Social Security chief walks back remark
on raising retirement age
The Hill,
by
Ashleigh Fields
Original Article
Posted By: Mercedes44,
9/19/2025 9:35:10 PM
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Friday walked back his remark made earlier in the day that raising the retirement age was among the entitlement reforms being considered by the Trump administration.
In an interview with Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo asked Bisignano if he’d consider increasing the age for full federal retirement benefits, which currently stands at 67.I think everything’s being considered and will be considered,” he said.
Bisignano noted that any change recommended by Social Security trustees — a group that also includes Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — would need congressional approval.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
crashnburn 9/19/2025 10:15:34 PM (No. 2006411)
Social Security is not an entitlement. It was supposed to be a retirement benefit for those who paid into it.
41 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
sunset 9/19/2025 10:50:57 PM (No. 2006417)
When the Social Security program began in the 1930s, the retirement age was 65, and the average life expectancy was around 60-63 years at birth
26 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Snow Possum 9/19/2025 11:12:08 PM (No. 2006421)
1...
It was SUPPOSED to be a safety net to aid those who did not have enough in pensions and savings to retire on.
In 1940 there were 42 in the workforce for every recipient of Social Security. FORTY-TWO.
Today? 2.8 as of 2022.
Something has to give. Raising the full retirement age adjusted for longevity is an objectively reasonable idea. Means testing is also worth considering. IF someone has 8 million USD in the bank they do not need a safety net.
An idea I had a while back was having an age at which one could stop paying the Social Security payroll tax and with that, give up their claim on benefits when they do retire.
Something has to be done and it will be painful. There is no way around it.
12 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
WinterParker 9/20/2025 5:53:05 AM (No. 2006443)
45 years ago I was told not to rely on SS: "It won't be there. It's unsustainable". Nothing has been done except a tweak on full retirement. I'd like to see the numbers on pushing the early age availability from 62 to 65. And if people are going to work longer, maybe push the age for Required Minimum Distributions to 75 years old or give them a lower tax rate. Entice people to work longer and pay more into the system. Lots of smart financial folks can figure this out. (Ideally, allow young workers to opt out or invest the SS taxes in a market account. But that ain't happening)
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Rather Read 9/20/2025 6:22:17 AM (No. 2006450)
I didn't start taking Social Security until I was 70. I'm 74 and still working and still paying into it. I do have a pension when I finally retire, but I enjoy my work and plan to keep doing it as long as I can.
13 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 9/20/2025 6:35:03 AM (No. 2006455)
It is the early retirement age that should be addressed. . .
10 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
ARKfamily 9/20/2025 6:37:24 AM (No. 2006456)
An added comment. It makes a lot of sense what #4 said about early age availability changing from 62 to 65.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mifla 9/20/2025 6:56:54 AM (No. 2006462)
I don't like being told one thing by the government, only to be told years later that things have changed.
Their mismanagement of the SS program should not fall on the shoulders of those who paid into the system for years.
20 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DiegoDude 9/20/2025 6:58:53 AM (No. 2006463)
Im 69 and still work full time. I started collecting SS at my full retirement age of 66 & 4 months. Figured I better get some of what the government took from me, while I still can. Retirement age is a misnomer. If people want to work past that, let them. I think businesses are figuring out that a lot of old farts, still have something left in the tank.
11 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
franq 9/20/2025 8:41:53 AM (No. 2006501)
"Consider" all you want, but we who have paid into it all our lives are at least entitled to those funds.
It went to pot when our leaders put it all into a general slush fund.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
chumley 9/20/2025 9:03:25 AM (No. 2006515)
I paid into that ponzi scheme for my entire working life, against my will. They took huge amounts out of every paycheck and gave it to people who could work but didnt feel like it. I will never live long enough to get out what I put into it. Anything the government administers will be corrupt and inefficient.
9 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 9/20/2025 9:29:22 AM (No. 2006528)
#5 and #10 are correct. They wanted the SS funds to dip into and pay for other projects. The government can print money to cover it but a private company has to manage their employee pension funds responsibly or face disaster.
I retired at 69 mainly just to enjoy my remaining years with golf, travel etc. I enjoyed my business and interacting with my customers but we are finite beings and we all need some time off after a lifetime of work.. Others prefer to work on because they enjoy it and others for financial reasons.
Something is going to have to be done. Either raise the retirement age, the "contribution" rate, or cut benefits. There is really no responsible way to handle it other than printing more money and creating even more inflation, inflation that will continue to cut into our retirement benefit and squeeze retirees income even more.
Raising the retirement age and perhaps a small increase in SS contributions seems to be the least objectionable. Trying to cut benefits will never happen since congress is averse to being tarred and feathered (or worse, lose their cushy jobs).
3 people like this.
Social Security is, and always has been, a Ponzi scheme. It was a con built on lies.
My return, assuming full benefits exist at retirement, will be a -1.5% return. This will then be taxed. I would have been far better off burying the money in coffee cans in my back yard.
We can tweak it all we want, and I guess we have to because so many people depend on the lie.
But the only real solution is to figure out some way to eventually shut it down.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Sully 9/20/2025 11:57:34 AM (No. 2006604)
Guess what.
1. We don't get to work to 70. We get fired at 50 and then chase jobs at companies that will hire us for diminishing pay packages. Many in the workforce.
2. Everyone alive today has been paying in for their entire lives. IDC what they did w the money. They owe us an annuity.
3. Double tax the childless for engineering the shortfall.
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
MickTurn 9/20/2025 12:39:21 PM (No. 2006625)
Since our Legislators have STOLEN THE Social Security MONEY and given it to Illegals, maybe we tap their salary at 75% to pay it all back, Democraps get to pay their fair share, 500%!
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Kate318 9/20/2025 12:46:15 PM (No. 2006639)
Most people have no problem working later in life, but the reality is that many employers start trying to push older workers out the door, at a certain point. Who’s going to employ people at 75? Yes, yes, I realize it’s against the law to discriminate according to age, but employers have their ways. I’ve seen this happen too many times. Not advocating for the government to take care of all of us in our old age, just pointing out the reality of working longer in life.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
paral04 9/20/2025 4:59:26 PM (No. 2006747)
There would be a lot more money in our Treasury if we weren't giving all that money to support illegals and migrants who came here with no visible means of support or sponsors which were required for centuries..
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
paral04 9/20/2025 5:05:31 PM (No. 2006749)
If President Johnson hadn't removed the Social Security from a Trust and put it in the General Fund we wouldn't be having this problem. Before Johnson, the Trust money was set aside for Social Security benefits for eligible members of the system only and was invested wisely. Johnson used it as a piggy bank and when Cuban refugees came he put them on Social Security and Medicare which to me was illegal. Other funds should have been appropriated.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Mercedes44"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)