Right now yes.
Any chance the federal government shifts the goal posts and delays Medicare eligibility to 66,67,70 in the future?
Same vein, any chance the federal government moves the goal posts on social security benefits or full retirement age (again)?

 

cool. Since we keep talking around each other you’re lying to yourself if you think out LTD will not change if 67 happens.

 

Yeah, the company won’t take that into account… Will the company consider it a freebie?
No, it’s now a bargaining chip for them.
“You ask on xyz (vacation, raise, 401k contributions, etc) is a little high, when you take into account the additional we are paying for LTD.”
“That value went up due to federal mandate.”
“Yes the value went up. We can raise xyz by (fraction of offer) or adjust LTD.”

All prices are taken into account. There are no freebies in negotiations and there is a cap on value. There is some flex in how much we can get an increase in total value or where it goes, but this idea that we get it for free is just unrealistic.

 

It's extensive and well-settled law and precedent. Google has all the details.

Summary:

Federal law (not the constitution) prevents age discrimination.

Fed can implement other laws which *do* allow discrimination, since it's not a constitutional thing, prime example is age 65.

Fed/state/local governments can set age limits for public safety jobs, where they can demonstrate a legit basis for that. Private employers cannot do that directly, but they might employ people who require a government license with an age limit (like us).

There is a very specific carve-out for private employers to set an age limit of 65 for bona fide executives. The law proscribes the creative use of the "executive" label, ie they can't call you the COO of Flight 123, or the FO the VP of landing gear and comms to justify mandatory early-out.

This is for the upper end, discrimination is obviously allowed for youth, for their own safety and well-being, and for maturity & judgement reasons (ATP, law enforcement, military, etc).

 

This is true, but it's a bit obtuse to not conceed that it can become a high cost item to keep. Losing out on other gains because we try to keep, as it's cost rises, can be a real thing. I'm not sure 67 will drive up to cost too crazy, but unlimited age would certainly do that. Let's be honest, 67 won't be enough for this crowd. If 67 passes, they'll immediately start pushing for unlimited age.

 

i agree completely with you. It may make the contract more expensive, but so do lots of things that are affected by external factors.

I’ve said before, I don’t think 67 would be too crazy of an increase to LTD costs, if it goes to 70 or more, no way we keep our LTD in any capacity similar to today.

but I think the idea we would have to give up anything we already have to keep LTD if the age goes to 67 is a little pessimistic at best.

 

pilots are already eligible for retiree medical until Medicare age as long as they retire at 60 with, I think, 10 years of service. If the Medicare age goes past 65, regardless of FAA age, we would have those pilots in our medical pool.

as far as SS, you can still take it at 65, it’s just not the “full” age. But if you are no longer working, what does full age matter? 67 may be more than 65 but 70 is even more. FRA really only matters if you want to both work and collect SS.

Last I saw the SS trust fund will run out of money by 2034ish. At some point before that we will either
1) begin means testing recipients in which case I doubt many of us will see anything
2) eliminate the income cap on SS contributions, in which case all of us will pay a bunch more in taxes or
3) cut benefits to about 70% of their current level. This could be a straight cut across the board, by raising FRA, or something else.

pretty much guaranteed one of those things will happen in the next 10 years, maybe a combination of all 3.

 

I wish I could have dropped out of the social security scheme years ago. The most popular solution is just end the income cap which will triple what captains pay for ss every year without increasing the benefit at all.

 

I don't think we have to give up something we already have, but more of a losing out on potential gains. Either one is still a loss.



Ya their argument about not being able to stay to full retirment age is a bit much. Like the $1k/month loss for drawing it at 65 is going to put them in the poor house 🙄. Most of us will he lucky to see SS in anywhere close to its current for, and if we do, it will likely be because we paid increased taxes.


Agreed.

 

Don’t ever underestimate the ability of politicians to push out problems as far as possible and continue to print/borrow money. I’d bet on massive money printing and inflation before they do a single thing to SS. SS has been underfunded since the late 70’s. Here we are 50
years later. You think any politician wants to touch this hot potato? Not going to happen.