CEO Group Urges Raising Social Security, Medicare Enrollment Age to 70

The Business Roundtable, a business group consisting of several hundred CEOs from prominent companies, has requested that Congress gradually raise the age of eligibility for Social Security from the current 67 to 70. The proposal is among a raft of measures the Roundtable is recommending to shore up the troubled finances of America's entitlement programs. 

According to a press release detailing the measures, the Roundtable believes its ideas will "ensure the solvency of the [Social Security] program for the next 75 years." In addition to lifting the Social Security eligibility age, the group also recommends pegging cost-of-living adjustments to a lower measure of inflation, among other moves.

The Roundtable also provided a set of recommendations for adjusting Medicare. These proposals include a similar rise in age eligibility, the introduction of "competing and comprehensive private plans" as an alternative to the program, and reducing the cost burden for higher-earning beneficiaries.

link


Read/Post Comments (9) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 19, 2013, at 1:13 PM, aptosjoe wrote:

    An odd concept. I pay into a fund for 50 years, which then assures me a fixed payment for the rest of my life. But when payments become due

    they tell me payment will be delayed and smaller.

    Oh yes, should I die in the mean time, neither my estate nor heirs get anything. I don't think a rational person would ever accept such a proposal. Nor am I surprised by the identity of those proposing it.

  • Report this Comment On January 19, 2013, at 7:06 PM, eltombo wrote:

    Members of this millionaire club are some of the biggest employers in the country. Are they willing to hang on to their 50 and 60+ year-old workers until age 70? Are they also advocating anti-discrimination policies for these workers? Think about it 1%ers - if you raise the retirement age to 70, you're stuck with us geezers for another 10-15 years.

  • Report this Comment On January 19, 2013, at 7:43 PM, cmf wrote:

    I agree w/ aptosjoe.

  • Report this Comment On January 19, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Chuck2010 wrote:

    These execs have never really worked physical labor. They would work real laborers to death just like in the gulags of the Soviet Union. That is what raising the retirement age means. Broken bodies and broken promises. But please don't tax me more, I am rich.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2013, at 3:35 PM, crca99 wrote:

    Companies already have not so subtle ways of forcing older workers out. If the new economy means fewer jobs overall (with positions being replaced by technology), then there will be even more pressure to get older workers out. If legitimate retirement is not an option, will workers face periods of unemployment while waiting for retirement age?

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2013, at 10:00 PM, NickD wrote:

    With some nice parents and a good paying job at 19 I was able to retire by 29.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2013, at 11:55 AM, ogvor wrote:

    It should also be pointed out that while overall life expectancy has risen a great deal since Social Security was created, life expectancy for those who are 65 years old has only increased a few years. In other words, the amount of time people actually have to receive their SS benefits hasn't actually increased that much, just the number of people who get to that age.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2013, at 1:34 PM, mdk0611 wrote:

    joe - You're wrong in so many ways. First of all, the current retirement age, established in 1983 for those born up to 1971 would not change. So nobody who has paid into the system for 50 years would see a benefit change. For those born after 1971, if the age increase follows the 1983 pattern. the increase would be as follows:

    Born in:

    1972 - 67 years, 2 months

    1973 - 67 years, 4 months

    1974 - 67 years, 6 months

    1975 - 67 years, 8 months

    1976 - 67 years. 10 months

    1977-1989 - 68 years

    1990 - 68 years, 2 months

    etc. etc. etc.

    So you can see that just as with the 1983 changes, affected beneficiaries have DECADES to prepare for the changes. Nobody gets a surprise after 50 years of participation.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2013, at 9:32 PM, jervy100 wrote:

    how about paying social security taxes on income above about 107,000 per year.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2203912, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/28/2014 9:43:30 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement