Frenchies can no longer retire at age 60. They must now wait until age 62. What are Americans doing wrong? We are now being told we have to wait until 66 or 67 to receive our social security. Supposedly the early retirement is seen as a right and left issue.
According to the Washington Post:
Today is a day of sadness and anger,” agreed Jean-Luc Melanchon, who heads the Left Party. “The end of retirement at 60 is the end of a world.”
Seeking to soften the blow, Woerth also announced a 1 percent jump in the tax rate for France’s highest incomes and said taxes will also rise on capital gains from investments. This will provide more than $4 billion by the time the new retirement schedules are completed, he predicted.
The plan, which is likely to pass easily in a parliament controlled by Sarkozy’s coalition, called for the legal retirement age to rise by four months each year, beginning in July 2011, until it reaches 62 by 2018. At that point, the ministry calculated, the pension fund should be balanced.
Those who begin working before age 18 or who hold down particularly taxing jobs will still be able to retire earlier than age 62, the plan stipulated. Nonetheless, French labor unions have announced they will fight the changes, scheduling street protests to coincide with a debate in parliament in September
Other countries are also pushing up their age for retirement:
Faced with the same economic pressures, for instance, Germany has announced plans to lift the retirement age from 65 to 67. Britain and Italy, home to Western Europe’s other two leading economies, have settled on 65. In comparison, officials pointed out, France will still have one of the earliest retirement ages in the industrialized world.
If retirement at 60 is socialism…….
Hopefully, Formerly Anonymous will enlighten us. He usually knows all about things that are going on in the EEC.
Full story at the Washington Post
Long overdue. Even here our national “retirement”; i.e., Social Security, which allows folks to draw a reduced Social Security check is going bust. Part of that has to due with how Congress has raped it for years. We are going to have to face it that it is going to be necessary to raise contributions/reduce benefits/use means testing/etc if we are going to continue this program. However, I don’t agree with privatizing it. The markets is just not reliable enough–rather those who administer the market are not reliable or trustworthy enough.
George, what about those already there. Do you think the cutbacks will start with the younger folks? It seems to me that would be a good reason to create a guest worker program and document some of those who are here illegally. We need more people on the social security rolls.
Sounds like another Democrat argues for stealing from the next generation and for limiting what that generation can/could do for itself and the the generation past argues for preserving their reverse inheritance. Maybe, while Obama is putting the boot to BP with newly assumed dictatorial powers, he could decree the needed changes to Social Security – exempting the unions – of course. Sort of like Obamacare don’t you think?
I love your line about the markets not being reliable enough or those that “administer” the market are not reliable enough. That was funny. As compared to what – the Inherently / perpetually incompetent government – even funnier.
The guest worker thing was a joke — right?
Are there Democrats in France? They sure do get around, don’t they? Maybe some big bad Republicans will cross the pond and rescue them…make those Frenchies work until they are 80, by God! That will teach them.
What line about markets not being reliable enough? Afraid you lost me. *I* said that?
I was serious as a train wreck about the guest worker program. I am all about farmers and builders being able to get legal workers if they need them. Guest worker programs work well and everyone is taxed and happy and legal.
Oh you were beating George up and not me on the markets.
I understand exactly what he is saying. Where would people be now if they had social security type annuities coming from the stock markets, after the 2008 crash? SOL.
I will take this moment to again state that Social Security should not exist.
People should assume some personal responsibility and save for thier own retirement without the government providing them a check for life. And, in the case of social security…a check that’ll bounce.
Once an entitlement always an entitlement – this is exactly what the riots in Greece and now Spain are now all about and they are headed this way. No one in a position of responsibility in the US has ever suggested the elimination of Social Security – returning to pre-1930 investments, but the absolute refusal of the Democratic Party (France too ?) to allow normal people – and not just federal (FERS) and state employees – to also invest in the markets with tax free retirement dollars has been criminal, regressive in that it prevents working people from acquiring wealth and is just plan crazy. Calling it privatization is inaccurate and a diversion from the real progressive, government reliant agenda.
The markets will come back. But more to the point, companies have been maintaining their dividends in spite of severe market share loss. That is the where the retirement issue begins – dividends. A lot more people would be hurting if they had not done so. This is the chill that Obama irresponsibly sent through the system when he declared that he had the authority to confiscate BP dividend resources. He needs to get a grip and we need a Congress that can pull this idiot back from the brink.
M-H, your argument for more guest workers as a solution to the increasingly inevitable bankruptcy of Social Security is a policy train wreak — one that will aggrevate the problem and hasten the day of reckoning.
And the French riots start in 3……2……1…..
The French would never riot… I mean, they can’t just surrender to themselves..Can they?
re ss: But it does exist and has existed since when? Sometimes in the 30’s. It has helped many a poor widow also. You are entitled to your opinion.
It would have worked better if it hadn’t been tapped like an ATM by the feds.
Actually, it wasn’t a solution to the social security problem. We need more workers paying into it. Guest worker programs help the immigration situation also.
You don’t think more people paying into social security would help the situation at all?
How are normal people (I assume that to mean non-Democrat) prevented from making before tax investments? I am so confused about what you are talking about.
No one gets to invest in tax free dollars. The piper always has to be paid, even with deferred tax programs.
I give up. somebody else try.
TP. You aren’t making sense.
MH, as you add more workers to pay for retirees now you’ll need to keep increasing workers in the future to pay for those retirees – much like a ponzi scheme.
In order to ‘correct’ the ponzi you have to increase retirement age, reduce benefits or hope people die before they retire.
Which brings up govt healthcare……………………………………………………..
Well then just dump everyone on their ass and let those 80 year olds fend for themselves.
I don’t agree with your ponzi scheme theory. Marin, you don’t want to pay for SS, 401k, VRS, or anything else.
If people spend 40-45 years in the work force and pay into social security, it should work out if it is only used for social security purposes. There’s the problem….staying out of it.
Here’s a great article on the taxes “illegals” pay…including into SS, which they will never get back: There was some discussion on this a few weeks ago with some wondering how “illegals” pay taxes. Might shed more light. This piece is from 2006
Illegal Immigrants are Paying a Lot More Taxes Than You Think
Eight million illegals pay Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes
Shikha Dalmia
May 1, 2006
Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America’s bedrock belief in fairness. But many “pull-up-the-drawbridge” politicians want to do just that when it comes to illegal immigrants.
The fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes. Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation’s hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don’t pay for.
In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education.
Nevertheless, Tancredo and his ilk pushed a bill through the House criminalizing all aid to illegal aliens — even private acts of charity by priests, nurses and social workers. Potentially, any soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and seizure of assets.
The Senate bill that recently collapsed would have tempered these draconian measures against private aid. But no one — Democrat or Republican — seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid — the government-funded health care program for the poor — to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid “theft of these benefits by illegal aliens,” as Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., puts it.
But, immigrants aren’t flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don’t have Social Security numbers to file taxes.
One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS’ scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.
What’s more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they’ll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.
Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families � most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.
Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed. To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program. Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn’t be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs.
The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don’t want here in the first place. With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.
Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank. This column was originally distributed by the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service.
Shikha Dalmia is Senior Analyst
At your current earnings rate, if you stop working and start receiving Social Security benefits…
At age 62, your monthly benefit will be about…$1,787.00.
At full retirement age (67 Years and 00 Month(s) for you), your monthly benefit will be about…$2,545.00.
At age 70, your monthly benefit will be about…$3,156.00.
These are in 2010 dollars. Now, in order to pay for that I’m currently being charged 6.2% of my income in tax straight off the top. My employer is also charged the same.
Now, assuming that I make 100K and and at age 34 I start putting into the system. 33 years at 6,200 per year comes to 204,600. After retirement at 2,545.00/month I will exhaust my investment into the system in 80 months or 6.6 years. You can double those numbers to take into account my employers investment (13.2 years/160 months).
So, assuming I live beyond that 13.2 years I now am consuming more than I put into the system and society requires a worker that makes more than 100K at 6.2% is needed to compensate. Now, when THEY retire they’ll need the same thing OR for someone to die BEFORE they get benefits for the system to be sustainable.
Now, the good news is SSA believes I’ll only live 9 years into expected retirement (274,860 at age 76) which means the system makes a profit off my death.
You could roughly add 5 years if I was female (system loses on average because women live longer) or if I really wanted to screw the government I’d live to 100 with my world-class government healthcare. At age 100 the SSA has paid me 1,007,820 for my personal investment of 204K over roughly the same time span (34 years).
Now, I’m too lazy to play with the numbers fuller but… how many liberal arts graduates working at Starbucks do you need to support me when I become an old fogey wearing tighty whiteys while sitting in a lawn chair on my front yard with my trusty shotgun near by to make sure ‘kids don’t come onto my property’. Bonus points for using math investigations to come up with the answer.
Well so far you have managed to slam just about everyone I am related to. Maybe my entire family line should have just died off since we are all such a burden to society. Those old ancestors of mine who fought in the Revolution so that there even is a country –screw them. They produced users and people who are burdens to society, who have a worthless education, do worthless jobs and steal from the public coffers and had the freaking nerve to take social security. Some of the prodegy even manage Starbucks stores…several at once.
You have gotten everyone but the bartender. Starbucks was the last jab.
And here is my final jab–at least liberal arts graduates know how to spell THEIR when referring to ownership pronouns.
I’m not sure where that came from because showing you the math is by no means a ‘slam’ on you.
I’ve simply shown you what my SSA benefit will be when I retire. So, the question becomes — how do we pay for me? Is the system sustainable?
Pushing politics aside. Does the math add up?
Grammar aside, I appologize if you feel I slighted you. I think any third party can view my statement in #17 and see it was clearly not meant to be personal.
I don’t think you knew you were doing it. It has been going on for some time. By the time it got to Starbucks and math investigations (I have complained that my gkid isn’t being taught using that method) on top of all the other discussions, I did feel targeted.
Moon, it is too late. The SS lockbox has been emptied. Just a couple of months ago, the SSA went to Congress and told them that the SS system was broke. As I understand it, SS payments are now coming, partially at least, out of the General Fund. And the deluge of Baby Boomers is just starting to retire or starting to contemplate retirement. Given the ageing of our population, I’m not sure even a guest worker program and/or legalization of illegal workers would be enough to save it without squeezing the taxation Hell out of those still paying into the system.
I have been hearing the SS going broke for a long time…maybe 25 years. It makes one wonder why Congress was too chicken/paralyzed/whatever to do something about it.
Someone needs to start coming up with solutions. The boomers have been paying in to something for 40-50 years. I have no answers. Perhaps doubling the ceiling on funds taken out. If I had 6.5% of my salary taken out, well…why can’t everyone have 6.5% of their salary taken out, even if they are making 200k. I never understood that. It’s a percent, not an amount. 6.5% probably hurt me worse over the years than 6.5% hurt some dude making several hundred thousand bucks. If I belong to an entitlement class, then many others belong to a protected class.
I wouldn’t have a problem making SS optional for younger Americans.
Also, once the baby boom generation dies off, the younger folks won’t be supporting them anymore.
You have to kill off the greatest generation first, Starry, then go to work on the boomers. There are 15 years of boomers.
I guess we don’t need that 6.5% of spendable income in the economy anymore for those earning 106K+.
We need more time to marinate in this recession. 🙂
I do find it amusing that because Congress can’t control spending, that we don’t have the stomach to reduce benefits that we look at the revenue stream and the idea is tossed to tax those that get little to no benefit from the program to pay for everyone else.
Marin, tell me why I must spend a full 6.5% of all my salary on social security and Joe Blow who makes 250k gets to stop at $106K? How come he doesn’t have to spend 6.5% of ALL his money like I do?
It doesn’t make sense. He gets to holler uncle and I don’t. Guess which one of us misses it the most.
I expect I am going to be less likely to spend than he is. He has more to start with.
Your logic on spendable income is totally flawed.
I’m telling you that I think you should have that 6.5 (I thought it was 6.2 – ty for catching an error) back and YOU should save it, spend it, give it to charity, swim in it, whatever. It’s your money and the government stealing it from you should be ashamed to have done so.
The current system charges people 6.5% (13% when you include employer or 13% for self employed…ouch) upto that 106K limit. It’s not what I’ve decided. It’s what our elected moonbats have. It’s a wonky system and I’ve said as much. I’ve shown you through what the SSA will be paying me how f’d up the system is. I think we should kick it to the curb and have every politician that’s voted for it to go door to door and appologize to the American people for the outright theft.
I think my logic is sound. If I take more from you, you have less to spend. If I take more from that guy he has less to spend. If we introduce a revision that taxes above the 106K+ barrier we hurt our economic system today.
Let’s say we increase it upto 200K and thus an employee puts in 13,000 and his employer puts in 13,000. You’ve removed 26,000 of money that could’ve been spent on new labor, new products, investments, what have you from the economy.
The revenue side is not the part of the balance sheet we should be working. If SSA exists (please for the love of Zues don’t let it) we have to look at telling grandma and pa that we know the govt promised them something but just can’t deliver. The US is under no general obligation to provide a social security check to anyone.
Death panels will also help the situation ala Logan’s Run.
But you are opposing SS all together. Not sure it is 6.5%. I approve of SS if it is used for SS and not an atm for some other program.
And having said that, If I have to pay 6.5% of my money, everyone should have to regardless of what they make.
Historically, people haven’t been real good at saving for old age. Bills come along, people get sick, laid off, etc. What do you think those who have been unemployed for the past year or so will have towards retirement?
Marin, you have had no misfortunes it sounds like. Life doesn’t always go as we plan or would like.
Misfortunes of one person do not require the entire nation to come together to help me. Nor do I want to go into an analysis of my personal misfortunes to gain or justify sympathy with anyone.
People have to learn to save and invest outside of the government. I have a 401K, I have a pension, and I have personal savings. Add to that a government check I’m getting. That government check was supposed to only suppliment existing savings not act as the entire retirement savings that people now believe it is.
If we’re serious about reducing the national deficit the elimination of SS can’t be off the table. It needs to go.
Now, I can support a ‘phasing out’ of it such that those that have contributed (by gun point I may add) get something back out of it but our future generations are just getting plain screwed on it. Let those kids keep more of that money and do what they wish to do with it.
Imagine if 13% more liquidity was back in our economy TODAY. Obama could claim victory on restoring the economy.