Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security?

Yes, and eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings

Yes

Yes, people are now living longer than when the program was created

No, but Social Security should begin a 30-40 year phase-out program. this would allow those with immediate needs to obtain needed benefits while allowing those 30-40 years younger progressively paying less to zero into social security and allowing them time to make their retirement plans.

The retirement age should be based on the health of the senior in question. The healthier the senior, the retirement age should be raised. It should not be raised for seniors who are not healthy.

No - many people are finding it difficult to continue physical labor type work even to the existing retirement age. Raising the retirement age will result in many more people filing for disability instead.

Social Security was not intended to be a retirement program. Give every child at birth an account worth $5,000 and let it grow toward a retirement nest egg. Do NOT allow the government to be able to spend that money. Taxes would be paid on the original $5,000 when the senior retires and at a reasonable tax rate.

Social security funds should be distributed at an age based on a formula that accounts for increased age of life expectancy. Future Options should exist not to pay social security and rather invest that money into a personal retirement fund or pay a tax on funds if you choose to cash them in ahead of scheduled retirement age. Not the government's job to make sure there is money for people to retire with, that responsibility should fall to each individual citizen

Stop allowing people to collect at age 62. They have stopped paying in at a younger age and this further depletes money from social security. There are too many young retirees

The social security program no longer functions as was intended. It was suppose to be a safety net for those whose retirement plans failed. Now people are using it as their retirement plan. They should eliminate it.

Social security is a clear and perfect example of a ponzi scheme. This program should be phased out as quickly as possible and retirement planning should be up to the individual. This will increase financial literacy and further promote a strong capitalist marketplace.

NO, and we should transition Social Security funds into privately managed retirement accounts and away from congressional access and IOU's. Social Security withdrawal should be optional so that those who don't need it are not forced to take it, instead they should receive a tax credit for each year that they don't take it.

No, but SS should not be provided if annual income exceeds $75000.00 per year.

Yes, only if their health is taken into consideration. For those who are not as healthy leave it. For those who are healthy raise it.

You shouldn't be able to collect social security while still working in your previous career as it is supposed to be for retirement

Yes, but allow exceptions for those in poor health, eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings, and reduce benefits for top 25% of earners.

No, not all at once, since it will take time to convince employers that those over 65 are employable. We have a serious age prejudice and discrimination in corporations, and need to enforce better age discrimination laws before we raise the retirement age; otherwise we simply create a bigger poverty stricken group, sooner.

No, living longer and healthier does not mean still able to perform work especially at the age of 70

No, people worked a good bit of their lives keeping the country moving during their workable years. They should be allowed to retire while the Quality of life is still advantage0us. Living longer does not mean having a good quality of life.

Yes, but only for those currently under age 55. The retirement age for anyone 55 or older should NOT be raised.

No, create a monthly $2000 Universal basic income program instead.

No, this will force companies, schools, and other work places to continue to employ workers who are possibly not as able or as interested in doing their work. Many places don't want employees who are only there for a paycheck.

Regardless, social security should be eliminated because it is an unconstitutional transfer of wealth.

Follow Milton Freedman's advice on phasing out SS.

give us back our money and defund it

Yes, but age should not be the only constraint, eligibility should also be based on health, ability to work, and annual income level.

Slowly remove social security over time and fund it based of the percentage you will receive in the future.

No, but I would prefer to replace Social Security with guaranteed access to housing, food, education, and healthcare instead of tossing money at a failed system

NO... the government should not raise the Social Security retirement age unless paired with equitable safeguards, revenue adjustments, and occupation-sensitive reforms. Justice requires honoring both the letter and spirit of earned benefits, protecting dignity across all classes and generations.

No, and the government should transition away from the current social security system and replace it with a system where the government places $10,000 into a brokerage account for each baby born. Investments can be withdrawn anytime after age 50.

No lower the retirement age to 50 years old on date of birth you may not take out retirement until this day but you can wait to take it out any time after the retirement age has been reached. Spouses can not access retirement of passed loved ones until they themselves have reached retirement age and it is stated in the will and has been notarize and approved by the government

Yes, by 2 years, and increase the social security tax by 2% and increase the payouts by 20% then make the entire system voluntary

I don't have enough knowledge on emirical findings to determine the outcome of raising the social security age.

The age should stay the same, but only activates if the senior citizen is deemed unfit to work, which should be determined by a licensed doctor.

No and decrease spending for Social Security and Institute a universal basic income program for citizens 20 and over.

No, and we should instead increase payroll taxes and increase the threshold to properly fund the trust fund. We should also look into taxing automation for when jobs get replaced

Yes on white collar jobs only. Physical jobs require more out of seniors bodies but white collar jobs are able to be worked at older ages without much problem.

No, eliminate the income cap and ensure Social Security is properly paid out as originally intended.

No, but implement a wealth test and reduce benefits going to the children (under 18) of those eligible for social security benefits

Not right now, but a gradual increase might be necessary in the next 10 years. Regardless, the retirement age should never go above 69.

No, social security will collapse, if we are to prevent that it should be done by redirecting funds from other government programs.

No, eliminate the income cap, transition the SSA into a sovereign wealth fund, and ban unfunded liabilities

I think we should cut federal spending for all other government functions by 1 to 2% per year and transfer that money to social security until it is a balanced fund. Example; Cut funds for conservation easements, grants, wind and solar subsidies, abortion funds, trans gender surgery funds, climate change research, gain of function research.

No, social security should be transferred to private retirement account and not an obligation of the government.

Regardless, social security is going to nearly run out of money around 2035, so it doesn't matter in the long term.

In order to stop the burgeoning deficit on social security specifically, a lot of unnecessary government spending should be abolished, including regulatory compliance within the social security department itself. This will allow the program to continue in a financially viable state.

No, and they should lower it a few years back to how it was previously, since it is constantly rising and making some people's lives harder.

NO, I think it should lower it to 60yrs I know people who put all there money into retirement and died at 44 and 50 I also know people who are getting sick at 65 and will not enjoy it. it diffrent from being in a office to doing construction

social security should be phased out and other methods of retirement preparation should be promoted.

Yes, but people who want to retire at an earlier age should be required to provide a valid reason, such as health, illness, career-ending injury, or family matters

Raising the retirement age for Social Security poses challenges, particularly for lower-income workers in physically demanding jobs. While increasing life expectancy and changing work environments may justify a gradual raise, it risks disproportionately impacting those who rely on early retirement due to health concerns. Instead of a blanket raise, a more balanced approach could include lifting the payroll tax cap for higher earners, offering flexibility for workers in strenuous roles, and strengthening disability and health benefits. This would help sustain Social Security without unfairly burdening vulnerable populations.

No, and replace social security with a account that is dedicated to that person to make the sustainability of the idea to ensure the elderly have enough income in retirement

lower social security age to 60. So retirees can enjoy retirement. Healthy. Or allow them to partially retire. So they only have to work 10-20 hours per week.

I think people (adults) , should be allowed to retire at whatever age they want. If they want to retire at the age of 35, then they can, if at 102, if they're alive then, then they can.

Social Security needs to be ended. People who’ve paid into it should get back what they paid, and nobody else should have to pay into it anymore.

No, social security should be dissolved and instead focus on affordable living for everyone. UBI would be great.

Social security should be replaced with a better plan that takes minimal amount of taxes from people, doesn't allow the government to dip into the funds provided by people's taxes, and should focus more on being privatized, like, 401k earnings

To preserve social security for current and soon to be retirees, yes, but social security should be phased out

No, I prefer that the government support policies that involve having a wide variety of retirement plans. Like a subscription based system that ensures you having a good income after retirement.

No, but only seniors that are in poverty/do not have sufficient sources of income should receive payments.

No, the government should honor it commitments to anyone who has paid into Social Security. It should offer payouts for individuals to opt out. and, it should eliminate it for anyone who has not yet paid into it.

The current social security system is a Ponzi Scheme and should be abolished and replaced by a private system.

End social security requirements. Allow for individuals to either opt-in or opt-out, at their discretion. Allow those who opt-out to withdraw their funds from the program.

It depends on whether decreasing tax allocation mandates it, but it should be avoided unless absolutely required.

Eliminate further payments for social security as those who will not meet the age requirement by 2034 will not receive any social security benefits.

If we do this then by the time younger people try to retire we won't have any of those resources left

I grew up in a home on Social Security where Social Security UNLAWFULLY withheld income from my MOM as WIDOW raising 4 kids alone and CAUSED the LOSS of our home because of inability to make payments where we spent many months without various utilities she was unable to pay. BOTH Parents worked from the time they were 15 and 16 until my Dad died in a car/train crash at 41 & Mom was left to raise 4 young kids ALONE with help from NO ONE--she worked as a housekeeper for schools and a local hospital. She got NO "welfare" or food stamps or assistance from any government agency.…  Read more She was forced to repeatedly move while renting and when able to purchase back the home taken away from her because of things done by Social Security and a daughter and local church pastor, it was taken away again by her son where she was left to exist the last years of her life in fear of being homeless while ALONE with HELP from NO ONE but MY family--myself and 2 of our kids who stayed with her when possible.

No, but income earners making 2, 3 or 4, etc. times as much as the median worker should be paying that much more into social security.

It should be privatized, the tax should be cut, and the taxes meant for social security should be paid back to those who paid for it immediately, starting with those who should have benefits. And the payment should be adjusted for inflation, too. It's the responsibility of the children, and that includes me, instead of the responsibility of the government--the child should willingly support their parents rather than be forced to pay into the entity that, in all likelihood, spend most of it on pork barrel spending.

Social security should no longer exist. Never before has it been easier to learn how to manage money and make investments. Citizens should be self reliant, not dependent on the government.

No, decreased funding for Social Security in redirect the funds to a universal basic income program instead.

No and create a $2000 monthly universal basic income program for all people 21 and over.

No lower it instead.

No but Social Security should be privatized

Depending on what the older people want because some people don't like working in the older age and some people do

No and reduce funding for Social Security and redirect the partial funding to a $2000 monthly universal basic income program instead.

It should be more based on the number of years someone has paid into the system. If someone worked 40 years starting at age 18 they should start drawing at age 58. If another didn't start paying into it until age 30 then they work until 70 or until they are no longer healthy enough to work. (It would be an incentive to get people to work)

Yes, and make it a progressive age bracket. Anyone 55 years old is still eligible for the the current benefit, then in five year increments increase the age by a year. For example someone in the 50-55 year old range today would retire at 68 instead of 67, someone 45-50 today would retire at 69, someone 40-45 today would at 70, and so on until 75 is the retirement age.

No, they should lower it. Social Security should in the long term be replaced by other, more universal welfare but for the meantime be strengthened.

Social Security should be phased over time so younger workers can access alternatives, while not disadvantaging those who currently depend on it

No, but Social Security should be phased out. It should not be accessible as a sludge fund for the federal government and people should have the freedom to invest for retirement without government force and theft.

No, but social security (OASDI) now gives money to too many people who didn’t pay in. That needs to be ended.

i feel like this is a bad idea because the higher the age gets leaves the elderly forced to keep working when its hard from them at certain ages already

No. It is already too high considering workers pay into the system. It should be paid at whatever age a person decides to retire. There should also be a choice if either contributing to social security or cboosing private retirement plans.

Social Security should be eliminated entirely. Workers should be allowed to opt-out and/or to move their "savings" into private equity accounts and/or cash. An off-ramp from Social Security needs to be established, leading to its complete elimination.

Social Security should be eliminated. People should be able to opt out of Social Security, have their contributions transferred to private equity funds or cash, and an off-ramp for Social Security should lead to its complete elimination.

Social security should just be eliminated in general. Instead encourage investing at young age if they don't abide then thats on them.