Saturday, September 4, 2010

Let's talk Social Security...

About the only thing GOP and Democrats seem to agree on lately is that raising the retirement age is the best way to solve SSI insolvency issues right now.

Even the Democrats don't want to increase the SSI deduction rate, probably because they know that Federal income taxes are about to get hiked anyway, and adding more deductions will only make them look worse come election time.

This is a great time to make the point that it isn't too late to get America back on track with what SSI was supposed to be... a supplemental source of security and income for the elderly.

By leaving the retirement age where it is, and allowing benefits to remain structured as they are, people MY age are forced to provide their primary retirement income in some other way (401k, IRAs, pensions, etc) rather than plan on living on the $1,100 per month that SSI will provide them. That $1,100/month is a security net... nothing more. It was never intended to be anything more, and far, far too many people have finished their working years planning on retiring with only their SSI as income. Raising the retirement age only puts a greater burden on the private insurance sector (where premiums are already sky high) or, worse yet, forces the promotion of Obama's health care programs because private insurance won't cover people working 20 to 40 hours a week when they are over the age of 64... meaning MediCare must provide for them and adding to the fiscal burden of the program. The employer-associated costs of health care for elderly employees will make hiring them a particular burden, should the retirement age be raised to 69, perhaps, adding two years to more than 16 million potential retirees' health insurance needs before retirement.

Keeping the benefits right where they are now, and not raising the retirement age, is the easiest way to keep the program solvent, I think. People who are close to our (the Bund's) age will simply HAVE to provide alternative primary income in our retirement years... or be forced to live on $1,100 a month, and that is NOT an easy prospect... nor is it likely to get easier as the next 25 years roll by.

No comments: