InstinctX
Level 2 Member
For full disclosure: I don't pay attention to the news when they talk about the Federal debt. I find it boring. I have a cavalier attitude ... "it doesn't impact me" ... I view it as a wedge issue / something that politicians bring up during elections to get voters to the polls.
I'm somewhat of a political junkie, but I'm more into the tawdry scandal ("People magazine") stuff...love reading about the right-wing "crazies" like I'm not a witch Christine O'Donnell or Michele Bachmann (who is a guest star in a new movie...wait for it..Sharknado 3).
I work from home and have the TV turned on in the background...I do have MSNBC in the background. I watch Morning Joe in the mornings, love HardBall. Some will argue MSNBC is somewhat biased in their news coverage -- but I would argue the same forFaux Fox News. I stopped watching CNN -- are they still covering the Malaysian plane that disappeared 24 x 7?
I was at Starbucks...while waiting for my brew, I was checking out the newspapers. I often read Politico (they have free daily newspaper and also a weekly magazine)
What caught my eye was a story about Aaron Shock (he's a young Rep. congressman, considered a rising star...my girlfriends drool over him)...he's facing ethic violations.
I digress... there was an interesting and eye-popping article...my parents are now retired. I don't really pay attention to Social Security benefits and the payouts. My dad started collecting SS benefits at 62. My mom was all excited about getting Medicare when she turned 65.
This story has better informed me about SS payouts and the impacts of when you choose to "retire" and start collecting SS benefits...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/the-federal-debt-debate-boomers-vs-millennials-115961.html
I'm somewhat of a political junkie, but I'm more into the tawdry scandal ("People magazine") stuff...love reading about the right-wing "crazies" like I'm not a witch Christine O'Donnell or Michele Bachmann (who is a guest star in a new movie...wait for it..Sharknado 3).
I work from home and have the TV turned on in the background...I do have MSNBC in the background. I watch Morning Joe in the mornings, love HardBall. Some will argue MSNBC is somewhat biased in their news coverage -- but I would argue the same for
I was at Starbucks...while waiting for my brew, I was checking out the newspapers. I often read Politico (they have free daily newspaper and also a weekly magazine)
What caught my eye was a story about Aaron Shock (he's a young Rep. congressman, considered a rising star...my girlfriends drool over him)...he's facing ethic violations.
I digress... there was an interesting and eye-popping article...my parents are now retired. I don't really pay attention to Social Security benefits and the payouts. My dad started collecting SS benefits at 62. My mom was all excited about getting Medicare when she turned 65.
This story has better informed me about SS payouts and the impacts of when you choose to "retire" and start collecting SS benefits...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/the-federal-debt-debate-boomers-vs-millennials-115961.html
Economist Laurence Kotlikoff told the Senate Budget Committee last month that the U.S. government is flat broke. The very next night, he was on “PBS NewsHour” teaching upper-income professional couples how to claim tens of thousands in extra spousal benefits from a Social Security system he had just said was worse off than Detroit.
Welcome to the generational wars of the budget debate coming this month in Congress.
Trying to reach out to younger voters, Republicans are hitting hard on the theme that the federal debt is an undue burden on the new millennials. But the GOP’s lead witness in this case is also preaching how baby boomers can profit by standing the history of Social Security’s spousal benefit on its head.
One consistent theme in the larger Social Security debate is how to keep individuals in the workforce longer. It’s a common-sense goal, but it also raises real questions of equity.
In the case of the disability program, low-income workers today often face an all-or-nothing set of choices, and there is growing interest in finding ways to intervene earlier and help the disabled to stay on the job. The same is true for Social Security’s old-age benefits. When Congress voted in 1983 to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, it also set in motion a major expansion of credits rewarding individuals to stay on the job even longer, to age 70.
What had been a 3 percent credit grew to 8 percent per year, a change phased in over time but fully in place for those reaching retirement in 2008. The system is intended to be actuarially fair, based on the average life expectancy of retirees. But, on balance, it leans toward those best equipped to wait longer, and the reward is significant.
Indeed, at 70, a worker can qualify for benefits worth about 75 percent more than if he or she had chosen early retirement at 62.
Take, for example, an early baby boomer, born between 1946 and 1954 and slated to receive a $1,000-per-month payment from Social Security at full retirement age, now set at 66.
read more...
Welcome to the generational wars of the budget debate coming this month in Congress.
Trying to reach out to younger voters, Republicans are hitting hard on the theme that the federal debt is an undue burden on the new millennials. But the GOP’s lead witness in this case is also preaching how baby boomers can profit by standing the history of Social Security’s spousal benefit on its head.
One consistent theme in the larger Social Security debate is how to keep individuals in the workforce longer. It’s a common-sense goal, but it also raises real questions of equity.
In the case of the disability program, low-income workers today often face an all-or-nothing set of choices, and there is growing interest in finding ways to intervene earlier and help the disabled to stay on the job. The same is true for Social Security’s old-age benefits. When Congress voted in 1983 to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, it also set in motion a major expansion of credits rewarding individuals to stay on the job even longer, to age 70.
What had been a 3 percent credit grew to 8 percent per year, a change phased in over time but fully in place for those reaching retirement in 2008. The system is intended to be actuarially fair, based on the average life expectancy of retirees. But, on balance, it leans toward those best equipped to wait longer, and the reward is significant.
Indeed, at 70, a worker can qualify for benefits worth about 75 percent more than if he or she had chosen early retirement at 62.
Take, for example, an early baby boomer, born between 1946 and 1954 and slated to receive a $1,000-per-month payment from Social Security at full retirement age, now set at 66.
read more...
