Why Politicians Want to Raise the Retirement Age for All the Wrong Reasons

image
Published: 28 Oct, 2015
Updated: 18 Oct, 2022
3 min read

It is possible that the retirement age for Social Security may have to be increased, but we should at least take the time to figure out why.

Social Security faces a large gap in its finances. The program has promised more than it expects to be able to pay.

The Social Security Trust Fund acts as a buffer against this gap. In the big picture - even at $2.8 trillion – this reserve provides less than a quarter of solution for every dollar of problem – that is a statistical best case.

Many politicians believe that the best way to deal with the remaining gap is to raise the retirement age for Social Security. This approach has two problems:

1. The policy option isn’t very effective; and

2. It does not deal with the root cause of the financial imbalances.

The solution doesn’t fix Social Security as much as it distributes its brokenness.

Advocates of the idea usually justify this reform because life spans are rising. Supporters argue that the increase in life expectancy means payments from the program must cover more years, even though the number of years we expect workers to remain employed will remain unchanged. That just doesn't add up.

Increasing life expectancy does not necessarily mean that the program has to cover more years of benefits. Medical science allowed my brother to live 20 additional productive years, in which he contributed to Social Security all but one. He passed away at 44 without collecting a penny in benefits. His longer life made Social Security more solvent rather than less.

IVP Donate

It is important to understand what a longer lifespan means in the course of a person's life. In 1940, the average 21-year-old worker had about a 50 percent chance of living to retirement age. By 1990, the figure had increased to around 75 percent. The figure has since risen above 80 percent.

Clearly, there is a significant increase in life expectancy at a time when we are generally contributing to the system.

The life expectancy of a retiree has also risen since the inception of the system. That increase is, however, a fractional round-off compared to the increase in the system's cost. Yes, we are drawing more in benefits. No, it is not significant relative to the increase in what current workers are contributing.

No one knows how long we will live in retirement. The Social Security Administration provides a guess in Actuarial Study No. 120. In that study, the life prospects of a retiree in 2050 are not terribly different from retirees in 2000.

Yes, the 2050 retiree collects about a half year of additional benefits, but he or she has to contribute to the program for 2 additional years. It is close to a wash.

Yes, living longer in retirement is a problem. No it is not materially related to the projected life expectancy of future retirees. As a policy, increasing retirement age on current workers is not much more reasonable than reducing the benefits of people because they are left-handed.

We are looking at the wrong problem. It is not how long we are living in retirement. The problem is the number of people reaching retirement. In 1940, we had a lot of people who died without collecting anything. Today, most people expect to live through their working years into retirement.

A program like Social Security can work well when it can concentrate the contributions of the many on those that survive long enough to collect. Increasing life expectancy near retirement tends to dilute the system’s ability to concentrate resources. This is a problem.

If we are raising the retirement age for people so that the system can concentrate resources on older Americans, the policy may make sense. Today, it is under consideration so that politicians do not have to admit there is a problem.

Let Us Vote : Sign Now!

Author’s Note: Some are questioning the fairness of this solution because the increase in life expectancy has not been equal across all wage spectrums. Here is an example.

Photo Credit: zimmytws / shutterstock.com

Latest articles

Marijuana plant.
Why the War on Cannabis Refuses to Die: How Boomers and the Yippies Made Weed Political
For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American physicians freely prescribed cannabis to treat a wide range of ailments. But by the mid-twentieth century, federal officials were laying the groundwork for a sweeping criminal crackdown. Cannabis would ultimately be classified as a Schedule I substance, placed alongside heroin and LSD, and transformed into a political weapon that shaped American policy for the next six decades....
30 Jun, 2025
-
2 min read
Donald Trump standing behind presidential podium and in front of two American flags.
Has Trump Made His Case for the Nobel Peace Prize?
A news item in recent days that was overshadowed in the media by SCOTUS and the One Big Beautiful Budget Bill was a US-brokered peace agreement that was signed between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – which if it holds will end a conflict between the two countries that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands of people....
30 Jun, 2025
-
7 min read
Picture of skyscraper in New York behind a bridge.
Knives Come Out Against Reform at NYC CRC Hearing as Independents Rise
Last week in Staten Island, the NYC Charter Revision Commission held its next-to-last public hearing. As Commissioner Diane Savino commented, addressing NYC's closed primary system “is the single biggest issue we’ve heard this year.”...
30 Jun, 2025
-
3 min read