Fixing(?) Entitlements

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I would agree with raising the cap. When the cap was set it was done in a time when $100K was a real high salary.

The age of eligibility and the cap both need to get with the times. We live longer now, and $250K is the new $100K. Put both in line relative to when the plan was instituted and then you've got something. It's a mathematically objective notion too.

Raising the cap is a lot better than raising the retirement age. Even though people are living longer the wear and tear on the body on a lot of manual labor jobs hasn't changed since social security was implemented.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bob

Raising the cap is a lot better than raising the retirement age. Even though people are living longer the wear and tear on the body on a lot of manual labor jobs hasn't changed since social security was implemented.

Can't design a whole system around the portion of the workforce aged 65-70 who remain in physical labor jobs.

My perspective is simple - when the program was conceived the retirement age was set such that there was a 7 year gap between retirement and life expectancy (death). And it was set with a cap of $100K because that was a shitload of money at the time.

Update both to today's terms. Take life expectancy minus 7, that's the new retirement age (72). And take the cap and inflate it to today's dollars ($250K or so). Both factors together return the program to a) what it was intended to be all along and b) solvency.

Don't cherrypick, you expose your political bias. Both should be done, otherwise it's gerrymandering the original intent of the program.