time to save the American Government's finances.

[jonathankaplan]

I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance

Comments

[jonathankaplan]

As both you and JP point out, the distribution of the ages/death is more important than the simple number. Back then, many more infants died. It took three people reaching 80 years old to outweigh one infant mortality, statistically. So, yes, perhaps people were expected to live longer than 65.

I asked my Grandma many years ago (when she was about 80, she lived 17 more years to 97) if, when she was young, did she expect to live this long. She always stressed NO, she thought she'd be gone long before now, she was living on borrowed time. Maybe in the 1935 (when Social Security was created) people WERE expected to live past 65, but not by that much, right? It was NOT expected that much of the age distribution was going to be living past 80,90,100,110? You tell me where to stop. In the next generation advances in medical research might continue this quickening trend of lengthening age. Social Security, unchanged, cannot survive that.

Receiving SS at age 65 is a simple statement. Perhaps the reaching of that age number was very complex. But, if we intend to raise the age (and we have to, I think), we are going to another simple number. 80. I'll accept 75. But any lower and the system is still considerably at risk, imo.
Thanks! I shoulda known you and JP would chime in here...smile...

[jpmassar]

The age to receive (full) SS benefits is increasing.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/retirechart.htm