Retirement Age
(A) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age (as defined in paragraph (2)) before January 1, 2000, 65 years of age;
(B) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age after December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2005, 65 years of age plus the number of months in the age increase factor (as determined under paragraph (3)) for the calendar year in which such individual attains early retirement age;
(C) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2017, 66 (years of age;
(D) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age after December 31, 2016, and before January 1, 2022, 66 years of age plus the number of months in the age increase factor (as determined under paragraph (3)) for the calendar year in which such individual attains early retirement age; and
(E) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age after December 31, 2021, 67 years of age.
(2) The term “early retirement age” means age 62 in the case of an old-age, wife’s, or husband’s insurance benefit, and age 60 in the case of a widow’s or widower’s insurance benefit.
(3) The age increase factor for any individual who attains early retirement age in a calendar year within the period to which subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (1) applies shall be determined as follows:
(A) With respect to an individual who attains early retirement age in the 5-year period consisting of the calendar years 2000 through 2004, the age increase factor shall be equal to two-twelfths of the number of months in the period beginning with January 2000 and ending with December of the year in which the individual attains early retirement age.
(B) With respect to an individual who attains early retirement age in the 5-year period consisting of the calendar years 2017 through 2021, the age increase factor shall be equal to two-twelfths of the number of months in the period beginning with January 2017 and ending with December of the year in which the individual attains early retirement age.
[209] See Vol. II, P.L. 75-162 [as amended by P.L. 93-445].
[210] See Vol. II, P.L. 75-162, §2.
[211] August 28, 1958 [P.L. 85-840; 72 Stat. 1013].
[212] See Vol. II, P.L. 75-162, §2 [as amended by P.L. 93-445].
[213] See Vol. II, P.L. 75-162, §2 [as amended by P.L. 93-445].
[214] January 1968 [P.L. 90-248; 81 Stat. 821].
[215] January 1968 [P.L. 90-248; 81 Stat. 821].
THE LOOTING OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET
ReplyDeleteFEDERAL "BORROWING" OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS
The following excerpt is from the 1998 Senate Budget Committee session. Note the underlined portions.
BEGIN EXCERPT
U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN: .....making sure that surplus is there.
U.S. SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS (D-SC): Yeah, making sure that surplus is there. I'm telling you, Dr. Greenspan, that's music to my ears.
GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize.
HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?
GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...
HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.
GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.
HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in.
GREENSPAN: Correct.
HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet.
HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either.
HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more?
GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.
HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.
FEDERAL "BORROWING" OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS
ReplyDeletecontinued
That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.
We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
END EXCERPT
It should be obvious from the above that the government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs, and those people who insists Social Security is solvent are operating in the faith that T-bills are always good, because the taxpayer can always be forced to redeem them.
But there is a problem. There are so many T-bills in the Social Security fund that when the baby-boomers start applying for benefits, the sudden surge of T-bills being presented for payment would collapse the Federal System, because there are not enough young taxpayers to carry the extra load.
Regardless of the mechanism, the bottom line is that the government looted the retirement funds of Americans, and that means one of two things has to happen (and maybe even both). Either Americans will be taxed twice for the same benefits, or the benefits will be cut.