Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What would you say if we extended Social Security benefits to people 55 or older

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:06 PM
Original message
What would you say if we extended Social Security benefits to people 55 or older
who suddenly find themselves unemployed and also unemployable?

What if we also provided full-time status to workers willing to work only 32 hours? They would be legible for full benefits but work less hours.

What if people with two part time jobs would be able to buy into Medicare and pay a premium in order to get medical benefits?

Just a few thoughts about the future if, as many folks feel, job creation is not going to be as robust as it once was
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Extend a Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. and medicare
the cost of insure keeps many people working that might be able to otherwise afford it. I think it's a great idea and would open up jobs for young people graduating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I am all for that.
We should be pushing for all those changes.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Im all for it, since i"m close to that age and unemployed and apparently unemployable.
further, people of my generation have put in more money into social security than any other, so we probably deserve it more, if you looked at it strictly as money paid in vs. money going out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
38. I am with you Lerkfish. I have paid into SSI for over 35 years. I am to young to retire and too old
to get a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
41. Yes, we are the only generation that paid into SS for ourselves as well as parents and grandparents
That's how the Social Security Trust Fund was established. With the extra money that we put in for ourselves.

Unfortunately, that money was used to run the country so that great tax cuts could be giveen to high-income people and corporations.

They don't want to give the money back. I guess they think they stole it "fair and square" and so they should get to keep it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Enthusiastially support it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Interesting ideas
They would help me out. I am 56, and legally blind in one eye. My wife works as an adjunct government instructor for 2 local community colleges and 1 University (2 classes at each) which equates to 3 part time jobs. I was a graduate assistant until I got my MA and graduated, so now our insurance is through Cobra and I am not able to find a teaching job because of my vision issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. 58 seems to be a magical number for companies who force early retirement
Our company has had several waves in the last 10 years where they offer deals or otherwise persuade people 58 and older to retire. My dad was forced to retire at 58 (30 years ago).

It is very difficult for anyone 55 or older to get another job that pays what they were getting paid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. People under 55 aren't going to go for a Soc Sec expansion, and rightfully so.
We already know Social Security won't be there for us. And nobody likes to fund a benefit that they themselves can never receive. Certainly nobody wants to INCREASE the cost of a benefit that they themselves will never receive.

The 32-hour workweek idea I'm not so sure on. Workers would be paid less (and hourly workers would work less - everything would be the same for salaried folk, except the lower pay) but more of us would have jobs (that pay less). I'm not certain that the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it could be an interesting discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. A big portion of the workforce would LOVE a 32 hr workweek
since so many people have to fight like hell to get more than 20-24 hrs a week..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Those people are going to face 16-18 hour workweeks, then.
Whatever's done on one side of the equation must be balanced on the other side...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Part of the balance could be provided by the expansion of SS
I believe we would see a lot of over 55's retire and it would open jobs for others. I have seen younger people here bitch cause those old people are holding on to all the jobs and ask why the hell they don't all retire? Most still working are doing so cause they need the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. No doubt. But we all know Soc Sec is not something you can retire on.
So only the segment of the 55+ population that could already reasonably afford early retirement would benefit. That's sort of like taking from working Peter to give to already-able-to-independently-fund-retirement Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Whether it is enough to retire on or not it is all many will have
30 years of declining/stagnating wages haven't left a lot with much else. Add in several crashes in the markets over these years and even those who managed to try to put some back aren't solvent. The choices are to work forever or make do on SS. If we choose the work forever option, there's those jobs the younger generations are waiting on tied up for a lot more years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. If people make more greeting at malwart than they would get from Soc Sec
they are not going to give up those jobs to "make do on SS." That's my only point here. Lowering Soc Sec age as an incentive for older workers to retire ONLY benefits those who can already afford to retire without additional funds from Soc Sec (before age 65).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Perhaps there are people who have a little but not quite enough
Perhaps the amount of SS would be just enough extra for them to make it.

I don't expect to ever see this happen but I do know some who would retire if it did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. You do realize, of course....
...that, even by today's rules, the younger you are when you start to receive Social Security benefits, the less you get monthly. You get less if you retire at 62 than you do if you retire at 65 and you get less if you retire at 65 than if you retire at 70. And at that, what you get at 70 isn't all that much. So how do you figure that what people could draw if they retired at 55 would be enough for them to live on (while some inexperienced young whippersnapper tries to take over the job s/he was pushed out of)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
39. You are buying into the propaganda that Social Security won't be there for us. What happened to all
the trust funds? Wouldn't simply lifting the cap on contributions FIX the faux 'problem' forever anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. I would jump for joy, with one exception.
That would be a step in the right direction (genuine health care for all), in sharp contrast with concepts such as taxing decent employee health insurance benefits.

But insofar as the Social Security benefits are concerned, I would rather see this labeled as SSI or welfare, to ensure there is a distinction between this and the retirement benefit that kicks in at age 65 or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. It would be taking an early retirement.
They would still be free to take part time jobs but would have the ability to be more flexible in their professional life. This would actually work to make the workforce more professional goal oriented instead of job oriented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. No.
Bad idea. Such a thing would reduce the monthly pension below a level that could be reasonably considered a safety net. Participation in Social Security, as a realistic safety net, should not be optional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. It's would be an option for people to take...
If they decide then they will live with the consequence...

So yes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Why not just give people an option at any age to direct SS contributions to a personal 401(k)?
It's an idea that's been had already and it's called privatization. That was a bad idea and yours is another one.

The problem with letting people live with the consequences is, the rest of us live with their consequences too. Apparently you don't think it's important for Social Security should provide a safety net. I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Social Security already covers the disabled. What makes a person unemployable?
Be a better idea ot offer it to people 55 years and older and forget the "unemployable" part.

What about workers whose employers will only work them for 31 hours and 59 minutes. Quite a few companies faced with providing health benefits to full time employees simply limit their hours to 39 hours a week. Setting a number of hours that way leaves the door open for abuse.

What if we opened medicare for anyone to buy into and not worry about work. I don't mean the approximatley $1,200.00 a year it costs seniors pluss deductions, etc.. (Medicare costs about 470 million a year now for the tax payer.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. What's making many unemployable right now in this age group is employers will not hire them.
SSI does not solve that problem as many of them are not disabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnlinePoker Donating Member (837 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. And pay for it how?
SS can't even support itself now with the government ripping off every dollar put into it. If anything, it should go the other way. When the program began, only about 57% of adults made it to 65 and then the average life expectancy after that was 13.5 years. By 1990, around 77% of adults made it to 65 and life expectancy after that had increased to 17.5%. As of 2000, there were over 34.5 million Americans older than 65. This program is unsustainable without increasing the FICA taxes, something nobody wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Tax corporations, end the oil wars. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. First stop using it for other purposes. Then do what should already have been done and lift the cap.
I heard the President say a couple of weeks ago that SS is not in trouble now and it could be sustainable for the forseeable future by lifting the cap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. How do you propose we pay for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Over the long haul, prices would fall or people who aren't materialistic
might be able to seek jobs that are more full filling.

But again, this would be an option for workers and not mandatory.

Think of the flexibility and not the cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Love it!
If only...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. I am all for it. I am unemployable at 55. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. Can we throw in Medicare? I LOVE your idea, but it would probably make the national debt even
worse than the CBO projection.

With the new PayGo rules, what would we cut to pay for this?

Kick and Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. People could buy into Medicare not for the current 1.45% but at a hirer
more realistic rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
27. Provide them with medicare and they'll be more likely to get jobs.
The economics don't work for what you suggest, but making medicare kick in early, at age 50, would free companies from their quest to phase out those over 50 for health insurance reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
29. Good ideas.
Edited on Fri Mar-12-10 04:33 PM by mmonk
A much cheaper way to go and hardly difficult. Also, having persons who are a younger population will make Medicare less susceptible to being bothered by politicians and cost factor concerns. Also, over 50 and less than 65 is when the largest increases in premiums occur and people who lose their jobs in that age category have a harder time being rehired into a job with benefits in the private sector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech9413 Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
30. That works for me
Even if I weren't a beneficiary of the change in SS I'd consider it a good first step toward UHC.
I quit working in 2002 but would love to get back to work. I have 89 y/o parents to take care of and my profession has turned into a joke. I'd work for nothing if I could mentor someone who could do what I did for another generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
34. Dunno about SS expansion--that doesn't fit into the calculations
--indicating solvency for a good bit into the future. Medicare is a different matter. If there is to be less work permanently, a 32 hour week would be a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-12-10 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. Yer crazy! We can't afford that.
We got banks to keep afloat. We got insurance companies to appease. We got agribusiness to subsidize.

And we got wars to fight.

We gots no time for welfare slackers. Buy 'em some boostraps and tell to back the fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
37. I turn 60 next month and would love to open up my job for a younger man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
40. Far too reasonable so it will never happen, and because it smacks as a "Socialist Win"
Wars are fought over that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-13-10 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
42. I'll vote for that ...Oh noes ...that's something I can't vote for.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC