Like our John Hancock story last issue, news of Social Security pushing back retirement age has stirred more than a few comments.
This would go a long way to improve the solvency of Social Security, promote greater savings, more involvement in personal and employment related retirement programs, and it would incent account value build-up in life and annuities (i.e., higher earners should pay more taxes on Social Security income). Next, tackle the real fiscal problem of extended care: get rid of the loopholes for middle- and upper-income earners to drink at the trough of public (taxpayer) payment of extended care costs without any affect on assets going to next generations. We need to promote personal responsibility for this care (read: purchase insurance or partnership coverage) so that the taxpayers (including their heirs) aren't saddled with deficits way beyond what we're complaining about today! Deficit reduction needn't destroy all sense of personal responsibility; in fact, it should promote it.
PB McDonough
CNBC reports the proposed new retirement age would be 69. I think that's okay, but they forgot to talk about the early retirement age of 62. If 68 or 69 becomes the rule it will induce more people to opt for early retirement. Early retirement should be 65 or 66. If they choose to leave it at 62, then the benefits should be drastically reduced. Too many people are currently choosing early retirement, a trend that sucks cash out of the trust fund. Further, the trust fund should be closed to every governmental body, and used for Social Security and Medicare benefits only.
David L Spinner
