As I approach the age of 55, I've been looking at whether I've been doing the right things to avoid having to eat dog food in my golden years.

It's no secret that our Social Security system is running on borrowed time and we've all heard a wide range of proposals, from means-testing to upping the eligibility age to permitting investment in private Social Security accounts. While subject to some variability due to the rate of inflation, levels of unemployment, etc., there are certain things that are fairly predictable, including life expectancies and birth rates. So, it seems to me that there must be some fairly concrete answers to what it would take to "save" Social Security--i.e. raising the minimum eligibility to "X" years, increasing the maximum withholding to income on "Y" dollars, or the like.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly what some of these proposed adjustments are and what they would accomplish. As an example, would raising the minimum retirement age by one year do it? If not, how about three years? Can anyone point me in the direction of some relatively reliable information on this subject?

Logan's Run

I don't know for certain what effect raising the age limit would have, but it seems the right thing to do. SS was passed back in 1935; according to this, if you were a white male about 60 at that time, you could expect to probably live another 15 years, so SS was designed to cover the final (expected) ten years of your life. According to that same table, since then, life expectancy has increased by about six years. Moreover, the elderly nowadays are typically in better health than they were way back then: less smoking, better diet, safer working/living conditions during their careers, and so on. In light of that, it seems reasonable to jack up the age limit to at least 70. People can retire earlier if they want to, but it'll be on their own dime; can't draw SS until you're 70. If SS is only expected to cover retirees for an average of ten years instead of 15, then I would guess that should reduce the cost by about 1/3.

That's a start.

I don't know how we do this, but getting back to the original concept that social security was a safety net and not anyone's sole means of retirement income would enable a means test for eligibility for that safety net..

I agree, rasing the age would help the issue. Keep in mind, SS never compeltely runs out of funds because those currently employeed are constantly paying into the system. But, the ability of the system to maintain a certain level of compensation is compromised.

People seem to think that it's a savings plan, but it never was. Because it began paying benefits immediately when it was created, it is essentially a tax program. SO I never understood why people acted like it would run ou of money like a 401k.

Darn. Now I wanna go home and watch that again.

That would jsut turn it into a traditional welfare program that taxes the the upper percentile to compensate the lower precentile without any incentive to contribute to society by working. I guess I sort of liked the idea that everyoen that pays into it is entitled to some level of benefit. Of course I also think the tax rates on the upper class are too low and minimum wage is too low as well. Adjsut thsoe 2 and you cna balance the budget by increasing revenues while cutting entitlement programs. You minim wage should always be more than unemployment or other welfare benefits so there's an incentive to work. OF coruse, I'll admit, there are other potental negative impacts of raising taxes and minimum wage.

Increase taxes on the people who already pay a disproportionate % of taxes? "...data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."

People already don't save for retirement and simply rely on social security. There is already a large population that finds it more beneficial to rely on entitlement payments to live...retired or not.

Since the demise of defined benefit plans, most people have done a disastrous job of providing for their retirements through 401(k)'s and the like. Stock market fluctuations that have robbed the plans of a significant part of their value haven't helped. Some people planned to sell their houses at inflated prices, buy down, and use the difference as a part of their retirement (Oh well!). I don't believe that the average worker has the discipline to provide more than a modest part of his retirement needs through saving over his working life.

In the absence of resurecting defined benefit plans, which isn't going to happen, the government is going to have to continue to provide the basic amount needed to retire through Social Security. The alternative would be a lot of competition in the dumpster-diving industry, once all the Walmart greeter jobs, and any other jobs that can be handled by old folks who don't move or think very fast anymore, are filled.

People wear out at different rates, some at 50, some at 90, so it's hard to put a definite age on eligibility to draw Social Security.

It's easier to means test Social Security, which we already do to some extent by taxing Social Security benefits that exceed a floor amount. There is now a similar means testing for Medicare coverage. I just had to send in an additional $700 for Medicare coverage because of my income level. "Means testing" at the moment means income testing, as there is no convenient way to determine how much assets a person has. Means testing based solely on income is inequitable, as a person who has a large amount of assets he lives off of would not suffer any reduction in his Social Security or increased payment for Medicare. If a way were found to extend means testing to assets, a significant amount of additional funds could be generated. Clearly there would be a lot of resistance to that, as the government doesn't currently know how much assets you have (unless you die and file an estate tax return), and people with assets would no doubt like to keep it that way.

I guess one way to extend means testing to assets would be to tack on a Social Security tax to the estate tax. Since estate tax returns are already required, no additional paperwork would be required.

I also think that workers should be required to pay into a retirement fund in addition to Social Security; it should be a payroll deduction over which the worker has no control. Private companies could administer the funds, and workers could choose which company to invest with, but the funds invested would not be available for anything other than a retirement annuity. This fund could reduce the reliance on Social Security over time, but I don't see it replacing Social Security, as the fund would never guarantee a certain payment. It would be sort of like a forced 401(k), with no early withdrawal provisions.

Read the books. Lastday was your 21st birthday.

I would go for lastday on your 75th. By that time most people are worn out. Or thats when SS stops.