Changes to Social Security that will have a direct impact on millions of US seniors

Changes to Social Security who come with The Heritage Foundation, a stable think tank, proposed to raise retirement age to 70 as a way to improve the program. Rachel Greszler, senior researcher at the Roe Instituteadvocates this change in the basic text, suggesting that raising the age of eligibility for Social Security Benefits it can help solve the immediate financial problem faced by Social Security Administration (SSA).

SSA’s 2023 Trustees Report, published earlier this year, warned that the trust funds that fund the US’s biggest benefits program – which covers retirees, survivors and people with disabilities – would run out by 2035 unless Congress works to maintain their solvency. In his article, Greszler suggested raising the standard gradually retirement age from 67 to 69 or 70, with incremental increases of one or two months each year, which accommodate future changes in life expectancy.

According to Greszler, “increasing life expectancy, improved health care and the retirement of hard work” suggest that many older Americans are now able to working longer than before. He said this could help solve the upcoming financial gap Social Security.

He also pointed out that keeping older workers employed can provide benefits beyond stability Social Security Funds. “The benefits of older workers staying in the workforce are increasing Social Security’s solvencyand more money that Americans would get. The wisdom and experience of senior staff provide valuable insight and guidance to junior staff. And today’s labor market offers increasing opportunities for older workers to gradually downsize, rather than leave their jobs suddenly. “

Greszler acknowledged that raising the retirement age alone will not solve future financial problems. Social Security System. Instead, he suggested it could only address 20 to 30 percent of the projected deficit by 2035. Social Security retirement age is an important part of the improvement, it would only solve 20 percent to 30 percent of the program’s shortcomings. A more accurate inflation adjustment could solve another 20 to 25 percent of the program’s problems.”

Some experts consider the problem of Social Security funding

Some experts on Social Security and monetary policy is not necessarily consistent with production. Stephen Kates, chief financial analyst with RetireGuide.comdescribed raising the eligibility age as “the latest form of easing to cut benefits.” Although not directly referring to Greszler’s article, Kates pointed out that raising the initial eligibility age of 62 or full retirement age 67 would mean smaller and slower benefits for future retirees. He explained that at the moment, the beneficiaries are the first to take Social Security at 62 generally see a 30 percent reduction in their monthly payments compared to waiting until the full retirement age of 67 (for those born after 1959).

Center for Finance and Policy Priorities (CBPP) he said earlier that raising the retirement age for Social Security it could reduce benefits by an amount similar to the reduction in benefits expected in the 2030s if no legislative measures are taken to save funds.

Zachary Pleat, senior researcher at Media Mattershe also expressed concern about The Heritage Foundation motion. He linked this strategic motivation to a broader political agenda, he said Project 2025step led by Heritage Society, which aims to organize a conservative coalition for the next administration starting in January 2025.”The Heritage Foundationplayed a leading role in organizing the federal government’s extreme expropriation scheme known as Project 2025 for the next Republican president, now he’s calling Social Security retirement age to be raised to 70,” said Pleat.

Project 2025according to its definition, it includes a group of independent organizations that want to make sure that the new conservative administration is ready to govern effectively starting in January 2025. This proposal to raise Social Security retirement age it is seen by critics as part of a broader idea to restructure government jobs and benefits.