House lawmakers have introduced a resolution to ensure that the current full retirement age for Social Security is not raised.
H.Res. 657 was introduced Aug. 15 by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and has seven co-sponsors, all Democrats. While the resolution is non-binding, a vote on the measure would force lawmakers to go on the record with their stance on keeping the current retirement age.
“Social Security and Medicare are solemn promises, not bargaining chips," Kaptur said in a statement. “For generations, working families have contributed to these programs with the expectation that they will be there in full when they reach retirement age. We cannot and must not move the goalposts on them now."
The resolution "rejects any proposals that would reduce or delay access to earned retirement benefits and reaffirms the House of Representatives’ dedication to protecting the current eligibility ages — consistent with President Trump’s public commitment on July 8, 2024."
As the resolution states, the Social Security retirement age "has already increased from 65 to 67 for individuals born after 1960, placing an undue burden on seniors and near-retirees who cannot wait longer for their earned benefits."
Benefit Cut
Among Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older, 39% of men and 44% of women receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security, the resolution continues.
Further, it states, more than 4.1 million Americans will turn 65 each year through 2027, "and many will rely on Medicare at the age of 65 to ensure access to life-saving healthcare treatments and preventive services, and raising the eligibility age would lead to higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced access to care."
Increasing the retirement age "would amount to an effective benefit cut for current and future retirees, in direct contradiction to the promises made by elected leaders from both parties," the resolution states.
Raising the Social Security retirement age "by one year is mathematically indistinguishable from a 6-7 percent across-the-board benefit cut," Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, said in an email Thursday. "Raising Medicare's age of eligibility increases national health care expenditures by about double what it saves Medicare and raises everyone's premiums — those on and off Medicare — substantially."
Both ideas, Altman continued, "have been proposed by Republicans in Congress, including by the House Republican Study Committee, whose membership includes most House Republicans. Consequently, it is important to seek to force House members to be on the record through a recorded vote."
Moreover, while Trump "said he would not cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, he just broke that promise with regard to Medicaid," Altman said. "Consequently, it is valuable to seek to force Republicans in the House to remind Trump of that promise" through this resolution.
'Very Long Lead Time'
The Senior Citizens League told ThinkAdvisor on Thursday in an email that while the group supports H.Res. 657, the League "is not adamantly opposed to proposals that would gradually raise the retirement age." But "any such change must come with a very long lead time — comparable to or longer than the 1983 reforms, which were phased in over more than two decades."
Anything less, the League said, "would unfairly impact near-retirees who have little time to adjust their retirement plans."
The 1983 amendments gradually raised the full retirement age, or FRA, "from 65 to 67, depending on the year of birth," the League said. "The lead time was long — changes were enacted in 1983, but didn’t affect anyone until 2000, 17 years later. The full phase-in took 22 years. This gradual approach gave workers ample time to adjust their retirement planning."
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.