2015 White House Conference on Aging

2015 White House Conference on Aging logo

Policy Briefs

Nora Super and others at Listening Sessions 2014

13. May 2015 14:24
by WHCOA Staff
55 Comments

Retirement Security Policy Brief

13. May 2015 14:24 by WHCOA Staff | 55 Comments


Retirement Security

Americans are living longer than ever before. In 2012, life expectancy at birth in the United States reached a record high of 78.8 years. A 65 year-old man can expect to live another 17 years and a 65 year-old woman another 20 years. As a result, older Americans have more time to help grow the economy, enrich their communities, and enjoy their families. But longer lives can also challenge older Americans’ financial security, increasing the risk of outliving their assets.

Historically, experts have envisioned a secure financial foundation for retirement as a three-legged stool, made up of Social Security, employer-sponsored pensions, and individual savings or investments. But as traditional pensions have increasingly been replaced with defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans, retirees are taking on heightened risks in retirement, especially as longevity increases. 

The Obama administration believes that all Americans deserve to retire with dignity. That is why the President has worked to strengthen Social Security, expand the availability of retirement savings options, and protect workers’ hard-earned savings. This policy brief reviews recent activity and proposals in these three areas.

Protecting and Strengthening Social Security

As we celebrate the 80th anniversary of the enactment of the Social Security Act in 2015, protecting Social Security to help ensure that older Americans can retire with dignity has never been more important. Social Security provides an essential foundation of retirement security for older Americans and an important lifeline to families and workers who become disabled. It provides guaranteed, life-long benefits to almost 60 million Americans, including nearly nine out of ten Americans aged 65 or older and nearly 11 million disabled workers and their families. Monthly retirement benefits are modest – averaging $1,330 a month for retired workers in January 2015, or just under $16,000 a year. Similarly, monthly disability benefits averaged just $1,165 for disabled workers in January 2015, less than $14,000 per year. 

Yet Social Security continues to be the main source of income for most older Americans, especially women and minorities. Two-thirds of older beneficiaries rely on Social Security for half or more of their income; that includes one-third who count on it for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income. Nearly half of unmarried older women, including widows, rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income. Forty-six percent of older African American beneficiaries, 44 percent of Asian beneficiaries, and 53 percent of older Hispanic beneficiaries get at least 90 percent of their total income from the program, compared to 35 percent of older white beneficiaries. 

Social Security keeps nearly 15 million older adults out of poverty each year, along with more than 1 million children and 6 million adults younger than 65. Without Social Security benefits, the poverty rate for older Americans would approach 50 percent. Public opinion polls show that support for Social Security crosses both party and demographic lines, with many Americans open to contributing more in order to preserve and improve Social Security benefits.

The Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that Social Security is a rock-solid guaranteed benefit that every American can rely on, now and in the future. While the President believes that we need to work in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen Social Security, he remains committed to the following principles:

  • Any reforms should strengthen Social Security for future generations and restore long-term solvency.
  • The Administration will oppose any measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security system.
  • While all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the Administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
  • Current beneficiaries should not see their basic benefits reduced.
  • Reform should strengthen retirement security for the most vulnerable, including low-income older Americans.
  • Reform should maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.
Because Social Security is such an important source of income for older Americans, it is critical that older Americans understand what their Social Security benefits mean for their lifetime income, and how to integrate Social Security payments with other income sources. Social Security monthly benefit amounts differ substantially based on when a person decides to start receiving benefits. For example, if a person begins claiming benefits at the earliest age of 62, benefits may be $750 a month for the rest of the person’s life, but by delaying claiming benefits until age 70, the same benefit would be $1,320 a month. 


The Administration is committed to supporting public education to help inform these decisions. The Social Security Administration is collaborating with other organizations on the “Campaign for a Secure Retirement: Helping Millions of Americans Plan and Save for Retirement.” Current partners include the American Savings Education Council, the Consumer Federation of America, the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. This educational campaign aims to encourage retirement planning and savings, and to encourage use of the online Social Security Statement as an important retirement planning tool. Workers and retirees of all ages are encouraged to access their statement by creating a “my Social Security account” to begin tracking their earnings record and potential future benefits. SSA also offers a Retirement Estimator, which allows workers to estimate their Social Security benefits under various retirement scenarios.

Social Security is and must remain a rock-solid, guaranteed progressive benefit that every American can rely on. However, too many Americans reach retirement age with insufficient savings to supplement their Social Security and enjoy a secure retirement, even after a lifetime of hard work.

Saving challenges are especially acute for some demographic groups. For example, the median wealth of black and Hispanic households is just one-eighth that of white households. Figure 2 demonstrates the impact of decreased earnings over time on the accumulation of wealth for black and Hispanic families. 


Increasing Retirement Security and Employer-Based Retirement Savings Options

The number of traditional defined benefit pension plans in the private sector has fallen from 103,000 in 1975 to 44,000 in 2012, and the number of active participants in such plans has fallen from 27 million to 16 million – even as the workforce has continued to grow. Employers are increasingly providing defined contribution plans instead. In 2014, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans accounted for $14.2 trillion in retirement savings – more than half of Americans’ total retirement wealth.

These trends in the employer-based retirement system mean that many Americans are being left behind. Nearly a third of all workers do not have access to workplace retirement benefits. For part-time workers, more than 60 percent do not have access. For those full-time workers who have access, only 64 percent participate, while for part-time workers, only 21 percent participate. And even if they do participate, many workers lack the time and information necessary to make the often complex financial decisions to maximize the impact of their contributions over time.


The President’s retirement tax reform proposals included in his 2016 Budget would dramatically expand coverage and access to employer-based retirement savings. Specifically, the President’s 2016 Budget proposed to:

  • Automatically enroll Americans without access to a workplace retirement plan in an IRA. The Budget would make it easy and automatic for workers to save for retirement through their employer. Under the proposal, every employer with more than 10 employees that chooses not to offer a retirement plan would automatically enroll their workers in an IRA without being responsible for running a retirement plan, and employees would have automatic payroll deductions from wages deposited into their IRA. “Auto-IRAs” would let workers opt out of saving if they choose, but would also let them start saving in an easy, convenient way without sorting through complex options. The proposal would provide employers with 100 or fewer employees that offer an auto-IRA a tax credit of up to $4,500 (up to $1,000 per year for three years plus $25 per enrolled employee up to $250 for six years). The auto-IRA proposal has been endorsed by independent experts and others across the ideological spectrum, including those affiliated with AARP, the Brookings Institution, and the Heritage Foundation.
  • Provide tax credits for auto-IRA adoption, as well as for employers that choose to offer more generous employer plans or switch to auto-enrollment. The President’s 2016 Budget also proposed to triple the existing “start-up” credit, so small employers that newly offer a retirement plan would receive a tax credit of $4,500 ($1,500 per year for three years) – more than enough to offset administrative expenses. And because auto-enrollment is the most effective way to ensure workers with access to a plan participate, small employers that already offer a plan and add auto-enrollment would get an additional tax credit of $1,500 ($500 per year for three years).
  • Encourage state-based retirement savings initiatives. A number of states have been exploring options for expanding retirement savings among private-sector employees, especially those workers in the state who do not otherwise have access to a retirement savings plan at work. Some states are exploring models based on the President’s auto-IRA proposal, while another possible model would be a state-sponsored 401(k)-type retirement savings program available to interested employers and their employees. Others are exploring state-sponsored 401(k)-type retirement savings program. To better support state efforts, the President’s 2016 Budget requested $6.5 million and authority for the Department of Labor to approve pilot programs for a small number of states to experiment with ways to expand private sector retirement options and to evaluate what works best.
  • Ensure long-term, part-time workers can contribute to their employer’s retirement plan. Only 37 percent of part-time workers have access to a workplace retirement plan.19 That’s partly because employers offering retirement plans are allowed to exclude employees who work fewer than 1000 hours per year, no matter how long they’ve worked for the employer. The President’s 2016 Budget proposed to expand access for part-time workers by requiring employers who offer plans to permit employees who have worked for the employer for at least 500 hours per year for 3 years or more to make voluntary contributions to the plan.
  • Simplify minimum required distribution rules. Individuals with aggregate IRA and tax-favored retirement plan assets of less than $100,000 at the beginning of the year in which they turn 70½ would be exempt from the minimum required distribution rules. The rules for minimum required distributions would be harmonized for Roth IRAs and other tax-favored accounts, with Roth IRAs generally treated in the same manner as all other tax-favored accounts.
The above proposals would give 30 million more workers access to a retirement savings opportunity and build on the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s actions over the past year to make retirement saving easier by creating simple, risk-free, and no-fee myRA savings vehicle. myRA is designed to encourage Americans who lack access to workplace retirement plans to begin a lifelong habit of saving, and provides a secure investment return at the same variable interest rate as federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan Government Securities Investment Fund (G Fund).

The Administration is also looking at issues facing defined benefit pension plans and considering ways to help these plans continue to play a critical role in the retirement security of millions of Americans. Defined benefit plans provide workers and their families with a steady and reliable stream of income at retirement. The multiemployer type of defined benefit plan is unique in that it enables workers who switch employers frequently within the same industry to earn meaningful benefits under a defined benefit plan.

In the defined contribution area, the Administration has been issuing guidance and taking administrative actions to expand participation and saving in 401(k) and other plans by promoting the use of automatic enrollment and other automatic features. These plan features and best practices include:

  • Automatic escalation of contribution levels for employees over time,
  • Use of unused sick leave and vacation pay to make 401(k) plan contributions,
  • Simplifications to encourage plans to accept rollovers, and
  • Incorporation of disability benefits in 401(k) plans.
The Administration has also been pursuing ways to improve the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored 401(k)-type plans and in IRAs as well, by facilitating access to, and use of, annuities or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income through retirement. Adding lifetime income options to 401(k)-type plans and IRAs will help transform their savings into future income and reduce the risks that retirees will outlive their savings or that their living standards will be eroded by investment losses or inflation.

The Administration has clarified the rules about deferred annuities in 401(k) plans and permitted deeply deferred longevity annuities in 401(k) plans and IRAs. The Administration has also issued guidance making clear that 401(k) plans can automatically enroll employees into qualified default investment alternatives that use fixed annuities as the fixed income portion of target date funds and that plan sponsors can permit employees to roll their 401(k) lump sums into the sponsor’s defined benefit plan to purchase a lifetime annuity from that plan. Additionally, the Administration has promoted disclosure to plan participants of the income equivalent of their actual and projected account balances.

Ensuring Workers Receive Retirement Investment Advice in Their Best Interest

To help make informed choices, families often look for trusted advice on how to manage their hard-earned retirement savings. However, despite the significant changes in the retirement landscape over the past half century, the federal regulations that set the basic rules on giving investment advice to retirement savers have not been updated in nearly as long. Under these outdated rules, many financial advisers are not required to act in the best interest of their clients when they give retirement investment advice. Instead, too often advisers steer their clients’ savings into funds with higher fees and lower returns, or recommend inappropriate rollovers out of lower-cost retirement plans into higher-cost vehicles, because the adviser can profit from doing so.

These conflicts of interest cost working and middle-class Americans $17 billion every year. On average, they result in annual losses of one percentage point for affected investors. These small differences can add up: a one percentage point lower return could reduce a person’s savings by more than a quarter over 35 years. In other words, instead of a $10,000 retirement investment growing to more than $38,000 over that period after adjusting for inflation, it would be just over $27,500.

In April, the Department of Labor issued a proposed rule to protect families from bad retirement advice by requiring more retirement advisers to abide by a “fiduciary” standard—putting their clients’ best interest before their own profits. All Americans – whether an employer trying to design a quality plan for his or her workers, a worker starting to save, or a retiree trying to avoid spending down their nest egg too quickly – deserve access to quality advice, without fear that financial bias is clouding their adviser’s judgment.

Discussion Questions

The 2015 White House Conference on Aging (WHCOA) aims to foster a national conversation, and the questions listed below are designed to stimulate dialogue on retirement security issues. The feedback received will help shape outcomes of the 2015 White House Conference on Aging. Please provide your thoughts and ideas on our website. All comments will be displayed in the public conversation area of the WHCOA website.

  • How can we strengthen Social Security for future generations, while maintaining benefits and ensuring the program adequately serves low-income seniors and other vulnerable populations?
  • How can we ensure that older Americans fully understand the considerations affecting, and the implications of, their decisions as to when to claim Social Security benefits, when and how to draw on private retirement benefits, and how long to continue working?
  • How can we expand retirement plan coverage and participation and encourage people to save enough?
  • How should the current private pension and retirement saving system be improved to enhance retirement security, especially for moderate and lower income households?
  • How can we help Americans better understand and address their financial needs in retirement and make saving, investment, and risk management decisions (including obtaining sound advice) that are right for them?
For questions about the policy briefs, please contact policy@whaging.gov.

Printer-friendly PDF and citations (428.43 kb)

Thank you for your interest in commenting on the Retirement Security Policy Brief. At this time, we are no longer accepting comments. If you are still interested in sharing your thoughts, please e-mail them to info@whaging.gov.

Comments (55) -

I believe that eligibility for Hospice care has become too stringent. This results in lack of teaching and support at this critical time of life. We are paid per diem and remain cost effective. The trickle down effect of a good death is immeasurable.

My biggest challenge is finding work that pays a living wage. I am an experienced accountant and not even able to get hired as a bookkeeper. I am very capable.

I have had the same problem. I have an MSW.

The partial but immediate answer is that we must raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes.  

Apart from that, there is no quick solution.  Most people live paycheck to paycheck. Incomes for all but the top have been stagnant for years. College and housing are getting increasingly expensive. Interest and investment income, assuming your a worker has much left to to devote to savings and investments, is not guaranteed. Pensions are the exception, not the rule.  

The proposal that Americans simply work longer runs afoul of certain grim realities, such as age discrimination and/or underpaying skilled, experienced workers.

Really, over a period of many years the system has been shifted away from serving the people to serving the financial industry.  Until we motivate the public, including corporations and politicians, to create a workable retirement system, we will remain in crisis.

YES!

Additionally, reform of the spousal benefit is needed.  I have been married over 20 years but never to anyone for 10.  I spent years as a homemaker taking care of my children, out of the workforce, and then returning to school late, so also out of the workforce.  This is a more widespread problem than one might think.  See www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v67n4/67n4p1.pdf  If I got my spousal benefit I would be able to pay my real estate taxes!

Massachusetts is one of the few states that does not allow Federal, State or Municipal works to collect Social Security plus there government pensions.  Even when they have worked at private businesses and paid into Social Security.  This needs to change.

There is a tremendous and great need for support of the elderly and their caregivers.

Us caregivers need to work, need to provide for our families while taking care of our aging parents. We provide better care and more accurate care than an institution because we know our aging parents better and we love them. Yet, our work, services, and time go unpaid, and our elderly parents are denied help if they remain at home. This is wrong and should not happen. There is more I can say but won't.

Please help our elderly population and their family caregivers. Please help keep them at home and do not force choices between staying at home or getting needed care or losing financial security. At this stage in life one is often faced with all bad choices and must pick the least bad of the choices. Please help.

A key argument presented by entitlement critics is the unprecedented nature of the funding crisis. An economic crisis of this magnitude has never happened before. No generation has handed younger generations such a financial disaster.

Richard Lamm, former three-time Governor of Colorado, former president of Americans for Generational Equity, and author of "The Brave New World of Health Care," frames his moral argument this way:

“I inherited from my parents’ generation a small federal debt and the world’s largest creditor nation. I am leaving our children a staggering federal debt and the world’s largest debtor nation. I inherited a nation that produced more than it consumed, and I’m leaving my kids a nation that consumes more than it produces.”

While it is true that each new chapter in history is different from any that came before, this is not the first time that an elder generation has presented younger generations with enormous economic challenges.

The Lost Generation (b. 1882 through 1899) put the roar in the Roaring Twenties and included iconoclastic notables such as Ernest Hemingway, D. H. Lawrence, Georgia O’Keeffe, T. S. Elliot, Louis Armstrong, Mae West, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and William Faulkner.

This generation also handed their children, the GI Generation (b. 1900 through 1924), an economic disaster called The Great Depression. Although severe economic depression was a loadstone on all citizens, the young men and women of that time (including my parents) suffered the most with rampant unemployment and daily struggles to make ends meet. Then they fought a war and after winning they inculcated the most successful economic expansion in the 20th century.

Boomer Generation Penalties

Entitlement critics fail to look at the impact their proposals may have on today’s Baby Boomers as this generation begins to qualify for annuity and healthcare benefits. Due to a history of generational overcrowding, plus two decades of corporate downsizing and corporations exporting well-paying jobs overseas, somewhere between one-third and one-half of this generation is inadequately prepared for retirement. According to articles in TIME magazine and elsewhere, around 25 million Boomers have net assets of $10,000 or less. Yet, many in this economically disadvantaged group have been paying Social Security and Medicare taxes with every paycheck for somewhere between 25 and 40 years.

So, what is the equity in this: possibility of benefits being severely curtailed just as those who are still working begin to consider retirement, and many of whom will desperately need financial assistance to survive retirement?

Entitlement critics often suggest that retirees and those near retirement will not experience any penalties upon restructuring of entitlement programs. So, what is near retirement? One person might have been born in 1949 and his full entitlement benefits grandfather into a new program. Another might have been born in 1954, and she would lose benefits due to elimination of future accruals.

Risks of One-Dimensional Thinking

Generational accounting tends to be one-dimensional: it’s about the numbers. Accountants look at past taxation, productivity, and consumption patterns, coupled with demographics, to develop their scenarios. It’s by no means an exact science, but entitlement critics present their foreboding numbers as if “the gospel.”

For example, on page 97 of his book, "The Coming Generational Storm," author Laurence Kotlikoff explains how uncertainty interacts with their economic scenarios:

“So current decisions depend on future outcomes, but future outcomes depend on current decisions. The only way to solve this problem is to solve for both current decisions and future outcomes simultaneously — hence the term simultaneity problem. In practice, the solution begins by simple guessing future outcomes. These guesses are then used to determine current decisions.

“Next, the current decisions are used to update the guesses of future outcomes, which are then used to generate a new set of current decisions, new updates of future outcomes, and on and on until the model has converged. Convergence here means that the procedure has found a set of current decisions that generate the same future outcomes as had been guessed on the previous round and that were used to determine the current decisions.”

In other language, dire prognostications being proposed are based, just as Kotlikoff suggests, on guesses. They might be intelligent guesses, they might be guesses based on sophisticated computer modeling, with convergence of current public policy decisions and future anticipated outcomes, but they are nevertheless, guesses.

Period.

Whether they like the connotation or not, generational accountants are soothsayers. They base their predictions on perceptions of a future that may or may not happen as many as 40 years from now.

How much reliance should we place on their assumptions?

Look at this way: Show me a generational accountant or economist that, in writing, successfully predicted two of the most significant business and technological changes in the 20th century just ten years before these transformations. Show me someone predicting economic disaster in the mid-21st century who in 1975 also predicted how microcomputers would transform everything in business by 1985. Show me a generational accounting expert who in 1985 predicted advent and adoption of the internet in 1995.

Looking over our shoulders today, we can see many historical precursors harkening forthcoming societal transformations around desktop computers and distributed digital networks, including their concomitant economic transformations. If anti-entitlement soothsayers could not predict these major changes ten years before they happened, how reliable can they be at predicting the future 30 or 40 years from now?

For example, what possible future transformations in genetics, robotics, information technologies, and nanotechnologies have they not considered? How do they predict changes introduced by a generation committed to staying engaged in economic activities across the lifespan?

Soothsayers read crystal balls. They want us to believe they peer into a future that nobody can truly see. They substantiate their predictions by analyzing the past and projecting today’s demographics into the future. As Marc Freedman, author of Encore: Finding Work That Matters in the Last Half of Life observes: “This is scenario planning in the rearview mirror.”

Frankly, actuarial predictions do not show much sociological imagination about how Boomers can transform the future.

Sure let's help the elderly 80+ with better health care and home care services and increase fixed Government pensions. But what about the seniors under 80 years of age who are still capable of being active, creative and productive? Let's focus more on Lifelong Learning and figure out how we can get these highly educated & experienced seniors to contribute more to our society and at the same time improve their own financial situation. At 70 years old I am doing my part through the Seniorpreneur Project by helping seniors 50+ take their finances and retirement lifestyle to a higher level. For reference and discussion purposes I have written a new book titled, Encore! Encore! Seniors (50 Plus) As Entrepreneurs: their Time Has Come and I have a Blog (37 articles) talking about the specific 'seniors issues' to be overcome before they can be empowered to do great things, that could even change opinions about the real value of seniors in this Society.  

1) Raise the earnings limit to as much as you earn per year,no caps
2) Include all Federal Employees and the whole of Congress !!!

Encouraging savings and strengthening Social Security are important, but neither one is going to help the 2 million American seniors living in poverty now. Nor will they help the increasing number of poor seniors anticipated as 10,000 people turn 65 every day. This policy brief missed an important opportunity to talk about the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is the only thing keeping 8.4 million seniors and people with disabilities from completely falling through the cracks. SSI has not been substantially updated since it was signed into law in 1972, leaving many individuals who rely on it living at 75% of the federal poverty level. The Supplemental Security Income Restoration Act of 2015 was introduced into both Houses of Congress on May 19th, to make some needed changes in the program so that it can meet its intended goal of keeping people from living in poverty. The public and lawmakers need to get behind it.

More information on the SSI program, the Act and what it will do can be found here: justiceinaging.org/.../.

If I retire now, I won't have enough to pay the basics, they if the car or house needs repairs-that won't happen.  I'd have to pick and choose, medicines or food, heat or medicines etc.  I'm not asking to be wealthy, I just think we need enough.

Several respondents have referred to the epidemic of unaddressed age discrimination in America.   I am an attorney and legal writer. I indisputably show in my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 provides far less protection to older workers than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides to victims of discrimination on the basis of race, sex and religion. Moreover, I show that the U.S. Supreme Court has further weakened the ADEA with pro-business decisions that make it almost impossible for workers to prevail in an age discrimination lawsuit. Meanwhile, Congress has ignored the problem and President Obama made it somewhat worse when he signed an executive order in 2010 that allows federal agencies to bypass older workers and hire recent graduates. Older workers are vulnerable to bogus layoffs and unfair terminations. Once unemployed, government statistics show that older workers become disproportionately mired in chronic long-term unemployment, which forces them to spend down their savings, take low-wage part-time jobs, and, finally, take a financially inadvisable early retirement that results in at least a 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits for the rest of their lives.  Age discrimination is a major reason that an estimated 48 percent of all older Americans are classified by the Economic Policy Institute as "economically vulnerable."   Older workers are being denied their right to work and the ability to save for retirement. And they are being denied Equal Protection under the law of the United States. Why? All discrimination - including age discrimination -  is based on irrational fear, unfounded stereotypes and animus. It's about perception and not reality. I find it disappointing that the White House Conference on Aging has failed to acknowledge the role of age discrimination in the retirement insecurity of almost half of older workers in the United States. It is my hope that the issue will be addressed by the Conference in the weeks ahead.

Legalized age discrimination in the workplace is a huge problem that needs to be corrected. Suddenly I know many workers in their 50s and 60s who have simply been dismissed from their jobs and careers as if they are naughty children. One friend was given a half hour to pack up and leave the store he managed. He had worked for the company for 30 years, and his store was one of their most successful. Another friend was marched out of her job in the middle of the day by a security guard after 25 successful years of work at a Catholic university. She was simply told that her job had been eliminated. The library where I worked “right-sized” five of us who were over fifty-five by changing our jobs a little and giving them to five employees who were forty and younger. Before that happened, I was told repeatedly by management that I should retire, but at 58 I didn't think that was possible. A board member suggested to me that this was clear age discrimination and that I should file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It took the EEOC three years to tell me that they would not help me, but that I could go ahead and sue. During those three years, I was not allowed to see what my former employer had said about me in the single statement they were asked to make, and the EEOC did not bother to contact any of my witnesses.  Afterwards, I requested my file and found my former employer’s statement to be full of misinformation. The file came from the EEOC with a statement that I must keep its contents confidential unless I filed a law suit. There are apparently no protections against age discrimination in the workplace. If questioned, employers simply slander and libel former employees as an excuse for their behavior. Apparently that is perfectly legal, too.        

I am very disappointed in this brief and the others because of what is emphasized and what is omitted. The briefs seem to focus on the ideal of people having steady jobs who can save for retirement and choose when they wish to retire. Then the focus is on services (Social Security, long-term care, healthy aging, elder abuse) for people who are no longer seeking paid employment. As far as being active after retiring, the briefs stress unpaid volunteering. These areas are covered fairly well.

However, there does not seem to be much hope here for older Americans having difficulty finding paid employment, nor about ageism in hiring and in the workforce which can result in people losing jobs to younger employees. There is no mention of these issues. I think this will be a factor in our future because people who cannot find jobs are not able to set aside money for the time when they will no longer be physically able to work. I am mainly talking about people in their 50's and 60's who are not yet eligible for full Social Security benefits and/or Medicare, but with our increased longevity, this could also include people who are older.

This conference only occurs every decade, so I hope that this issue can be addressed. It is important because it does impact the other issues you mention. In another ten years, you may have a generation of people who do not have the savings to live well and who will have to rely on others for support.

I am a retiree collecting defined pension benefits; IRA distributions (from my contributions to an optional 403b savings/investment plan available to non-profit employees); and SS benefits.  I belong to the most fortunate generation of American seniors.  That being said, I am deeply concerned for future generations and all those who now struggle to get by, having to choose
between critical needs - food, clothing, heat, or medical care.

I propose that:

1.  All employers with one or more employees, including full time, part-time, and PRN employees (no exceptions) who do not offer a defined benefit plan, should be required to set up and auto-enroll every employee at a 3% contribution level into a defined contribution plan (401k or IRA),  provide the employee with information written at eighth grade level describing and graphing the long-term effect of savings and investments for retirement/disability and transferability of 401k from employer to employer; and provide the employee access to a financial advisor/broker who acts in the best interest of the client (employee.)  Then, and only then, after the employee fully understands the benefit of a tax deferred plan, should he be given the opportunity to opt-out, with opt-in opportunity at any future time.

2.  All employers providing any type of pension plan must provide pension benefits to all employees, pro-rated for part-time and PRN employees.

3.  Remove the OASDI cap on taxable earnings.

4.  Raise the OASDI contribution rate to 6.5% for workers and 6.5% for employers.

5.  Raise SSI benefits to poverty level.  

6.  Accelerate the search for and eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, SS and SSI fraud and abuse.


I am in agreement with the Administration's actions and guidance outlined in this brief.

If I retire now, I won't have enough to pay the basics, they if the car or house needs repairs-that won't happen.  I'd have to pick and choose, medicines or food, heat or medicines etc.  I'm not asking to be wealthy, I just think we need enough.

"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it"

http://angelschristianacademy.com/

I appreciate that the Administration recognizes the importance of addressing Retirement Security and offer my opinions:
How can we strengthen Social Security for future generations, ensure it serves low income seniors and other vulnerable populations?
1.  Raise the cap on contributions for employees and employers into SS system; 6.5% on entire earnings.
2.   Savings accounts are not paying adequate interest and consequently people are not putting money into regular savings accounts.  Market "Savings bonds" for retirement and I like the idea of enrollment into an IRA.  I think most people have difficulty navigating the many options available in 401K plans and returns can be less than optimal.  If individuals thought they could receive interest at 3 - 5% on their savings, I think they would save more.  Additionally something needs to be set up to help independent contractors and those who work from home to save for retirement.
3.  How do we ensure older Americans ;understand when to claim SS benefits and how long to continue working. Some older Americans that perform manual, taxing labor may not be physically able to work until 70.  Others in the 62 + age group may want to work part time or flex time but those options are not always available.  I think we need more flexibility to allow those able to work and contribute into the system longer without being penalized. I believe that SSA and others are doing a fairly good job of education about this issue.  
4.  Expand coverage - the proposals identified would seem to work well.
5.  Current system improvements, especially for moderate and lower income households?  If you are in that situation it is very difficult just to meet living expenses,  what about tax credit or some type of matching incentive if you contribute into your retirement account?
6.  Retirement Advisors paid a salary, not commission to help individuals navigate these complex systems. My plan actually have this type of individual that gives advise, but is not paid based upon how I choose to invest (mid-cap, small cap, IRA, stocks, etc. ).  
7.  Financial markets should be part of children's education and public service education.

I will be sixty soon and am excited about my life and future. Too bad society does not value and celebrate the wisdom and experience of older adults. We need to view this period as a time to reap the benefits and lessons of youth,and not to worry about survival and employment.

The Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging (W4A) and the Washington State Council on Aging (WASCOA) met together in October 2014 to explore the issue of economic security for older Americans and identified the following recommendations:
•  Strengthen Social Security by eliminating the earnings cap (“scrap the cap”), by establishing voluntary SS PLUS that allows a 1-2% additional contribution to build personal retirement funds, by allowing contribution credits to continue for family caregivers and by encouraging employment of older workers to delay use of Social Security and to increase their financial security (and to help continue the solvency of the Trust Fund).
•  Improve Medicare (to better contribute to economic security) by establishing a Part “E” LTSS option (using current low administrative costs), by allowing CMS to negotiate with drug companies for better rates, by including vision, dental, hearing, mental health coverage under Medicare and by exploring the elimination of the “3 Day Medicare Observation Rule” that places a tremendous financial burden on many unsuspecting older Americans. Comprehensive action should be taken to reduce prescription drug costs so they are more accessible to all who need them.
•  Create affordable retirement for Americans who do not currently have access to retirement savings plans by developing options for small businesses and the self-employed through tax credits, matching fund options and other incentives.
•  Create a single payer health care system that provides comprehensive universal coverage for medical, dental, vision, hearing, mental health, Long Term Supports and Services, Prescription Drug and Wellness Programs/Education to ensure economic security for Americans of all ages.
•  Encourage lifelong learning about savings, retirement and the cost of aging-related conditions, so that financial security becomes a priority for all Americans. Age-appropriate curricula are needed that encourage lifelong positive health choices, that emphasize the impact of a health crisis on financial security as we age and the advantages and disadvantages of different life choices. The “Footprint Concept” (i.e., prepare ahead for most sustainable use of personal resources in the costs of aging and retirement) should be promoted for all Americans.

Both W4A and WASCOA recommend that this focus area be broadened to "Economic Security," to reflect the broader issues facing all older Americans, not just those who are retired. It should include broader discussion of economic security, wealth inequalities and economic justice, especially for the middle class.  Corporate and financial laws need to re-evaluated within this context. We also need to consider better measures of income security, like the Elder Economic Security Index. Finally, greater consumer protections (e.g., standardized reverse mortgages to minimize abuses) are needed to ensure that more Americans remain economically secure into retirement.

to help the government have money -- why does a person have  to pay a penalty FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE- if they missed that OPEN ENROLLMENT?  this is crappy.  If it was missed by 2 or 3 months, why not a penalty for just 2 or 3 years instead the rest of their life!

We definitely need to scrap the cap and increase SS by $1000 a year per person over 65
This will provide a "slush fund" to repair cars, large appliances and replace laptops, (these only last about 3 years,) which retirees need for Skype and home businesses-- the blogs and websites that supplement their income.

We also need to improve SS survivors' benefits. It takes two SS checks to keep up with the cost of living, especially the increasing costs of rent or property tax and insurance.

Many people in their 50s, downsized during the recession, had no other choice but to take Social Security at 62. They were unable to find jobs. This is a disaster for the surviving spouse, as it affects the formula for survivor benefits adversely.

As a result of the recession, more people than ever will be entirely dependent on Social Security. They
watched their 401Ks and IRAs dwindle to practically nothing, living on them between 55 and 62. And fewer people retiring  the in next decade won't have pensions.

We need more emphasis on expanding Social Security and less on volunteering at these conferences. Today's retirees paid into SS for the two previous generations, many of whom had pensions.

Previous generations of retirees didn't even know what the Internet was. Today's retirees have a Comcast bill every month, They've helped others; They now need help themselves.



The National Guardianship Association Urges Collaboration Between Federal Representative Payment Programs and State Courts with Guardianship Jurisdiction

The federal government should strengthen income and retirement security for individuals with fiduciaries through effective oversight of representative payment programs, as well as coordination of those programs with state courts that have jurisdiction over adult guardianship.  
Federal representative payment programs and state courts serve essentially the same populations, but fail to address financial exploitation by notifying each other when a fiduciary commits misuse of benefits or financial exploitation.  The Social Security Administration, the Veterans Administration and other agencies with representative payee programs should share information with each other, and with state courts, especially if the representative payee also is a guardian.  For example, if SSA knows that someone has misused the position of representative payee, that information should be shared with the Veterans Administration, other agencies, and the courts.  The courts and other federal agencies should do likewise.  
The goal of federal agency/state court collaboration would be to reduce harm to elders and other beneficiaries, to address financial exploitation, to reduce repeat offenses; and to reduce the impact of costly misuse, misappropriation and fraud to our SSA benefit fund.  The U.S. Government Accountability Office has urged such collaboration since 2004.  

The Older Americans Act helps protect the economic security of older persons and families, especially those at greatest social and economic risk and those who often cannot speak for themselves.  Despite being chronically being underfunded it remains a bedrock for federal, state, and local programs and policies and should be reauthorized by Congress as soon as possible on 2015.  

It is absolutely essential to strengthen the role of the state units on aging, the area agencies on aging, the senior centers and the aging network to plan, coordinate, and provide community based non-medical services.  The reauthorization language should continue to make “economic security” a goal of the Older Americans Act.  It should formally define “economic security” to encompass the income necessary to pay for housing, health care, transportation, food, long-term care and goods and services to meet other basic needs.  It should expand the Senior Community Services Employment Program; provide incentives to for livable communities and accessible/universally designed housing; and it should expand volunteer opportunities for Older  Adults.  
Where would the United States of America have been during the  recent economic downturns if the privatization of Social Security had been implemented and as employers support of defined benefit pensions has evaporated?  Many retirees lost 40% of their savings and many older workers at retirement age lost their jobs.  However, Social Security enabled many of them avoid having to go on welfare order to  survive.    

Strengthen Social Security by implementing many of the sound approaches that have already been recommended.  These include eliminating the cap on payroll contributions and increasing the payroll contribution rate by 1/20th of one percent over the next 20 years.   Improve Social Security by providing credits for family members who leave their jobs to care for children, elderly or disabled family members.
The federal government should reflect a truer cost of living when calculating Social Security benefits and increases benefits by using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the Elderly formula rather than the C P I for All Urban Consumers .  This would more accurately reflect the disproportionate costs faced by our older population.

Social Security works.  Congress and the President should strengthen Social Security and use this social trust fund model as a way to equitably provide other services including health and long term care. Do not turn Social Security into a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account type program.  

Do not entrust the management of Social Security funds to private investment companies.  Instead, the government should provide incentives to private corporations to create defined benefit pensions that can provide predictable retirement income that is risk free.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback!

Faculty at Boston University have produced a series of research briefs relating to the themes for the White House Conference on Aging. All of the briefs can be found here: http://www.bu.edu/ssw/research/current/whcoa/

I'd like to highlight a few that directly relate to retirement security.

1. A large body of research has documented the health benefits of formal volunteering in later life. In our brief "Formal volunteering: A solution to bolster health and retirement security in later life," you'll see that formal volunteering among retirees increased the odds of them "un-retiring", that is, going back to work. We point to specific policy and practice implications to leverage civic engagement in later life, which can subsequently promote longer-working lives. The Senior Corps Programs (RSVP, Foster Grandparent Program, Senior Companion), SCSEP of Title V of the Older Americans Act, AARP's Experience Corp and ReServe should be viewed as mechanisms that may increase the opportunities to improve health, social engagement, and as pathways to work.

The brief on volunteering can be found here: www.bu.edu/.../...ter-formal-retirement_042715.pdf

2. Informal caregiving is often at odds with working longer. Our brief, "Challenges to working longer: Caregiving in later life" highlights the great diversity of informal caregiving in retirement, and clearly shows that spousal-caregivers face incredible odds of remaining outside of the labor force. While policymakers have consistently emphasized individuals to work longer, the reality is that some informal caregivers can't work longer. We discuss policy and practice implications to help directly support spousal caregivers.

The brief on caregiving can be found here: www.bu.edu/.../...giving-in-later-life_0514151.pdf

3. Age discrimination is alive and well. In our brief, "Age discrimination in the workplace and its association with health and work: Implications for social policy" we provide a measure to capture the various aspects of age discrimination and demonstrate how it is related to health, turnover intentions, and retirement intentions among younger and older workers. Again, we highlight specific federal policies that may bolster the opportunity to work longer by expanding ADEA coverage.

The brief on age discrimination can be found here: www.bu.edu/.../...giving-in-later-life_0514151.pdf


4. Finally, we identify a wide range of proposed legislation that can help maximize productive engagement in later life, which can bolster retirement security.

The full article in The Gerontologist can be found here: www.bu.edu/.../...e-engagement-of-older-adults.pdf

Overall, working longer has been proposed as a key to bolster retirement security. Formal volunteering is one pathway to work. However, there are challenges with working longer, namely cumulative disadvantages, inclusion of vulnerable populations, informal caregiving responsibilities and age discrimination.

The correct weblink to the age discrimination brief is here: www.bu.edu/.../...nation-in-Employment_0508151.pdf

Thank you for your important research. I wrote a  book last year that goes into great depth about the inequitable treatment of age discrimination victims under federal law and how this affects the health, welfare and retirement security of older Americans. The book is called Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace.  It was recently reviewed by the senior attorney for the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, who called it "well researched and well written  ... It is well worth the read."  

In my book, I conclude that Congress should repeal the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and make age a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Age was initially considered for inclusion in Title VII but was omitted when Congress decided more study was needed on age discrimination. Three years later, Congress passed the ADEA, which contains many loopholes and lacks key damages provisions in Title VII.  

In fact, age discrimination is treated like a violation of the federal law governing minimum wages and overtime.

If all of this wasn't bad enough, the U.S. Supreme Court  has eviscerated the already weak ADEA. Congress has ignored the plight of older workers. And  the President Obama sent a clear message to private sector  employers that it is okay to discriminate on the basis of age when he signed an executive order establishing the Pathways Recent Graduates program, which allows federal agencies to bypass older workers and hire recent graduates.

Age discrimination is epidemic in the workplace, hidden behind terms like "long-term unemployed" and "early retirement." Older workers are denied their right to work and save for retirement. The Economic Security Institute in 2013 found that almost half of Americans over the age of 65 are economically vulnerable.

How could things get worse?  It would be a travesty if this problem - which directly affects the health, welfare and retirement security of older Americans - were ignored by the once-every-decade White House Conference on Aging.

As Founder of RetirementJobs.com, an advocacy organization and career site for Americans age 50+ with 1+ million registered job seekers, I agree with Patricia Barnes that it would be a travesty if workplace age bias is ignored by the WHCoA.  

For nine years, my company has operated a national program that shines a light on age friendly employers.  Our research team certifies employer applicants that pass our screening system and receive our 'good housekeeping seal of approval'.  The program's purpose is to help older job seekers navigate around age bias by linking them to the vocal minority of employers which proactively attract and retain age 50+ workers.

100 employers are certified.  To address the retirement income needs and health of older workers, there needs to be 1000's. The current employer pool comprises organizations that recognize compelling business facts about older workers.  To name a few: average tenure that is 3 times longer than younger employees; proximity in age and resulting greater ability to relate to older customers; measurable upticks in customer satisfaction when older workers are interacting face-to-face with customers.

More employed older workers will drive productivity and growth. As former Senate Special Committee on Aging Herb Kohl stated, "Companies like RetirementJobs.com are filling a void by helping older workers keep their skills and expertise on the job. If these companies continue to adapt to accommodate the aging workforce and we pass the right legislation to help them succeed, we’ll keep our economy growing well into the future.”

Action is needed to beat back workplace age bias, and further highlight age friendly employers. To make it easier for older workers to work longer, to make them more accepted in America's workplaces, to give them purpose and keep them engaged, to enable them to supplement their retirement income through their own means.

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) appreciates the inclusion of “Retirement Security” as one of the priorities for the 2015 White House Conference on Aging.  However, the recently published policy brief omits an important facet of the retirement security discussion.  The fact that Americans are living longer not only has an effect on Social Security, retirement savings options, and retirement advice, but also on the length of time Americans remain in the workforce and the number of older workers who reenter the job market.

As more Americans continue to work longer, their age will present unprecedented challenges to the U.S. workforce.  Older workers may experience skill decay, family demands, hiring bias, and age discrimination in different capacities than younger workers.  In addition, these workers have unique motivations and require novel employment qualifications and age-appropriate training.  To address these challenges, it is critical to develop new strategies for hiring, training, managing, and retaining workers.  Furthermore, there must be flexible new approaches to the retirement transition process that maximize worker well-being and organizational success.  

Industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology offers the evidence-based practices available to complement policy efforts and promote the financial and mental well-being of older workers.  In particular, I-O can assess the impact of aging on work-related outcomes and develop interventions to promote individual well-being.  Also, I-O can provide an evidence-based approach to the recruitment, retention, and training of older Americans, as well as methods for reducing age-related bias, increasing retirement security, and eliminating disincentives for older workers.  By applying these practices, Americans will be better equipped to make informed decisions surrounding their work life and retirement.

SIOP represents a community of more than 8,000 members worldwide with a common interest in enhancing human well-being and performance in organizational and work settings through the science, practice, and teaching of I-O.  SIOP provides a platform for scientists, academics, consultants, and practitioners to collaborate, implement, and evaluate cutting-edge approaches to workplace challenges, such as those facing older employees or those planning for and approaching retirement across all sectors.

As an active stakeholder in the federal policy dialogue on aging, SIOP has encouraged further consideration of these topics by promoting the Society’s recently published Frontiers Series book, Facing the Challenges of a Multi-Age Workforce: A Use-Inspired Approach, and spring congressional briefing, The Challenges of Workforce Aging.  Additional materials to inform this conversation, including information on SIOP’s congressional briefing, are available at http://www.siop.org/Advocacy/archive.aspx.  

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the discussion surrounding retirement security.  SIOP hopes to serve as a resource for further conversations.

Working longer is so important to many low-income older adults and thankfully SCSEP (Title V of the Older Americans Act) is specifically designed to help them obtain employment.

Unfortunately, there is a mismatch between the performance measures established by the federal government and the needs/capacity/preferences of participants and local labor force factors. That is, SCSEP performance measures heavily emphasizes participants to obtain full-time work. However, many low-income seniors struggle with full-time work as they are providing care to family members, have health issues, and/or benefit restrictions. In addition, local labor force factors may predicate part-time work among seniors, irrespective of the preferences of older adults.

The result: the performance measures of SCSEP grantees is negatively impacted due to participants more often obtaining part-time work (even though that may be in line with their capacity, preference or what’s available in their communities).

One suggestion is to adjust SCSEP performance measures to reflect the capacity, needs, and preferences of older adult participants. Having a policy that is tailored to the diverse needs of this population can result in more effective service delivery, higher levels of satisfaction, and higher overall performance evaluation of SCSEP programs nationwide.

You can read more about this issue in our brief, “Meeting the needs and preferences of low-income older adults to obtain employment: Implications for federal policy of the Older Americans Act.”

The brief can be found here: vermontassociates.org/.../SCSEP-Brief_Final.pdf

I would like to add Easter Seals' support for the findings int eh brief that Ernest has posted.  It is also important to note that in addition to retirement security, access to SCSEP and other employment supports is a critical aspect of healthy aging as was called out in that issue brief.  

Jennifer raises a very good point: the four themes to the WHCoA 2015 are intricately intertwined. Often, challenges and solutions in one domain (e.g., health) can certainly complement and be applied to another domain (e.g., retirement security). For example, formal volunteering can be viewed as bolstering the health and social embeddedness of older adults, and consequently, this increased capacity can improve the prospects of finding work and extend the years of formal labor force participation. Conversely, improving the employment circumstances of older adults (retirement security) can yield improvements in physical and mental health. So I highly encourage the WHCoA staff to see cross-cutting themes and solutions to the four major concerns for this conference and not silo these issues.

Thank you Dr. Gonzales and Associates for Training and Development for working together and producing this brief. These findings about older workers who are seeking part-time employment should inform the Department of Labor's proposed rules for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act as well as the Senior Community Service Employment Program's performance measures.

I am in agreement with Mr. Gonzalez that there is a need to review the performance measures for SCSEP so that they are more realistic and reflect the preferences of older adult participants.  In addition, more funds should be allocated to continue to expand this beneficial program.

I would like to see a report that shows how the health and wellness of mature individuals participating in SCSEP has improved because of the person's involvement in the program.  I think that a lot of times we only look at the surface results and forget to capture all of the underlying benefits.

I would like to add Goodwill Industries International's support for the research and conclusions in the brief that Dr. Ernest Gonzales has posted regarding SCSEP.  SCSEP has been level funded for years and Dr. Gonzales's research will help the effort to boost funding for this critically important program.

Lutheran Services in America (LSA) is a nationwide network of more than 300 Lutheran health and human services organizations that touch the lives of one in 50 Americans each year. Our members serve low-income, vulnerable people of all ages, faiths, and abilities in a variety of settings across the country. Nearly two-thirds of LSA member organizations provide services to older adults, including home and community-based services, such as adult day; case management; caregiver support; and senior nutrition services; as well as person-centered senior residential and facility-based care, including rehabilitation; health care; and respite.

LSA is committed to advancing the health, dignity, and independence older adults, their families, and caregivers.  We support policies that promote healthy aging, including through preventive programs that maximize seniors’ physical, mental, and social well-being; and those to prevent, identify, and respond to elder abuse and financial exploitation.  We recognize that an adequately financed, person-centered long-term services and supports delivery system is critical to improving health outcomes, well-being and quality of life; as is individual economic, retirement, and health security.  

We appreciate the opportunity to comment, and offer the following Retirement Security Policy Recommendations:

•  Expand Social Security benefits and extend program solvency by increasing benefits across- the-board; instituting the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which reflects actual elder spending patterns; adding a caregiver credit, which recognizes interruptions in labor force participation to provide services to family members.  Any enhancements in Social Security benefits should be exempt from income and should not count for the purpose of Supplement Security Income (SSI) eligibility or benefit amount.

•  Support programs and policies that enhance individual health and economic security.

•  Secure adequate administrative funding for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in order to increase staffing and office hours, reduce wait times for applicants and beneficiaries, and reinstitute the mailing of annual benefit statements.

•  Support reallocation of the Old-Age and Survivors (OASI) payroll tax to address the imminent funding shortfall in the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program.

Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW) appreciates the attention given to retirement security as one of the basic themes of the 2015 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA). The Administration’s policy brief acknowledges the need to strengthen Social Security and address the issue of solvency, improve access to employer-based retirement savings options, and ensure conflict-free financial advice concerning retirement savings. We support these positions fundamentally.

WOW agrees that all Americans deserve to retire with dignity. Millions of those now approaching retirement age are expected to be even less prepared for retirement than current retirees. This cohort is expected to have on average a lower standard of living once they stop working. The nation must recognize and address the retirement incomes and services needed by older adults. However, political dialogue at the state and federal levels often contains implicit, or even explicit, images of seniors as “takers,” and focuses on cuts to critical senior support and entitlement programs—despite the need to honor guarantees made to retirees and ease burdens on seniors and their families and caregivers. Often, where cuts are not threatened or occurring, needed planning or support program expansion is not taking place either.

The WHCoA offers a crucial opportunity to refresh our national commitment to a secure retirement for seniors and elevate policy options that support that goal. WOW urges the following actions to realize the Administration’s principles regarding Social Security:
•  To strengthen Social Security while restoring long-term solvency
o  Ensure earned benefits are kept whole. Reject proposals that would erode protection against inflation, such as the Chained CPI, and adopt a cost of living measure that better reflects seniors’ actual spending patterns, such as the CPI-E.
o  Embrace proposals to expand resources for the program and reject those that amount to benefit cuts. Eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes, and reject proposals that are disguised benefit cuts, such as raising the retirement age.  
o  Advance proposals that provide more equitable compensation, particularly to women, such as a caregiver credit that recognizes time out the paid labor force for caregiving.  
•  To improve access to employer-based retirement savings options
o  Implement the Administration’s initiatives to automatically enroll workers in IRAs with automatic payroll deductions; provide tax credits for auto-IRA adoption by employers; promote state-based retirement initiatives; and ensure long-term, part-time workers access to their employer’s retirement plan.
o  Aggressively promote the Treasury Department’s myRA, a no-fee, no-hidden cost retirement savings option
•  To ensure worker access to investment advice in their best interest
o  Adopt the Department of Labor’s proposed fiduciary rule to require that financial advisors offer advice in the client’s best interest
It is also important to acknowledge and address disparities in retirement security that disadvantage women and people of color. Among factors producing a substantial gender income gap in retirement are occupational segregation, pay inequity and caregiving responsibilities. Racial disparities in retirement security reflect income disparities during adults’ working years; men and women of color earn lower median wages than white workers, and tend to work in jobs that do not offer retirement plans. The WHCoA should shine a bright light on these issues and ensure that they are a key part of the dialogue.

Social security is my only income though I have worked since I was 16 yrs old. It is barely sufficient and any emergency will wipe me out. I have nothing left to put into savings at the end of each month. I had to move to a subsidized housing complex to make it at all. Fortunately, the complex is nice but having no other income than SS really limits my choices - not only of housing but of activities, healthcare, and many other things.

Please expand and increase SS so we elderly can live a somewhat normal life for the duration.

I appreciate the voice that you are providing on this topic of employment opportunities for 55+. Such a voice helps to retard the national attitude/bias about being older and not still being  valuable, productive, and contributing member to society.

Would suggest that you appeal for an endorsement from AARP as you move forward!

I can't prove it, but when I applied for a job at Menards where I live, I got the definite feeling that the manager ( who was much younger than me) thought I was too old for the position I applied for which was general in nature. Thing was, there were older people than me working there. I am 60 yrs old.

1. Need to profile and redefine age discrimination and have Labor Dept actively engaged in this. Labor Dept should have all employers who had 50 or more full time (40 hr wk) employees as of 1.1.08 report for that year and each year subsequent a)the number of such full time employees who were 55 and older and not senior officers (top 10); the number of such FT employees (55 or older) who were let go (including any package deals, RIFs, or forced retirements)  and the % of the company's FT workforce who were let go that year; the number of such FT employees (55 or older) who were hired in each of those years and the % of the the company's FT workforce that they are. Companies know age discrimination is almost impossible to prove. In some cases, it is cultural because of the youth and inexperience of those in HR or because the business person to whom the job reports is less experienced and is concerned about their job.
2.Companies need to have older senior executives. The age of a company is often dictated by the age of the CEO. The inclination is to hire people younger than the CEO.
3.Companies should be encouraged to do dual hiring of both senior workers and those starting in the field (e.g., just out of college). The former could provide technical skills in training the younger worked. The former could work for 5 years, which for many who are 60+ and still want to be engaged might suffice.Companies could transition their existing workforce, with the senior worker who accepts the option taking a reduced salary. This reduction could be gradual to allow the worker to plan and to make the transition smooth.
4. Cap on social security funding should be increased until the system is solvent.There is no logical reason for the cap. Having earned considerably more than the cap through my career, I would have had no objection in paying more into the system knowing that it was to make the system solvent.
5. Would restructure health insurance, to expand Medicare to cover regardless of age all catastrophic medical expenses (including chronic illness). This would be covered by a progressive flat tax on all citizens. The program would be open only to citizens. Non-catastrophic healthcare would be covered under group covers or state community rated group plans through state, private health insurers, or self-insured employer groups. With the large costs of healthcare borne by the Federal govt under expanded Medicare, other health insurance should be reasonably priced. All health plans must provide national networks. Medicare should be revised to permit medical treatment abroad through certified hospitals and providers (and certified pharmacies). This would save Medicare a lot of money since foreign healthcare is cheaper and as good as US healthcare in most cases. It would provide more competition in the US market, lowering price.
6. With people living longer the mandated withdrawal from certain benefit plans should be extended beyond 70. This would benefit the plans and the industry supporting it as low interest rates have been putting those plans and certain sectors supporting it in increasing jeopardy.
7. Government is in need of experienced help at the Federal, State and Local level, but does not accept volunteered help except for positions that are often below the skill sets of these individuals. It also would permit seniors who want to learn a new skill to acquire them.
8. Long term care is a major problem. LTC insurance is a failure and the burden often on one child families who are aging will be traumatic, particularly as many are burdened with college debt or do not live near their parents. Medicaid needs to be reformed as it is a benefit system built on an income system (SSI) requiring endless waivers. Income limits for eligibility do not take into account cost of living for housing, food, etc. In some cases, the limits can be circumvented by pooled trusts. Why not compute the  mean rental/mortgage costs for the DAB population by zip code and those in the DAB population whose income and housing costs are below this mean would be eligible for Medicaid. This would reduce administrative expense of reviewing and approving pooled trusts for those who know about them, and would be revenue neutral. It would also permit ageing in place, particularly in urban areas with rent control or rent stabilization. This would reduce the need for more construction. Mixed use housing which would subsidize lower rental costs for younger people to care (non-medical) for an elderly person in the same building might also help.

The tragedy of this White House Council on Aging is President Obama's failure to acknowledge and address a leading problem facing older Americans - age discrimination in employment, which condemns millions to poverty or near poverty in their old age.

I understand President Obama's reluctance to acknowledge this problem, given that our nation's first black President signed an executive order in 2010 that permits federal agencies to discriminate against older workers and hire "recent graduates." However, he should not be above rectifying this past mistake, just as South Carolina is removing the Confederate flag from its State Capitol. He is on the wrong side of history, a history that condones irrational and harmful discrimination on the basis of age.

That said, I think Brooks White is on the right track here. Patricia G. Barnes, author of Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in Employment (2013).

As an attorney myself, I can attest that it is almost impossible to win an age discrimination lawsuit because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 provides far less protection to older workers than Title VII does to workers who are victims of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has eviscerated the already weak ADEA and accords age discrimination its lowest standard of review - far lower than race and sex discrimination.

Many companies have an online application that is blatant in it's design to eventually get to the age question. One can spend a long time filling it out and then it comes to THE question. "When did you graduate from high school"? In my case it was 1966 so figure it out. Additionally, some outright ask the age, however, you do have the option not to answer. That alone would put up a red flag. The other scenario is in the interview they will compliment on your work history and suggest that perhaps you may be overqualified. Well, it would be pretty hard not to be overqualified as an older worker. I was downsized in 2009 and went without health insurance once I couldn't afford the COBRA payments. Fortunately, I received unemployment benefits and at 63 filed for social security. Whatever the scenario and in the majority of cases, you will be the last one considered for a job and I know because I have applied to hundreds without any success. I will continue to try as I am among those who depend on social security as my main source of income. Unfortunately, we can plan as best we can but the reality is losses in the stock market, pensions, etc. which leave many worried about the future. I hope there will be changes that will help now and in the future but the reality right now is that there are too few companies that value the positive benefits of hiring people in their 50's and 60's period.

The White House Conference on Aging only happens once every ten years. It is an opportunity to go big and bold, to set the table for needed architectural change in how we address the looming retirement security crisis. Strengthening Social Security and mobilizing savings is a solid start, but it will take much more to avert the Silver Tsunami that is upon us.

The truth is we are in the middle of a massive paradigm shift. The American middle class dream of coasting into retirement with enough income to maintain one’s lifestyle and standard of living is increasingly a reality for only the most well off among us.

Very few boomers have managed to save the 15-20 times their annual salary financial experts tell us we need to maintain our current standard of living.

Depending on the survey, the average savings of Americans nearing retirement ranges from $25,000 to about $75,000.

You do the math. If we make it to 65 in good health, there is good chance we will live another 20 years. That’s a long runway not to have enough money to cover basic expenses and projected lifetime costs.

This the stark reality we are facing.

But what if we flipped the script? Instead of doom and gloom, what if we used the retirement security crisis as an opportunity to go where we needed to go in the first place – to do more with less through earth friendly living models that balance sustainability with personal satisfaction?

You don’t have to be an eco-warrior to know that we are over-consuming our planet. The days of just hunkering down and waiting for things to return to normal are over.

We are not going back.

Millions of older Americans are already being forced to downsize, to rethink their consumption choices, to redefine “normal”. Our current way of living with everyone isolated in private residences, with all their stuff, fending for themselves is not affordable or sustainable.

And, it is especially hard on seniors on modest fixed incomes with no extended family to pitch in.

Affordable, secure, energy efficient housing with supportive services is a crucial component of retirement security and integral to better health for older adults.

According to the  WHCoA Policy Brief on Retirement Security, Social Security is the main source of income for older Americans with 2/3 relying on it for half or more of their household income. If you are one of the millions in this camp, you are likely spending 40 percent or more of your total income on housing (with some spending as much as 90 percent).

This is a crushing burden. There is no retirement security unless we can get a handle on this housing issue.

As one boomer age friend said to me recently, “if I can crack the housing nut, I can extreme coupon it the rest of the way.”

Last month, I attended the National Co-housing Conference in Durham NC to learn more about shared living models.

What I found is that co-housing has great potential with its built in support networks, use of the latest innovations in green design and construction and commitment to simple low resource living.

It has some big challenges too. At the conference I was one of about a half dozen people of color in a venue of 400. Critics say that co-housing tends to attract mostly educated, affluent, white people. And many of the communities I learned about were not cheap either.

That said, co-housing advocates and developers are aware of these challenges and are adapting the traditional co-housing model, adding more affordable units, figuring out how to better incorporate the needs of seniors, opening up to renters, becoming more intentional about inclusion, and exploring how to use the skills and talent of co-housing residents to tackle the grand social challenges of our time.

Obviously, co-housing is not “The Answer” to the retirement security crisis. The truth is there is no single answer, no magic bullet. But it could be one component of a comprehensive strategy.. A problem of this magnitude will require that we work all the ropes and levers.

Like many others, I will be tuning in to the White House Conference on Aging on July 13. So yes for the more orthodox approaches -- I do want to hear what is happening with Social Security and to encourage savings.

But, my hope is that the White House event also seizes the opportunity to tell us what’s on the horizon. Let’s hear about innovative programs in affordable senior housing, new models that seem to be working, and the next generation of strategies and ideas especially in co- housing and low impact living.

Lizzy White
Author: 55, Unemployed and Faking Normal (due out September 2015)




A significant issue related to recipients of social security benefits that has been largely overlooked is the taxation of the benefit.

Prior to 1984, social security benefits were not taxable.  Under the Regan administration, congress passed a law which provided that up to 50% of social security benefits would be taxed for individuals whose taxable income was above $25,000 ($32,000 for married couples).

In 1993, congress modified the law and placed an additional tax on individuals whose income was over $32,000 ($44,000 for married couples), which provided that up to 85% of their social security benefits would be subject to income tax.

The $25,000 threshold established in 1984 has never been indexed for inflation.  As a result, as social security benefits have increased by an average of 2.4% per year over the past 30 years, the federal government has been taking back a larger and larger share of the benefit in the form of taxation.  Had this threshold been increased for inflation, it would now stand at slightly over $57,000 for married couples.

In addition, the “marriage penalty” related to the taxation of social security benefits has never been addressed.  With many couples now receiving social security benefits under their own accounts rather than that of a spouse, they do not receive the benefit of two $25,000 exemptions, but rather get only a $32,000 exemption.

If this is not addressed, the amount of social security subject to taxation will continue to increase for years into the future.  Over the past several decades, we have been encouraged to save for retirement through vehicles such as 401K plans and individual IRA’s.  Our reward for doing so is to have the federal government take away an increasingly larger share of our social security benefits.

As a member of AARP, I have looked into their position on this issue.  Their current stance is very weak, and I have written to their Advisory Council suggesting that they take a more aggressive position.  My suggestion is that they propose an increase in the individual exemption to at least $35,000, with an exemption for married couples to at least $50,000.  If you are an AARP member, I would suggest that you do likewise.

Beyond this, I have contacted my legislators and brought this issue to their attention as well.  I would ask that those of you so inclined would do the same.  There is currently a bill before the House Ways and Means Committee (HR 589) that would eliminate the federal taxation on social security benefits.  Total elimination of the tax will very likely never be approved, but I have encouraged legislators to find some compromise in this effort to at least increase the taxation threshold.

I would like to suggest an issue that I believe should be a focus of The White House Conference on Aging.

I am a Certified Public Accountant (with a Personal Financial Specialist designation) and a Certified Financial Planner.   I have worked in public accounting for 47 years and am currently an advisor (formerly a partner) at  a large regional CPA firm.

During my career, I have witnessed many clients who had accumulated wealth during their working careers and eventually outlived their money.  As life expectancies grow, superannuitization of assets will become more common.

Besides the obvious impact of the increase in longevity that retirement funds have to be spread over a longer period of time, I believe that one of the factors contributing to this phenomenon is the IRS requirement that accumulated retirement funds be withdrawn starting at age 70 1/2.  It is time for the IRS to make changes to the starting age for withdrawals.  Many individuals are continuing to work beyond the historical retirement age of 65, and still earn significant income well into their 70s, 80s and beyond.  The forced distribution of funds earmarked for retirement income expands the disposable income available to working seniors, and encourages them to continue to spend at previous income levels.  

When these working seniors actually do retire and their compensation levels fall, they have smaller amounts of retirement income from their retirement accounts because required distributions have already depleted the funds.  

The current requirement for mandatory distributions needs to be re-evaluated.  In light of the expanding life expectancy and the likelihood of more and more seniors becoming impoverished due to superannuitization, you should take a strong policy stand regarding the revision of mandatory distributions, including discontinuance of mandatory distributions and/or increasing the starting age for required distributions.

I would like to direct your attention to a report from the Senate Joint Economic Committee describing this issue in fuller detail.  "THE TAXATION OF INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS:  INCREASING CHOICE FOR SENIORS"

I would be happy to contribute to this discussion in any way that I can.  

Justine DeVito Tenney, CPA/PFS CFP MBA

Has anyone calculated the budget for a 70-something widow on minimum SS, whose husband had to take SS at 62 after being "downsized out" during the Great Recession?  Noted how that affects her survivor benefit? Subtracted Medicare B and an estimated 4 co-pays during the year. (A healthy woman, who takes care of herself.) Compare the results to the national poverty-level income. She might survive in certain states with an unusually low COL,but not in the upper Midwest or either coast. Shelter is now 43-45% of income, depending on whether the category included utilities. This percentage true whether she rents or owns, as landlords pass on increases in taxes and insurance, water and HOA to tenants. The fastest -growing demographic in FL is that between ages 70 and 80. Many couples lost 1/3 of their wealth with the decline in housing values after the Boom-Bust cycle. This is usually their greatest asset. Figure that IRAs and 401ks dwindled in the last 10 years, and in their 70's these women will need hearing aids, cataract surgery, and sometimes 2 hip replacements.


Comments to the White House Conference on Aging
Retirement Security Policy Brief
July 7, 2015

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the nation is facing a $7.7 trillion Retirement Income Deficit, which is the gap between what people have saved as of today and what they should have already have saved to meet a basic standard of living.

For that reason, the Pension Rights Center applauds the White House Conference on Aging for making retirement security one of its top issues of concern. The Center generally endorses the recommendations in the Retirement Security brief, including protecting and strengthening Social Security and expanding employer-based retirement savings options by increasing state-based retirement savings initiatives, improving options for part-time workers, and promoting lifetime income options in 401(k)s and through deferred annuities. The Center has also been a strong advocate for a revised Labor Department rule to stop financial advisers from giving conflicted investment advice to workers and retirees about their 401(k) and IRA money.

The Center has further recommendations that complement the theme of the report that “all Americans deserve to retire with dignity.”

Here are our additional recommendations:

I.  To ensure that people are able to retire with adequate and secure income, we urge the White House Conference on Aging to support:

•  Expanding Social Security:  Social Security is the cornerstone of American retirement security. The program is doing an unparalleled job of providing a critical foundation of retirement income to virtually all retirees. We strongly urge the White House Conference on Aging to recognize the need to increase Social Security for all working families as well as to increase the minimum benefits for those at the lower end of the wage scale.  
•  Developing new types of plans for uncovered workers that combine the best features of guaranteed defined benefit plans and 401(k) plans. While Social Security provides a critical foundation of income, individuals need pensions and other retirement savings to supplement Social Security. While a proposed system of automatic IRAs would provide modest savings to those who don’t currently participate in a workplace plan, to truly have adequate income, workers need to participate in pension plans in which employers and employees contribute, in which the money is pooled and professionally invested, and from which individuals get lifetime income. We encourage the Conference to support the development of new types of comprehensive plans, such as the USA Retirement Funds proposed by former Senator Tom Harkin, which is an arrangement of independently-trusteed retirement funds that efficiently allocates risk while providing adequate lifetime benefits for workers and retirees.

II.  To ensure that promises to retirees now in the pension system are protected, we urge the White House Conference on Aging to:

•  Support the Keep Our Pension Promises Act of 2015, which will reverse ill-conceived legislation passed at the end of 2014 that allows trustees of certain financially troubled multiemployer plans to reduce retirees’ benefits. The Keep Our Pension Promises Act will bring new money into multiemployer plans, protect the PBGC, and preserve retirees’ promised benefits. We should not balance the finances of multiemployer plans on the backs of its most vulnerable participants.
•  Call for retiree protections when companies seek to shift retirement risks to pensioners by offering them lump-sum buyouts or life insurance annuities. Companies should not be allowed to offer lump sums to retirees who are already in pay status. Also, there is a need for improved disclosures and consumer protections in these transactions.
•  Work to stop religiously-affiliated nonprofits from denying retirees private pension insurance protection by claiming “church plan” status.

III.  To protect workers’ retirement rights, we urge the  White House Conference on Aging to:

•  Expand the U.S. Administration on Aging’s Pension Counseling and Information Program. This program provides hands-on individualized assistance in 30 states to people with pension and other retirement income problems. Since its founding in 1993, the program has recovered more than $200 million in retirement benefits for retirees and their families, and helped tens of thousands of low- and moderate-income individuals with difficult retirement questions and problems. This is a government-supported program that works, and it should be expanded so that it is able to provide assistance in all 50 states.
•  Encourage the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to establish a Lost Pension Plan Clearinghouse so that retirees can locate their retirement plans when their former companies have moved, merged, or changed their names.


On the topic of helping low income people save, a letter to the editor of the Palm Beach Post had a good idea: allow people to put what they can afford into Social Security, or a similar account administered by the govt without fees, but  with the stipulation that the money can't be accessed until retirement age. This is safer for them than 401K or IRAs invested in, or indexed to, the stock market. The market is vulnerable to too much upheaval over the decades, from foreign wars to Greece defaulting on its debt, to Boom and Bust cycles induced by speculators in different sectors.  This is the opposite of privatizing, so, not going to be popular with Republicans, though.

AARP is pleased to support the 2015 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA) on July 13. Beginning with the first conference in 1961 and for each one since, AARP has offered strong support because the sessions not only shine a spotlight on issues related to aging in America but also lead to practical solutions that make life better for people as they age.

The conferences have introduced innovative ideas such as universal home design features that allow people to live at home safely and independently, and practical ideas for abolishing mandatory retirement and creating cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments. Many credit that first WHCoA with leading to the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid and the Older Americans Act 50 years ago this month.

Click here to see where we stand:

blog.aarp.org/.../

AARP is pleased to support the 2015 White House Conference on Aging (WHCoA) on July 13. Beginning with the first conference in 1961 and for each one since, AARP has offered strong support because the sessions not only shine a spotlight on issues related to aging in America but also lead to practical solutions that make life better for people as they age.

The conferences have introduced innovative ideas such as universal home design features that allow people to live at home safely and independently, and practical ideas for abolishing mandatory retirement and creating cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments. Many credit that first WHCoA with leading to the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid and the Older Americans Act 50 years ago this month.

Click here to see where we stand:
blog.aarp.org/.../

The drastic reduction in pension plans in the past decade have increased the dependency on investments for the financial security of current and future retirees. The Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates to keep them low is harshly impacting the security of seniors and constitutes age discrimination.

I worked the first half of my career in private industry and paid social security, the second half I worked for a city, therefore  I have a city pension.
I signed up for S.S. and I am only able to collect 1/3 of my benefit, they call it double dipping, well didn't I pay into S.S. for close to 20 years. My husband is collecting is S.S. so we are living month to month, but when he passes away, I will only get 1/3 of the spousal benefit because of my city pension, isn't that double dipping into my benefits. If I were able to collect my full benefit and my full spousal benefit, I might just be able to survive after he passes away, How is this fair? If someone could explain to me why I am penalized because I made a career change.

Corporate involvement (through education) is essential for a successful transition into the age of retirement.

Most folks approaching retirement when asked how they see that period in their future will comment with vague comments, such as: Oh, I have plenty to do; My yard is waiting for me to retire, etc.
Few, if any have a plan for this sometimes (very) traumatic transition. Solutions in other societies and countries need to be examined, like The Netherlands where people can take courses in "How to". With proper education, "end of career anxiety" can diminish and productivity before the actual transition time arrives will be helped - a distinct benefit for the corporation.

If corporations are stimulated to get involved, we as a society will all benefit from a healthier and more involved older population. So, I repeat: CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT IS NEEDED! Without it many will roam aimlessly in the retirement vacuum!

Sincerely,
Maarten Pennink
Charlotte, NC

How about the White House supporting the Keep Our Pension Promises Act sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur.  The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 signed by President Obama in December of 2014 is going to devastate the retirement security of over 10 million retirees in multiemployer pension plans.  The MPRA was rushed through Congress in the middle of the night, without proper hearings, and even the White House didn't fully understand the ramifications of this law.  It's time for the White House to take a second look at the plight of these retirees!

Comments are closed