In 2005, President George W. Bush attempted to partially privatize Social Security. He centered his argument for this change on the claim that people would fare better investing in asset markets than contributing to Social Security. The privatization push proved highly unpopular, as research from EPI and others highlighted the high transition costs and investment risks.
Nevertheless, the belief that Social Security amounts to a low-risk but low-return investment persists, hampering proposals to expand the popular program. This is unfortunate, as Social Security looks better than ever in comparison to low-performing 401(k)s and IRAs.
via EPI.
See more posts like this on Tumblr
#politics #social security #earned benefits #social insurance #retirement #retirees #retirement crisis #entitlements #entitlement reform #p2 #older americans #elderlyMore you might like
It’s no secret that American workers face a major retirement crisis. Wealth inequality and workplace changes mean more and more retirees have come to rely on Social Security for most of their income. But the average monthly Social Security benefit in Maryland is $1,472 — or roughly $18,000 per year, which is only slightly above the federal poverty line. And even with Social Security, some 7 percent of Maryland’s seniors live in poverty.
The good news is that Maryland workers can increase the size of their future Social Security checks by delaying retirement. Delayed claiming past the early retirement age of 62 results in bigger monthly benefit checks for life, and waiting until after the current full retirement age of 66 yields even greater gains — up to 44 percent more than early claiming.
But too few Marylanders are taking advantage of this “delay-and-gain” strategy, or are even aware of it. The average age for claiming Social Security in Maryland is 64 — two years older than the minimum, but early enough to be penalized with lower benefits, which are cut by roughly 6 percent for every year that they file for Social Security before the full retirement age.
Read our full op-ed by clicking here.
Workers in Detroit face a major — and very real — retirement crisis. Wealth inequality and workplace changes have practically sawed-off two of the legs of the traditional retirement stool: pensions and private savings. More than half of today’s retirees rely on the third leg of the stool, Social Security, for most of their income. Even with Social Security, some 7% of Michigan seniors live in poverty. The good news is that workers can increase the size of their future Social Security checks by delaying retirement.
Delayed claiming past the early retirement age of 62 results in bigger monthly benefit checks for life. Waiting until after the current full retirement age of 66 yields even greater gains — up to 44% more than early claiming. But too few of Detroit’s workers are taking advantage of this delay-and-gain strategy. More than half of Michigan workers retire by age 62 — four years before they can collect their full Social Security benefits.
Read more from our op-ed by clicking here.
Workers in Louisville face a major — and very real — retirement crisis. Wealth inequality and workplace changes have practically sawed off two of the legs of the traditional retirement stool: pensions and private savings.
More than half of today’s retirees rely on the third leg of the stool, Social Security, for most of their income. (The average Social Security benefit in Kentucky is roughly $16,000 per year, only about $3,500 above the federal poverty line for individuals.) Even with Social Security, some 13% of Kentucky seniors live in poverty. The good news is that workers can increase the size of their future Social Security checks by delaying retirement.
Read more from our new op-ed by clicking here.
Retirement, Social Security and long-term care:
Amid doubts about the soundness of the Social Security system, most Americans reject the idea of reducing benefits for future retirees. When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.
via Pew Research.
Related Reading:
We believe Social Security benefits should be BOOSTED for all working Americans.
Sign our petition asking Congress to BOOST Social Security benefits for all working Americans by clicking here.
ERIC BOLLING: Why don’t you just get rid of it? Get rid of social security all together?
DANA PERINO: Whoa, Eric. Actually, it’s not a bad thought.
BOLLING: God forbid you go back to you earn your money, you save your money, you keep your money, you spend your money and then you retire.
via Media Matters.
Related Reading:
Social Security IS earned benefits. Working Americans pay into Social Security throughout their lives and benefits should be BOOSTED, not cut.
Given Social Security’s importance to all Americans, you can imagine my surprise that none of the moderators in the first two rounds of Democratic debates asked a single question about it. Our nation faces a retirement crisis, with savings rates plummeting, pensions vanishing, and expenses in old-age soaring. 63 million Americans rely on Social Security today for basic financial stability, yet conservatives propose to cut future benefits. The father of Social Security is one of the most revered Democratic presidents. And yet not a single mention of the program during the first two sets of primary debates by the party of Franklin Roosevelt?
Many in the news media have bought into the narrative that “no one in Washington wants to talk about Social Security” because it is a politically sensitive issue. Maybe that’s one reason why they don’t ask the question during debates. This narrative holds that neither party is willing to address Social Security’s long-term future. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Democrats in Congress, including Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have introduced legislation that maintains the program’s financial health for as long as most of us on earth today are likely to be alive. They achieve this mainly by insisting that the wealthy pay their fair share of Social Security payroll taxes. Congressman Larson’s bill, which has 210 cosponsors in the House, also expands benefits – and both bills provide for a more accurate and generous cost of living adjustment formula.
Read more from this new blog post by clicking here.
If history is a guide, retirees should not trust Romney with their Social Security benefits. During his 2012 presidential campaign, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, advocated raising the retirement age (which is a benefit cut), lower cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), and the creation of private Social Security accounts. The senator is clearly in the “entitlement reform” camp that purports to want to “save” Social Security by cutting it, implying that benefit reductions for seniors living on fixed incomes are somehow inevitable.
Read more from our new op-ed by clicking here.
We also think it’s equally important to address benefit adequacy, because of the struggle that the middle class and working class have these days in saving for retirement.
via CNBC.
Related Reading:
Retirees should say ‘no thanks’ to Romney’s Social Security plan.
If history is a guide, retirees should not trust Romney with their Social Security benefits. During his 2012 presidential campaign, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, advocated raising the retirement age (which is a benefit cut), lower cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), and the creation of private Social Security accounts.
The conservative argument that the retirement crisis is a myth has been based on the notion that Americans actually will have far more in retirement resources than they recognize — particularly that Social Security benefits will amount to a much larger percentage of workers’ lifetime income than has been assumed. Ergo, there’s no need to expand Social Security to give retirees more.
via Los Angeles Times.
Further Reading:
United Income, a financial planning advisory service, just released an important study called, “The Retirement Solution Hiding In Plain Sight.” Using government data and proprietary software, it calculates how much money retirees have lost, and are losing, by making mistakes about when to start claiming Social Security benefits. United Income’s answer: a whopping $3.4 trillion or $111,000 per household!
That’s enough to move half of the oldest Americans now in poverty out of that terrible state. Put another way, according to United Income, the average Social Security recipient would get 9% more income in retirement by making the “financially optimal” decision about when to claim benefits.
Increasing Your Social Security Benefit By 177%
According to United Income, someone who’d get a $725 monthly Social Security benefit by starting to claim at 62 (the earliest age) would see a benefit increase to $1,280 by delaying to age 70 — an increase of 177%.
via Next Avenue.
Related Reading:
We speak on this issue in our new education initiative, Delay & Gain.
Our goal is to help near-retirees make informed, financially sound choices through an understanding of the increased Social Security benefits gained by a delay in filing their claim.