Adjusting the Retirement Age: Extreme or Sensible? One viewpoint.
The debate over how best to address Social Security’s looming catastrophe is raging again. No surprise there, since it’s a presidential election year and that means pretty much any specific suggestion to address the problem acquires polar opposite viewpoints. A clear example of this polarization hit the media airwaves just in the last few days, with rhetoric on the issue of changes to the Social Security full retirement age generating some intense commentary. For an example, check out yesterday’s headline post on this site.
Last week, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released its Fiscal Year 2025 Budget proposal containing a recommendation to make “modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy,” a proposal that drew swift and sharp negative remarks. In fact, the RSC’s overall proposal was labeled “extreme,” and “dangerous and disastrous for America and the American people.” On the flip side, thoughtful commentary recalled that extending the full retirement age the last time the program faced depletion of its financial reserves represented part of a workable solution, and reiterated that such a change would likely be a “time-tested way to ensure nobody loses anything they already have.”
No matter which side of the argument you’re on, it’s wise to keep in mind that the clock is ticking louder and louder as the downward slope continues toward a devastating cut in the very income stream vulnerable seniors depend on. In a post yesterday by Yahoo Finance senior columnist Rick Newman, viewpoints on the retirement age issue are explored along with a general synopsis of how the political process works–or doesn’t work–in the face of matters like Social Security. Check out the Newman post on Yahoo’s Finance page here…it’s a pretty good beneath-the-covers explanation of the issue.