Fla. GOP candidate Rubio favors raising retirement age

[babylonsister]

I wonder if this will fly in Florida?

Fla. GOP candidate favors raising retirement age

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Marco Rubio wants Americans to work longer and retire later to places like Florida, a stand that has drawn criticism from his Senate rivals and unnerves some in the Sunshine State where one out of every seven residents gets a Social Security check.

As the nation grapples with the fast-growing insolvency of entitlement programs, likely Republican nominee Rubio has proposed raising the retirement age and changing the calculation for providing benefits. Rubio wants to raise the full-retirement age, which now ranges from 65 to 67 depending on a person's birth year, until it reaches 70 in the next century.

"It's just going to have to be reformed because if left to its current status then it bankrupts itself and then it bankrupts America," said the 38-year-old Rubio. "If the system is now taking in less money than it's paying out, then it's only going to get worse as we have less workers and more retirees."

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FLORIDA_SENATE_SOCIAL_SECURITY?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Teka]

1. He is actually right on this one

A broken clock moment to be sure.

[leftofcool]

6. Those of us about to turn 64 would disagree with you

Many this close to retirement can not wait until they are 67, especially if they have worked for 50 years. Not to mention this would keep the younger crowd from getting jobs. Depends on what you want. Do you want the younger people to have the jobs us old folks will be leaving behind or do you want us old folks to work 3 more years than necessary and continue to fill the job market?

[Teka]

8. I would have no problem putting the higher retirement age 5-10 years in the future

To allow planning.

[leftofcool]

10. That would work

It would give the ones that are close the go ahead.

[laughingliberal]

38. At 55, I would object all over the place to it. nt

[Better Believe It]

62. Why wouldn't you?

[Johonny]

12. I agree

Sure there are some jobs working at 60-70 yrs old aren't that big a problem. But for many Americans their body isn't up to the task of 9 to 5 40-60 hr work weeks. People may be living longer but that was suppose to allow them to enjoy a few more autumn years, not to push every ounce of juice from them before pushing them off to the great beyond. They should just remove the income cap on SS and if they have to place a progressive escalator on it. The USA has more than enough GNP to allow its citizens to enjoy a modest retirement before death.

[Newest Reality]

23. +1

[DURHAM D]

13. I think you should make it clear your full retirement age is already 66. nt

[leftofcool]

15. Actually for many of us it is 65 depending on birthday

at least that is the date we can draw full social security. We figured out that we get a whole 13 dollars extra by waiting from 65 to 66. That will buy 2 six packs of beer though.

[DURHAM D]

19. So you are not waiting until your full retirement age? nt

[leftofcool]

24. I am hubby can't

I have a teachers retirement that I can rely on. Hubby has some retirement but it is small and he is not well so he must go ahead and retire at least by next year.

[laughingliberal]

35. 66 and 2 months for me. Born in 1955. nt

[csziggy]

14. But that will not make him popular with aging Florida voters

Think of all those Tea Party people who are Social Security or close to getting it - they will not be happy to have it pulled back.

On the other hand, think of all the voters who may be turned off Rubio by his stance. Yeah, Rubio, keep going this way!

[laughingliberal]

34. BS. Just one more trying to justify the theft of our payroll taxes over the last 30 years. nt

[Ikonoklast]

53. Wrong.

What do you do for a living?

[Teka]

55. Accountant. U?

[Ikonoklast]

56. No demanding physical labor involved there.

As I thought.

[Teka]

63. So that makes me less worthy of SS? My opinion doesn't count?

[timtom]

61. Perhaps if the administrations would keep their hands off the Social Security

we wouldn't be facing this sort of meltdown.

Perhaps if we got the fuck out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan we wouldn't be facing this sort of meltdown.

Perhaps if we had had stronger oversight over the Fed and the banking industry and financed a wild round of bonuses for a couple of years straight, we wouldn't be facing this sort of meltdown.

But, then, my priorities are not universally held...

[DCBob]

2. He is actually right about this but few politicians want to talk about it...

its not a very pleasant pill to swallow.

[leftofcool]

7. Maybe, maybe not

look at it this way. My husband has almost 50 years experience doing what he does and he will be 64 in two years. It will take 5 newly hired people to do what he does because they will have to be trained. Would you rather see him retired and 5 younger people have the jobs or have him keep doing his job for more years and no one get hired?

[DURHAM D]

17. What year were you born? nt

[leftofcool]

21. 1948

[DURHAM D]

26. So you are taking early retirement since your full retirement age is 66.

If you take early retirement this year (at 62) your SS payment will be reduced by 25% for the rest of your life.

Just pointing this out so other posters understand the trade off.

[leftofcool]

29. You mis understood

I am not taking my retirement until 66, hubby is. He will be taking his at 65 and the difference between money from 65 to 66 is about 13 dollars. Not worth the wait.

[DURHAM D]

30. I didn't misunderstand.

I'm not the one with the communication problem.

[leftofcool]

32. As long as you're on Rubio's team with this

does it matter?

[DCBob]

33. Most people are not like your husband... just about every expert says the system cannot support..

the massive increase in the numbers of retirees coming within the next 10-15 years. The "easiest" solution is to continue to raise the retirement age. It only makes sense anyway since many of us now are capable of productive work into our late 60's and 70's.

[leftofcool]

43. Sorry, I just don't buy into the "expert scare" on this

Repukes have wanted to do this since before Bushco and as long as every administration keeps stealing from social security for wars and rich people it will of course become insolvent over time and as always Dems will follow the repuke plan, raise the retirement age so the stealing can continue. Don't worry about us old folks, business as usual.

[DCBob]

46. This really isn't a left/right issue.. both parties know this is a serious problem..

President Obama has appointed a commission to study this and come up with some solutions. These solutions will likely include raising the retirement age, reducing benefits to retirees with more wealth, and increasing the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. BTW, if you are near retirement, you will probably not be affected... these changes will mostly affect those coming behind you like me.

[laughingliberal]

50. Both parties know our corporate overlords want to continue the theft of our payroll taxes.

And all the RW propaganda in the world does not change the fact that this is the problem.

[Skidmore]

44. So are businesses going to be required to hire all of us

over the hill people they refuse to put on the payrolls now? Raising retirement age with out jobs to go to is not good policy. Even Walmart will only take so many greeters. Just hang in there, perhaps we will all start dying off faster without incomes to support those nasty habits of needing food and shelter we have.

[DCBob]

47. I think the idea is to discourage workers from retiring too early.. especially the wealthy..

It is insane that we pay SS benefits to retired millionaires/billionaires at age 62.

[Skidmore]

48. But not every one forced to retire would be a millionaire/billionaire.

[AngryAmish]

60. broken windows fallacy

[laughingliberal]

36. Right as in Right wing. In favor of covering up & continuing the 3 decades long theft.

And you're dead wrong. They're all talking about it.

[dmallind]

3. I agree with him. Current retirement ages are based on Bismarck

IIRC average life expectancy at the time was 48. It's insane with the increases in longevity that the maximum benefit entitlement age (not the retirement age - you can retire when you want) has not gone up at least in some proportion of that increase.

[laughingliberal]

37. The benefit entitlement age has gone up. nt

[dmallind]

52. Yes but at a fraction of the rate longevity has

I just checked and BTW the 65 age is only tangentially connected to Bismarck (who in fact set it up at 70 initially and then Germany changed it to 65 after his death. The US chose 65 in part because of foreign precedent and in part because 65 was slightly more popular than 70 in state pension schemes and major employer schemes (railroads etc).

In 1935 when this was set up in the US the average life expectancy of newborn was 61.7.

It's now over 78.

While I do not suggest we change full benefits to average life expectancy +3.3 years as it was initially (which would make it over 81 years old) I do think it should be indexed to move at a set rate of longevity increases. So maybe for every 2.5 yrs longevity increases full benefit age increases one year.

[laughingliberal]

54. I'm opposed to the continued theft of our payroll taxes. Period! nt

[dmallind]

59. Why is apportionment theft? How far should it go? Life expectancy of 150? 190? NT

[DJ13]

4. How about we eliminate the income cap and lower the age

That would do two things, make SS solvent, and reduce unemployment.

Or just eliminate the cap and keep the rest as it is now.

[Teka]

9. Eliminate the cap

[csziggy]

16. SS is NOT insolvent, so why the rush to mess around with it?

"The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem." http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html

So we are well over thirty years from when SS might become insolvent - if nothing is done. Raising the cap on SS payments would solve even that worry.

[DJ13]

22. I know it, you know it, but TPTB want to scare people so they can cut it

They've stolen the money in covering the tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses and they have no intention of paying it back.

They expect the rest of us (all 90%) to accept less in benefits once the fear PR gets in full gear.

[leftofcool]

25. +1000

[csziggy]

31. That's what puzzles me about DUers buying into this

I expect the members here to know better.

We keep falling into the Right Wing nut framing of issues - or is it the trolls that try to lead us back into them?

[laughingliberal]

40. Reagan lives! nt

[laughingliberal]

49. +2000 nt

[DCBob]

42. Social Security will pay out more in benefits in 2010 than it receives in payroll taxes...

and its going to get worse. That's a problem.

[leftofcool]

45. Yep, that's because they keep stealing from it

[csziggy]

57. It will be 25 to 30 YEARS before SS is insolvent - if nothing is done

The thing about it is, that this "crisis" comes up every so often. And every time the Republicans moan and whine about SS "entitlement" while salivating over how they can dismantle SS and get out of the obligation that is owed to the Americans that have paid into the system. But all it has ever taken are relatively minor adjustments in contributions and payouts to make the system remain on solid ground.

[dionysus]

39. ding

[louis-t]

5. Fine, as long as HE has to wait

until he's 67 to get his pension from the government.

[DURHAM D]

11. What? He is either stupid or poorly staffed - or both.

The last people who could retire at 65 were born in 1937. They are now 73.

Full retirement age is already 66 for those born between l943 - l954. Full retirement age goes up a few months for those born after 1955 until it reaches 67 for those born in 1960.

I assume it will soon be 67 & 2 months for those born in 1961 and then 67 & 4 months for those born in 1962 and so on. By my calculations full retirement age will be 70 for those born in 1980.

[mmonk]

18. I'd like to lower his.

At least from politics. Just say'in.

[laughingliberal]

41. +1000 nt

[Arkana]

20. Oh dear.

This will NOT fly with Floridians, I don't think.

[DURHAM D]

27. You got to wonder why he is commenting on federal policy -

given that he is running for a state office.

Also, later retirement for everyone up north means a reduction in the number of snowbirds for Florida. Won't be good for their economy.

He ain't too smart.

[csziggy]

58. Rubio is running for US Senator from Florida

Against Charlie Christ (I) and Kendrick Meek (D). So if he should get in, he will be voting in the Senate. That is why I am pleased that he is making this kind of statement. I don't think any of the Tea Party people would be happy to learn that they will have to put off collecting their Social Security - and that is the group that Rubio has been courting.

[Catherina]

28. Crack that whip! Keep us sorry slaves in line n/t

[quaker bill]

51. You cannot bankrupt the government

it prints the currency. It does not need to borrow a nickle from anyone, ever. Now there is a point where too much currency could be printed. Of course, it is not actually "printed". It is all electronic ones and zeros in this digital age. With a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and inflation near zero, it is clear that we are quite some distance from printing too much currency.

The rightwing has a myth that the government must either tax or borrow to spend, it is utter BS. The government neither needs to tax or borrow a dollar to spend one. It is not "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend", it is "print and spend". Needing to increase taxes, retirement age, or reduce benefits is complete and utter BS. The words "we cannot afford" are utter BS made up whole cloth from profoundly flawed economic theories, the same theories that resulted in the crash. When they say "people have to tighten their belts" so "government should do the same" they deny the obvious difference between the two. "People" cannot legally print more money, government can and does.

Fears of hyper-inflation are all but utter cr*p. The high inflation of the 1970s was not the result of deficit spending. It was an oil price shock combined with low unemployment, and the lifting of Nixon's wage and price controls. Deficits had nearly nothing to do with it. The high interest rates at the time had nothing to do with government competing for money to borrow, it was an overheated economy suffering from cost-push inflation.

These rightwing myths need to die. Why they are still accepted here as common wisdom is beyond me.

[bullwinkle428]

64. And he thought he could get away with this in FLORIDA???

:rofl: