Billionaire Tells Seniors That 65 Is A 'Crazy' Retirement Age
By: Jake Johnson (Crooks and Liars)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Larry Fink, the billionaire CEO of the world's largest asset management firm, wrote in his annual letter to investors on Tuesday that it is "a bit crazy" that 65 is viewed as a sensible retirement age in the United States, drawing swift backlash from Social Security defenders and policy analysts.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, replied that the CEO of BlackRock apparently doesn't know the U.S. already raised the full retirement age for Social Security to 67 under a law passed during the Reagan administration—a change that inflicted benefit cuts across the board.
"I love how rich people are treated as sources of great wisdom when they obviously don't know their ass from their elbow," Baker wrote on social media.
While Fink, who is 71, wrote that "no one should have to work longer than they want to," he argued that "our conception of retirement must change," pointing specifically to the Netherlands decision to gradually raise its retirement age and tie it to life expectancy. (Fink does not mention that life expectancy in the U.S. has been trending downward in recent years.)
"When people are regularly living past 90, what should the average retirement age be?" Fink wrote. "How do we encourage more people who wish to work longer, with carrots rather than sticks?"
Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams in response to the BlackRock CEO's letter that "Larry Fink is the definition of an out-of-touch billionaire."
"He is welcome to work as long as he wants to, but that doesn't mean that everyone else—including people who do demanding physical labor—should work until they die," said Lawson.
Half of Americans age 65 and older are living on less than $30,000 per year. This is absurd. Congress must expand Social Security."
Roughly half of older Americans have no retirement savings, a fact that Fink acknowledged in his letter.
While progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have called on policymakers to expand Social Security benefits by forcing rich people like Fink to contribute more to the program, the BlackRock CEO argued that the private sector and federal government should team up to ensure that future generations can live out their final years with dignity."
"What should that national effort do? I don't have all the answers," Fink added. "But what I do have is some data and the beginnings of a few ideas from BlackRock's work. Because our core business is retirement."
Fink's letter comes days after the Republican Study Committee—a panel comprised of around 80% of the House GOP caucus—released a budget proposal calling for "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy" in a purported bid to "secure Social Security solvency for decades to come."
But progressives argue that rather than slashing benefits for new retirees to shore up the program, Congress should lift the payroll tax cap that allows the ultra-rich to pay the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $168,600 a year.
Fink, for example, has a base salary of around $1.5 million. With the current payroll tax cap in place, Fink stopped paying into Social Security less than a month and a half into 2024.
"In the U.S. today, 12 million seniors are dealing with food insecurity," Sanders wrote on social media Tuesday. "Half of Americans age 65 and older are living on less than $30,000 per year. This is absurd. Congress must expand Social Security."
Republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Tags
Who is online
398 visitors
lets first expand the tax base for SS, and then if it still falls short , a later retirement age can be talked about.
Lets first tell students to pay back their own loans that they signed for and stop paying for illegals to move here.
Every year since i started working the Government has sent me a statement, or an now, a email reminder to check my SS benefits. it clearly stated what amount of my money that i paid in they would kindly give back to me every month after I reached retirement age until i die. If you are too stupid to figure out that it isn't enough to live on, or if you didn't make other arrangements than that is a you problem, not a me problem. I'm tired of people expecting others to pay for their stupidity or bad life decisions.
i'm not sure anyone is asking you to pay more than your fair share
My retirement age is set at 67 (thanks, ronny raygun) but I will retire at 65. I have 3 more years til I reach my 30 years where I work. I don't plan on working after that. I have things I want to do. Like see Yellowstone one more time
I tend to agree that 65 is too young for the current Social Security system. Social Security is set up as a legal Ponzi scheme, where the money that comes in from people working is used to pay those who retired. When the program first started, it was many people working for each person drawing retirement. That in recent years has fallen to almost 2 people working for each person drawing benefits. That by itself is unsustainable.
Secondly when SS was first set up, the average lifespan of an American was 64.5 years. So 65 for full retirement is a golden number as many of the people who might draw on it will already be dead. Even with Covid and drug addiction, the average life expectancy is still around 77.
As this is an election year I highly doubt that there will be any changes to the system, despite all that we will hear about it in the negative attack ads that we will be subject to. And as the trust fund is set to be depleted in about nine years, everybody can (and should be planning for, if not that's all on the individual) expect a 23% cut in benefit payments.
There are some changes that can be made that would greatly benefit the system as well as all of us. My suggestions include :
I'm sure others will have differing ideas for this. I would be hesitant to restrict benefits based on wealth because that may put the idea into some heads that it's not worthwhile to save for retirement if it will cost you benefits in the long term. There can be some negotiation around this but even an IRA of $5 million can be insignificant if there are health issues in later years. I would much rather look into expanding the income of the program by the small tax increase and removal of the cap.
The right time to retire and the right time to be able to collect social security are two entirely different discussions.
I retired at 57 but did not begin to draw social security until I was 67 and while I was not and never will be rich, we lived okay, and it was the right age for me and my family because it allowed us to do things that and experience things that were not possible during my working life.
Things would have been easier financially if I had continued to work, but all things considered it was worth it.
I retired at 60, husband at 59 1/2, 10 years ago. I drew SS at 62, husband at 67 (FRA). We had very stressful white-collar jobs, traveling a lot, having to live away from home at times. We lived within our means, had house, cars paid off when we retired. We've never looked back, are fine financially, able to do what we want. White-collar corporate type jobs can be just as hard on someone's physical/mental well being as blue-collar jobs.
One caveat, we, by choice, did not have children.
Many people are worn out at 60
Everyone one is different as is the kind of work they do. As we live longer, it makes sense to periodically evaluate retirement age.
I will start withdrawing SS next month when I turn 70. I'll continue to work for a few more years. One my wife just turned 60 and will continue work and I don't want to retire much before her. Two, I really enjoy my job, the workforce and feel as a needed member of the team. Finally, I have the kind of job that allows me to make a contribution as well as discuss the issues with you fine people.