Menu
Personal finance
Burger King slims down for success
The Penguin-Random House merger: 3 takeaways
Dunkin' weathers storm to attract crowds
Inside Wall Street: Bank weathers its own storm
How Sandy will affect shipping business
The whopping US rally that wasn't
Disney acquires Lucasfilm for $4B
Late-inning earnings plays
Gilead's 'son of Viread' passes first test
Auto sales expected to stay strong into 2013
Why Yamana shares are soaring
Archer Daniels Midland is boring and cheap
Stericycle finds treasure in trash
Don't follow Icahn into Netflix
How to trade the US presidential election
David Einhorn is shorting iron ore
What's next for Exxon after Rosneft buy?
Who's right, Main Street or Wall Street?
Hershey shareholders sue for child labor records
China's growth picks up
Europe offsets Johnson Controls' Asia gains
CSX took too heavy a beating
In retail, pessimism doesn't pay
Illumina should reconsider Roche's offer
Downside of a higher retirement age
Now that the post-election entitlements fights are back in the spotlight, raising the Social Security retirement age will return to center stage as one of the common prescriptions for closing the program's long-term funding gap.



Increasing or entirely lifting the ceiling on taxable wages -- set at $113,700 in 2013 -- is another frequently mentioned proposal. Further down on the list are measures to change the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients and restrict payments to high-income beneficiaries, as well as a slew of benefit tweaks that could have a meaningful cumulative impact on program finances.



Unlike the government's other big safety net programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- Social Security is not facing imminent funding problems. With no changes at all, the program projects that it will pay all benefits for more than 20 years and would then be able to continue paying out roughly three-quarters of benefits.



Another misconception about Social Security is that it is floating in red ink. Actually, the program had a surplus of about $2.7 trillion in 2012. This cushion will grow further before being sapped by rising benefit payments triggered by millions of retiring baby boomers.



At first glance, raising the retirement age seems like a straightforward change that simply recognizes the demographic realities of aging. People are living longer than ever and are physically able to continue working into their 60s and even 70s. The economy will need more older workers because retiring boomers are being followed by a much smaller generation of workers.



Lastly, people will need to keep working more years for financial reasons -- to recover from the recession and to fund retirements that will last a long time.



Social Security is one of the ways they will boost retirement earnings, of course. Most people earn more money later in their working lives than when they were younger. So adding several years to people's Social Security earnings history is likely to boost their Social Security benefits when they do retire.



So what's not to like? According to a phalanx of liberal seniors groups -- foundations, think tanks, women's groups and other Social Security "preservationists" -- the longevity rationale for raising the retirement age doesn't apply to lower-income and less-educated men and, especially, women. They would get hammered by raising the retirement age. And they are precisely the group of Americans -- and a pretty big group at that -- that depends desperately on Social Security benefits for the bulk of their retirement incomes.



Here's the preservationist logic against raising the retirement age:



1. Social Security benefits are pegged so that a person reaching what the agency calls its "full retirement age" (FRA) is entitled to his or her full benefit. People retiring at the earliest age, which is now 62, get about 75% as much money each month from Social Security as if they had waited until their FRA -- 66 for those now approaching retirement.



It's also possible to defer taking Social Security until age 70, when the monthly benefit would be about 132% of what it is at age 66. This benefit structure was designed to be dollar-neutral to Social Security. Looking at longevity data and past decisions of beneficiaries, the agency figured that it will pay out the same amount of money regardless of when people elect to begin receiving benefits.



Raising the retirement age from 66 to 70 means that the time gap between early retirement at 62 and full retirement would be increased from four to eight years. This assumes it would still be possible to take early retirement at age 62. If the agency keeps its benefit structure in place, it no longer could afford to pay people 75% of their FRA benefit if they elected to begin receiving the benefit at age 62. Instead, that "value neutral" payment at age 62 would fall to about 57% of the full benefit.



2. In theory, longevity gains mean that if the FRA was raised to 70, early retirement might begin at age 66 and not 62. Raising the retirement age would thus shift everyone by four years. The system would save money by having to pay benefits for four fewer years. But individuals would not be so bad off, because they'd have worked for an extra four years and presumably boosted their retirement incomes during that period of extra work.



But while such longer lives are truly wonderful, they unfortunately are not being enjoyed by lower-income, less-educated people who work in physically taxing jobs. They're not living longer.

Wealthier and better-educated people, on balance, follow healthier lifestyles, seek out medical care and follow their doctors' advice in taking medications and related therapies for health problems.



3. Lower-income people often are not able to extend their working lives another four years. Many work in physically demanding jobs, and their bodies have worn out by the time they enter their 60s. People who retire at age 62 today tend to work in these low-income, physically demanding jobs. For them, early retirement is not a luxury but a forced necessity.



4. Raising the retirement age will thus sharply cut benefits of people who are still forced to seek early retirement. And these folks often have little set aside in the way of a retirement nest egg. Social Security benefits thus represent a very large percentage of their retirement incomes. Cutting those benefits, preservationists argue, is thus punitive as well as heartless.

Для печати
Microsoft will 'die and disappear' in next few years
Whole Foods' freshness starting to wilt
In a war of attrition, Microsoft will beat Apple again
Asbury Automotive sees strong earnings momentum
Student debtors get the runaround
What to keep in your money survival kit
First-date coupon use is on the rise
Groupon offers NYC dinner in the dark
The worst credit cards of 2012
Post-Sandy, banks waive fees
Homeowners spared costly hurricane deductible
7 ways to commit financial suicide
Why are car loans so easy to get?
Best credit cards after bankruptcy
Get more cash for your old clothes
5 fee-free ways to help Sandy victims
After a flood, frugality can be dangerous
After the storm: Rebuild or move?
My unexpected $2,400 vet bill
Best credit cards for holiday shopping
Downside of a higher retirement age
Prepaid cards are not gift cards
Is the economy destroying love?
Financial lesson from a football game
Book Christmas flights before Black Friday
6 ways to earn extra holiday cash
Holiday shopping? Avoid this retail trick
Many holding out for Cyber Monday
SiriusXM drives straight race to $3 a share
Sandy: Beware the bubble in storm stocks
Starbucks: Buy it, own it, love it
4 Canadian value stocks
What's the White House worth?
Stocks are immune to Washington
EMC strengthens RSA business with acquisition
Russia garners another favorable valuation call
Goldman Sachs slashes partnership ranks
Inside Wall Street: Cheers from Bud and Diageo
4 favorites for a housing rebound
Is Baidu's China reign over?
In 2013, Apple, Facebook will fly, Intel will die
Is AOL's turnaround for real?
Stock buyback blitz continues
Anheuser-Busch pushes higher-alcohol beers
Baidu: Searching for growth in China
Twitter vs. Facebook: The war heats up
Would Disney buy Hasbro?
Vending-machine pizza prepares for US debut
Amazon lockers coming to Staples
Are customers becoming less loyal to Apple?
Focus on earnings, not fiscal cliff
Evergreen stocks: 4 favorite dividend ideas
Visit Statistics
http://google.com/

http://bing.com/

https://gepatit-info.top/

https://serdechnic.com/

https://buy-meds24.com/

https://dverirespekt.ru/

https://www.sribno.net/

https://undergroundcityphoto.com/

https://detskiezabolevaniya.com/

http://grafaman.ru/

http://innoslicon.com/html/product/index.htm

https://yginekologa.com/

https://yes-com.com/

https://www.baikaleminer.com/

https://bitmaein.com/shop

https://www.artdeko.info/

https://aerodizain.com/

http://xn--d1abj0abs9d.in.ua/

http://lider82.ru/

http://sta-grand.ru/

http://snabs.kz/

https://sky-mine.ru/

https://rybalka-opt.ru/

http://snegozaderzhatel.ru/

https://xn--e1aaajzchnkg.ru.com/

http://hit-kino.ru/

http://www.regionshop.biz/

https://xn--80aaafbn2bc2ahdfrfkln6l.xn--p1ai/

https://pp-budpostach.com.ua/

https://vykup-avto-krasnodar.ru/

https://gcup.ru/

https://mega-polis.biz.ua/

http://vanrise.com.ua/

http://infra-e.ru/