Human Resources News & Insights

Senators say 70 should be the new 67

Three senators have introduced legislation that would raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 – and reduce benefits for wealthier retirees.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the bill, dubbed the Social Security Solvency and Sustainability Act.

They claim the bill will achieve sustainable solvency for the Social Security system without increasing taxes in any way.

To do that, the bill would:

  • gradually increase the retirement age at which an individual could receive full Social Security benefits to 70 by 2032 (those currently 56 or older would not be affected)
  • gradually increase the early retirement age from 62 to 64 by 2028, and
  • slow down benefit accumulations for those making over $43,000 per year.

Info: To read the entire bill, click here (PDF).

Print Friendly

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest Human Resources news and insights delivered to your inbox.


  1. In Chicago says:

    Some people say that raising the retirement age actually discriminates against many working poor, service workers and other blue collar types because those are the kind of jobs where people are less likely to last until 70, unlike their better paying knowledge workers.

  2. I am appauled at the idea of making 70 the new age to receive social security. What is ironic about this is those Senators who are pushing this are most likely well off. What about those who barely make it week to week? Then you want us to work until 70???? You might be well off when you are 70, but I won’t be. I’m a nanny and barely make a little more than minimum wage. Lifting children at 70 will be nearly impossible!!! I work for rich people like you, who wouldn’t give a shi* whether I’m physically able to work then or not. I’ll fight this to then end!!!! How about exhorbatent expense of the military who fight wars that can’t be won and take care of the elderly!!!

  3. HR Annie says:

    Of course they would like to raise the age to 70.

    These are the same people that do not have to show up to work on a daily basis to make ends meet.

    They will also get paid regardless for the rest of their lives.

  4. Common Sense says:

    @ “In Chicago Says”

    Of course social security discriminates against the poor, blacks, hispanics… It already did that at a 65 retirement age. Any group that on average has a lower lifespan is discriminated against. That is one of many reasons why social security needs to be privatized.

  5. I guess this is their ultimate goal as many will expire before they reach age 70 to retire. What a great solution, let them die before they are eligible to receive S.S.

  6. A better solution would be to relieve those senators – and all senators/congresspersons of their pay and benefits when their terms are up and then dump that money back into the social security system. That way us poor blokes that support their way of life could retire and enjoy a little bit of life before we pass on.
    We’re not asking for equality (even though it is deserved), just some of what WE have worked for!

  7. The average life expectancy when SS was passed was 65. It was never meant to be a source of long term retirment income, but as usual, the government kept kicking the can down the road instead of adjusting SS to stay in line with life expectancy.

    Besides, the private sector always outperforms the public. Why are we still letting the government waste SS money, where it would have a much higher return in the public sector?

  8. To Fred:
    The reason S.S. should not be in the private sector is because of misuse of funds. It wasn’t that long ago that ENRON collapsed taking people’s life savings down with the ship as well. People do not trust private entities with their money anymore. I’m sorry but I feel sticking with the government would be more of a guarantee than private business.

  9. Right I will probably have to work to 70 anyway and be lucky to get an social security. Either age needs to increased, benefits lowered, or taxes raised. Preferably a combination of all three. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are only dreaming about social security.

  10. To MMan:
    Enron? Who in there right minds invests all there money in one compay? That’s why you create a portfolio. Enron might have been a big company, but it was only a tiny fraction of the entire stock market. Private sector has always been a better investment….PROOF: How many people invest in their retirement, like a 401k or IRA? Do they invest in the private sector (like a mutual fund) or are they buying up T-Bills??? And as far as misuses of funds….Really???

  11. Common Sense says:

    Hey MMan. I can’t figure you out. Last week you bemoaned the fact that younger healthier workers may not be able to get insurance on the open market at a cheaper rate in a free market. Yet, I sense that you are an advocate of Obamacare, (If I am wrong please let me know.) which leads to the destruction of the free market. This week you are upset with the idea that individuals may have a choice as to how to invest their social security contributions. You either believe in individual choices or you don’t. Just because you “do not trust private entities with your money anymore” does not make it right for you to deny others of their choices. The private sector has a much better track record of protecting and investing people’s money than the government. Social Security being the perfect example. (Can you say biggest Ponzi scheme ever.)

Speak Your Mind