The notion of raising the retirement age for full Social Security benefits is popular in conservative circles.
Shouldn't it be described as a tax increase?
Say the retirement age is raised from 65 to 67. An individual continuing to work pays income taxes for two additional years, pays payroll tax for two additional years. That is a lot of additional tax dollars that would not be paid absent the change.
The individual, furthermore, does not collect SS for two years -- thus losing maybe $10,000 to $20,000 a year. That is money taken away by the Bush/Greenspan idea.
Why not call both parts of this a tax increase?
Plus two more years of "working like dogs."
Gene Coyle
