3
The rich get all the perks, including old age
As the budget battle to cut entitlements heats up, some argue that raising the retirement age will force the poor to subsidize the rich because the rich live longer.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
What does the federal budget debate have to do with life expectancy? Like everything else, our golden years come with a bill. For the government, that takes the form of Social Security. Now, amid talk of cutting such entitlement programs, it seems that rolling back Social Security could affect the rich and poor unequally.
We’re living longer, to the average age of 78, so why not start collecting Social Security benefits just a little bit later? Eric Kingson, who teaches social work at Syracuse University, labels that question a “seductive thought.”
But before we start tinkering with our benefits, he says that we should remember that Congress already raised the eligibility age, for full benefits, by two years, back in the '80s.
“So we’re already cutting benefits for anyone born after 1959,” he says.
Kingson notes that Congress found delaying full benefits until the age of 67 would hurt almost a third of Americans. Now, he says, making the eligibility age even older will hit the poor the hardest. Because, while the wealthy are living longer, the poor are not.
"Those on the lower end, the lower half of the income distribution, their life expectancies have stagnated and some have actually even reversed," says Maya Rockeymoore, president of consulting firm Global Policy Solutions.
She says forcing people to wait even longer for full benefits would mean the poor get a shorter retirement than the rich.
“When you have people who disproportionately die at younger ages their contributions to social security actually go to subsidize the retirement of people who are longer lived and higher income," Rockeymoore says.
And, as for the argument that since we’re living longer we can work longer, according to Eric Kingson, that also depends on your income. The wealthier you are, the better chance you have to choose how long to keep working.
Another shameful, sloppy segment by liberals. There was no mention of why the poor die sooner, leaving the listener to assume it is lack of adequate healthcare. Shouldn't journalists be asking why, particularly before producing a report? BTW, the poor have better healthcare than the middle class via medicaid with no copays and deductibles. So...
Let me go out on a big limb to postulate that the facts are that the poor are more likely to make unhealthy choices: more smoking and an unhealthy diet. Therefore they die sooner, not due to income, but due to choices within their control throughout their life. Don't blame my income on their diabetes, cancer, etc., which cuts off their soc sec benefits (but not before lots of medicare and/or medicaid benefits are often paid). Further, even if a ss recipient dies, survivor benefits increase from previous spousal benefits when applicable.
Since this fluffy piece implied that the poor were disadvantaged with the current (and even more with potiental changes to) soc sec actuarial tables, let's also consider that higher income ss recipients pay income tax on (85% of) their ss benefits while the poorer do not. Yes, it is income tax not FICA, but it is all one big pot given the fed gty of ss benefits, and that all ss funds are invested in fed bonds.
The ss issue is quite complex, so shame on you to give it a few minutes by a rookie, doing more harm than good.
One legitimate issue, too deep for this fluffy piece, is that many lower income jobs are brawn not brains, and those so employed are less able to hang on into older age than are desk-jockeys. Seems to me that this predicament can be handled through the realistic use of ss's current disability program, allowing the actuarial tables to honestly reflect the population being covered, as they should.
Next time, pls either do the topic justice or shut up.
You did not mention that the benefits payouts are larger proportionately for those with lower incomes, so they are already getting subsidized by the higher income earners. And remember that all income groups are getting lifetime benefits that greatly exceed their payments into the plan. The present day workers are actually subsidizing those retirees. What's the alternative, letting everyone's benefits be reduced by 25% in a couple decades from now, or forcing those still working to pay even more? We have to face facts that we have let politicians hoodwinked us into unsustainable expectations. Promises now, let someone else will pay for it! Now we see that everyone has to give up something, that's what fair share means.
