Friday, June 26, 2009

Raising the National Retirement Age

For many Americans approaching the age of 65, retiring then is a birthright. That's the age when social security has historically provided full monthly payouts to retirees.

But that age was actually changed in 1983, or rather, Congress legislated to change that age gradually beginning in 2000. As a result, everyone born between the years 1943 and 1954 will be entitled to their full social security payouts starting at age 66; for those people born in 1943, they turn 66 this year. For people born in 1960 and later, they are entitled to full payouts when they turn 67.

Yet even with this delay of the national age of retirement, social security is in danger insolvency. It is estimated that social security payouts will exceed social security taxes collected sometime in the year 2019. For a time, there will be sufficient funds to honor all social security obligations in the social security trust fund, which the federal government has developed over the decades by investing in US bonds the difference between the social security taxes collected and the social security funds paid out. However, those funds will eventually exhaust themselves. The Social Security Administration estimates this will happen by 2041; the Congressional Budget Office estimates by 2052.

Either way, we know we're on borrowed time. Had we made the hard choice to push back the national retirement age more aggressively in 1983, we wouldn't be in this situation now. And as a result, we're left with even harder choices to make now. But if we make those harder choices today, we'll save future generations of social security beneficiaries from making choices that are even worse. Our sacrifice will be their support.

Our suggestion: push back the retirement age aggressively. Today, if we begin to push back the national retirement age to 73, we will restore long term solvency to the social security trust fund, saving the program for future retirees and saving our tax dollars which almost certainly would have gone to bolster the gap in social security funds.

No comments:

Post a Comment