the politicians actually mean that people should work longer, they themselves have got a lot of work to do in order to make that realistic. Age discrimination laws and enforcement will have to be much tougher, and employers will have to be required to provide reasonable accommodations for older workers such as flexible work hours and increased sick leave benefits.

I'd also recommend this post from Mark Thoma.

By Ezra Klein  |  September 7, 2010; 1:20 PM ET
Categories:  Social Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why the ER is so crowded
Next: Rob Atkinson: 'What the president is doing is very useful and nice, but it doesn’t get to the fundamental question' [UPDATED]

Comments

Option 2 may disappear. That would make me sad.

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/110473/social-security-payback-option-may-disappear

Posted by: will12 | September 7, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I should rephrase, that would make me sad if social security still exists when I'm 70. I'm 23 and don't expect to see a dime of social security.

Posted by: will12 | September 7, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

" Age discrimination laws and enforcement will have to be much tougher, and employers will have to be required to provide reasonable accommodations for older workers such as flexible work hours and increased sick leave benefits."

Be careful what you wish for. The most obvious form of age discrimination comes in higher pay for older people because they are older, often despite their decreasing utility.

Why should they get increased sick leave benefits or different hours from everyone else? That sounds like discrimination, not anti-discrimination!

"I retired because life in Dilbertville had become unbearable. If I had stayed longer, I believe it could well have been fatal."
Total nonsense, although from the POV of his hedonic adaption, likely how he actually sees the world. Why not quit working in the cube and go coal mining for a few years, or even McDonald's? You'll be begging for the cube. Of course, he is likely too prideful to do that.

Posted by: staticvars | September 7, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company