This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper, (click title to entry - thank you) prepared at the request of the Committee on Ways and Means minority, provides material relevant to that debate. In particular, it contains new information about the characteristics, circumstances, and financial resources of men and women who began receiving Social Security benefits at age 62 or 63 in recent years. In accordance with CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, this paper contains no recommendations....
This is the measure that raised the age in 1999 to 65 for FULL benefits. There is 'merit' to the idea, however, it is not without problems that will cause citizens 'legitimate' concerns.
To begin, whenever the age of full eligibility is raised THAT means, there has to be MORE JOBS in the economy to accommodate the 'continuation'of income by those still ABLE to work. In a struggling economy that needs 'permanent' jobs developed; that pay 'good wages;' that is nearly impossible to 'realize.'
So, the proposal has to be accompanied by a strict understanding as to what the 'joblessness' rate is in the USA and the demographics of that rate.
Simply put, when people stay in jobs longer they tend to be paid more than 'new' employees to government or the private sector. THAT is a paradigm shift that impacts THE YOUNG PEOPLE entering the job market AND the advancement of existing employees, the 'bottom line' of the companies and the cost to government.
THERE IS A LOT TO IT.
When the eligibility of SSI increases by one month per year for the next thirty-six years that is a 'soft landing' for that paradigm shift, HOWEVER, the shift will occur and there needs to be an understanding as to the 'definition' of that paradigm shift. AND how it impacts labor, business, government and ultimately the 'quality of life' of Americans.
When retriement is postponed there is also a huge impact on the tourism economy and 'service workers.'
To simply state moving the age of eligibility by one month per year for the next thirty-six years will FIX the SSI entitlement problems is NOT addressing the larger dynamic at work that it will impact.
That is a simplistic idea that is NOT acceptable in any way, especially in the year 2011 when there is a 'soft economy' in the USA.
Working to the benefit of raising the FULL benefit eligibility age will also take on the dynamic of an ever increasing 'disability' benefit payout as a percentage of older adults will be unable to continue to the age of 68. That means the eligibility of Medicare and Medicaid will be effected as well and it might even push some older adults into a disability benefit if they thought they could 'see it through' to the full benefit age of 65.
There are a lot of 'variables' in this equation and all that needs to be PRESENTED the correct way to allow the legislature to make intelligent decisions about the 'proper' deployment of such a paradigm shift.
No one wants to force older adults to lose their savings or homes or assets of any nature simply because the federal government decided to 'play politics' with their 'eligibility.'
So.
That said, what EXACTLY are "The Pauls' talking about.
This is the measure that raised the age in 1999 to 65 for FULL benefits. There is 'merit' to the idea, however, it is not without problems that will cause citizens 'legitimate' concerns.
To begin, whenever the age of full eligibility is raised THAT means, there has to be MORE JOBS in the economy to accommodate the 'continuation'of income by those still ABLE to work. In a struggling economy that needs 'permanent' jobs developed; that pay 'good wages;' that is nearly impossible to 'realize.'
So, the proposal has to be accompanied by a strict understanding as to what the 'joblessness' rate is in the USA and the demographics of that rate.
Simply put, when people stay in jobs longer they tend to be paid more than 'new' employees to government or the private sector. THAT is a paradigm shift that impacts THE YOUNG PEOPLE entering the job market AND the advancement of existing employees, the 'bottom line' of the companies and the cost to government.
THERE IS A LOT TO IT.
When the eligibility of SSI increases by one month per year for the next thirty-six years that is a 'soft landing' for that paradigm shift, HOWEVER, the shift will occur and there needs to be an understanding as to the 'definition' of that paradigm shift. AND how it impacts labor, business, government and ultimately the 'quality of life' of Americans.
When retriement is postponed there is also a huge impact on the tourism economy and 'service workers.'
To simply state moving the age of eligibility by one month per year for the next thirty-six years will FIX the SSI entitlement problems is NOT addressing the larger dynamic at work that it will impact.
That is a simplistic idea that is NOT acceptable in any way, especially in the year 2011 when there is a 'soft economy' in the USA.
Working to the benefit of raising the FULL benefit eligibility age will also take on the dynamic of an ever increasing 'disability' benefit payout as a percentage of older adults will be unable to continue to the age of 68. That means the eligibility of Medicare and Medicaid will be effected as well and it might even push some older adults into a disability benefit if they thought they could 'see it through' to the full benefit age of 65.
There are a lot of 'variables' in this equation and all that needs to be PRESENTED the correct way to allow the legislature to make intelligent decisions about the 'proper' deployment of such a paradigm shift.
No one wants to force older adults to lose their savings or homes or assets of any nature simply because the federal government decided to 'play politics' with their 'eligibility.'
So.
That said, what EXACTLY are "The Pauls' talking about.
