Social Security changes would ensure solvency

With the recession a factor, Social Security ran a deficit in 2010, spending $49 billion more in benefits than it received in revenues. Funds were drawn from its trust fund to cover the deficit. The trend has continued.
At the end of June of this year, the trust fund contained $2.8 trillion, according to the Social Security Administration. With baby boomers reaching retirement age and retirees living longer, actuaries predict the fund will be depleted by 2033.
When it began in 1935 full retirement payments were accorded at age 65, when life expectancy was a tad over 60.
Today the expectation is to live to age 80 or beyond, prompted by advances in medicine and emphasis on wellness.
From both pragmatic and philosophical viewpoints, many people in their mid-60s and well into their 70s are perfectly capable of continuing to work. And, it is not unusual for those who study aging to postulate that there are advantages to continuing to pursue a vocation.
The Register editorially has proposed in the past logical fixes to ensure the solvency of Social Security. They are just as true and forthright today.
The age for full retirement has increased in recent years, to 67 today. Pushing that even higher would benefit the program and slow dependence on its trust fund.
Altering early retirement benefits also would be beneficial.
As is, a person may start receiving monthly Social Security payments at age 62, with a 30 percent deduction in benefits. That drops to 25 percent at age 63 and continues at 20, 13.3 and 6.7 through age 66.
Increasing those percentages, even doing away with a year or two of early benefits, would be advantageous. That probably should have been done by a corresponding year when age for full benefits was raised.
Social Security is funded by a tax of 6.2 percent paid by both employees and employers on annual incomes of up to $117,000.  The threshold has been increased a few thousand dollars in recent years and should be increased more. This isn’t argument for removal of the cap, but pushing it higher would make a huge difference.
The final recommendation is to make benefits means tested.
Instructive statistics are kept for each individual by the Internal Revenue Service and for those with ample retirement incomes, there is good reason to consider ending Social Security payments once what that person has paid in taxes, plus appropriate interest, is paid out.

WILL ANY of these things occur?
Probably not anytime soon, unless there is a sea change in the composure of Congress, which has been so polarized of late it might be a stretch to expect a unanimous vote that the sun rises in the east each morning.
— Bob Johnson