During this election – and if you’ll recall, during every election before this – fears are stoked over the demise of Social Security and Medicare.
My inbox fills up with the same question, “Will these still be here when I retire?” Mostly likely yes, but not without some alterations. Everyone fears that the Republicans will ruin these programs, buy you have already ruined them.
You, yes you dear reader.
You and yours have not kept that stasis the programs required. When Social Security commenced in the 1930s, families routinely produced five to six workers. Ask yourself how many workers have you contributed to this system. Only two or three? You are part of the problem.
You are also ruining Social Security with your longevity. In the 1930s, very few people lived long enough to collect benefits. You and your family expect to live well past age 65 – once considered rare old age. You and yours are living longer and longer, many expecting to collect benefits from ages 62 to 82 … or longer.
As life expectancy increased, so too should the age to collect full retirement benefits. But this is political suicide. So painful is the fallout that when Ronald Regan’s administration moved the age up from 65 to 67, he made it take over 20 years to phase in. This safely left those who voted to move the age exempt from political fallout. And fallout there would be if anyone actually knew that the age is in fact no longer 65. The vast majority of my clients still cling to the belief that age 65 is their age for full benefits.
If you were born in 1960 or after, the age for full benefits levels out at age 67. It took over eight years to move the age of full retirement up a paltry two years. If we want to save the program, it must continue to change as our country has changed. Yes, the age must increase. Yes, this means that more people may not live long enough to reap any of the benefits. That is precisely how the program was designed.
Save your hate emails; this is not my opinion. I’m not telling you anything other than the history of our program – a program that was never designed to be your sole source of income during retirement.
That fact hurts the most. The reality of the program was to supplement your savings, not provide you with all your income. “How am I supposed to live on this?” is common question. The answer is a cold truth that angers everyone, “You were never meant to survive on only Social Security.” Many people, especially women, claim Social Security as their only income.
This is not an insurance program. Nor will everyone who pays in be able to draw something out. Work for only nine years? You don’t qualify to draw anything at retirement. Never worked at all and become disabled? Sorry, you don’t qualify either. Were you a stay-at-home mother to three children whose father left you after 9.9 years? Nada. You cannot qualify for spousal benefits since your marriage wasn’t a full 10 years.
Our program is frustratingly complicated, but that is due to it stretching and bending over the past 80 years to become more equitable. Men howl that it isn’t “fair” their ex-spouses can draw a benefit off them. Women howl that it isn’t fair they can’t draw more than 50 percent of their spouse’s amount. Everyone seems to be mad that their monthly check is too low, and yet here we are: in love and in hate with Social Security.
Our little social project that has changed a lot must continue to change if it is to survive.
Sylvia Gordon is co-founder of The Medicare Family, headquartered in Noblesville, where she educates thousands on Medicare and Social Security in all 50 states. You can learn more at TheMedicareFamily.com.