Raising the age would be the most regressive of the proposed changes. Raising the age would hurt, more than anyone, people who retire early, at 62. People who cannot work need to draw out of the program as soon as possible to keep from sinking into impoverishment, which has larger consequences on individuals, families and the economy. .
At any rate, the program is successful. However it comes it takes up a huge chunk of the deficit. I propose a policy that encompasses a combination of reasonable revenue increases, as well as spending cuts. Modest tax increases and spending cuts, primarily to defense, to alleviate some of the pressure off Social Security unfunded obligations is a good direction to move policy. Furthermore, increasing the payroll tax cap and reducing cost-of-living adjustment benefits are more resounding solutions. The problems with this policy are political. Raising the age provides a fast, immediate and decisive remedy to a problem, and on the surface it is supported with modern trends and perceptions of longer vitality and wealth. Keep in mind that it is necessary for people to retire and open jobs for new workers. There is a more balanced approach that can leave the program intact for people who need it sooner.
Social Security reform proposals create economic and political questions. Economic questions focus on if a certain reform will deliver retirement, survivor, and disability benefits, and how the reform would affect the economy overall. The political questions focus on what could be legislated now and how plans might evolve overtime, addressing needs of changing demographics. The major economic issues are easier to tackle than the political. More funding for Social Security requires higher taxes or lower benefits. More funding can reduce the frequency of needed adjustments to Social Security and can increase national savings. More funding can improve the economic outlook for future generations.
