Is 60 the New 40? Read further (for those that only handle titles) and see how this affects SS!!!

[healthmyths]

Is 60 the New 40?
"Elderly."
Most of us hear the word and think of our parents in wheelchairs," said Marcella Lorfing, who teaches a memoir writing workshop at the Davis Art Center in California. "Now that was elderly."

After a recent Sacramento Bee story described a 60-year-old woman as elderly, one 60-year-old reader called to complain. "What's up with you guys," she asked, "don't you know that's just plain wrong?"

And the statistics, not to mention a cultural shift in attitude in how aging is viewed, back her up.
Those in the 60-and-older crowd are living longer and healthier lives than their parents by adhering to today's doctrines of diet and keeping the mind and body active.

So what is the new elderly?

The consensus seems to be that 60 is the new 40. Or at least a 40 with far different pressures and responsibilities. If not retired, then working with less pressure. The kids are grown and gone. And there's just more time to do fun stuff.
Is 60 the New 40 - Chicago Tribune

OK for those pointy small brained... here is the point!
RAISE Social Security RETIREMENT AGE from 65 to 69 for all those people UNDER 55! GET IT???
See you ignorant liberal/progressive democrats totally forget that SS was started at the time extremely few people lived past age 65!
So SS was betting that MOST workers paying into SS would never use it!
Great CON wasn't it???
BUT we are living longer and we are using up SS faster...

Simply raising the age for ALL workers NOW that are under 55 will save SS extinction by several decades.
As it is now SS trustees projects the demise by 2030!
From the Social Security TRUSTEES.
Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 41 percent of Federal expenditures in fiscal year 2013.
[Note for you ignorami, this means the GENERAL FUND of Federal government spends 41% on SS & Medicare.]
Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Could you manage to work a few more gratuitous and childish insults into this OP?

Why bother trying to have a conversation when the thread starts like this?

 

[DriftingSand]

Good and honest thread. Thank you!

 

[Freewill]

People are living longer if you consider sitting in nursing homes living. The body still wears out at about the same pace. I am thinking that the living longer part is mostly due to people not getting killed, like in war.

 

[Old Rocks]

Simply make the SS tax apply to all income all the way to the top. Problem solved, and the tax, the 6.2 the individual pays, can be lowered.

 

[Mad Scientist]

U.S. Govt setting you up for NOT giving you the SS benefits they promised and you paid into your whole life.

This is America. Thanks Veterans!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Simply make the SS tax apply to all income all the way to the top. Problem solved, and the tax, the 6.2 the individual pays, can be lowered.

I'll bet OldRocks has no idea why SS was implemented in the first place.

Let's see...

 

[healthmyths]

Simply make the SS tax apply to all income all the way to the top. Problem solved, and the tax, the 6.2 the individual pays, can be lowered.

Your ignorance is showing!!!!!
Do YOU know that the employer PAYS the equal amount of 6.2% for SS??
So what do you do then?
THAT was why there was a CAP on the payments to SS.

 

[healthmyths]

People are living longer if you consider sitting in nursing homes living. The body still wears out at about the same pace. I am thinking that the living longer part is mostly due to people not getting killed, like in war.

YOU aren't THINKING when you say mostly due to not getting killed! Don't dignify the word "thinking" with your guesses!

FACTS please don't GUESS or your case faux thinking!!!
Seriously, why don't you use the Internet before making any comment? Opinions should be based on facts and with the Internet today opinions should be a little more accurate then "thinking"....!

FACT: In 2010,
54 percent of assisted living residents are 85 years or older;
27 percent are 75-84 years old;
9 percent of residents are between 65 and 74 years; and
11 percent are younger than 65 years old.
Resident Profile


During the twentieth century, life expectancy rose dramatically amongst the world's wealthiest populations from around 50 to over 75 years.

This increase can be attributed to a number of factors including improvements in public health, nutrition and medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics greatly reduced deaths in childhood, health and safety in manual workplaces improved and fewer people smoked.
As a result of this - coupled with a decline in the fertility rate (the average number of children that women have in their lifetime) -
many major industrial countries are facing an aging population.

It is likely that life expectancy of the most developed countries will continue to slowly advance and then reach a peak in the range of the mid-80s. According to UN statistics for the period 2005 - 2010, Japan (82.6 years) has the world's highest life expectancy followed by Hong Kong (82.2 years) and Iceland (81.8 years). The world average is 67.2 years and the UK average is 79.4 years.

In the U.K, Life expectancy at birth increased by almost a decade in the first 50 years of the NHS (established in 1948). In 1948, 40% of people died before reaching pensionable age, but by 1996 this was reduced to just 7%.

During the Roman Empire, Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just five years short of today's life expectancy.

Life expectancy changes as you get older. By the time a child reaches their first year, their chances of living longer increase. By the time of late adulthood, your chances of survival to a very old age are quite good. For example, although the life expectancy from birth for all people in the United States is 77.7 years, those who live to age 65 will have an average of almost 18 additional years left to live, making their life expectancy almost 83 years.
Why are people living longer

 

[initforme]

How about 67 instead of 69? Many people won't be able to physically keep working at 69 years of age... what are they to do? Also, those under 45 instead of 55. Too many under 55 have paid in for too long not to receive it. aaWe can't expect people to work a physically demanding job until almost 70.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I just turned 60 last month, and if 60 is the new 40, would somebody do me a solid and inform my back. It apparently didn't get the word.

TIA.

 

[georgephillip]

Simply make the SS tax apply to all income all the way to the top. Problem solved, and the tax, the 6.2 the individual pays, can be lowered.

It's not a spending problem; it's an income problem:
"One would be restoring the Reagan standard that 90 percent of wages are covered by the Social Security tax, which now applies to only 83 percent of wages. If we went back to the Reagan standard, the Social Security tax would apply to close to $200,000 of wages this year instead of $110,100.

"As the New York Times reported in November 2010, that one change would produce $50 billion in new revenue in 2015 and reduce the deficit in 2030 by an estimated $100 billion. As theTimes explained in its interactive 'You Fix the Budget' tool (image above) here's how it would work:

Raising payroll tax cap is the best fix for Social Security

 

[georgephillip]

I just turned 60 last month, and if 60 is the new 40, would somebody do me a solid and inform my back. It apparently didn't get the word.

I felt the same way at 60; my scoliosis was spreading the pain from my lower back upwards into my shoulder blade regions. Then I turned 65 and Medicare/Medical payed for physical therapy I was unable to afford previously. Today the pain is gone and my back is stronger than it was seven years ago; although, it is not back to where it was when I was forty. (yet)

 

[healthmyths]

How about 67 instead of 69? Many people won't be able to physically keep working at 69 years of age... what are they to do? Also, those under 45 instead of 55. Too many under 55 have paid in for too long not to receive it. aaWe can't expect people to work a physically demanding job until almost 70.

The suggestions (not mine, I'm not smart enough to come up with this!!) is that people could do as they do now.. retire earlier and not get full payment at 69 but could retire at 65 take lesser (probably equal to what right now full retirement at 65 pays) payment.
As far as 55 I didn't also share though the option for those under 55 that is the CHOICE of whether to continue SS as we know it i.e. send money in and have NO control OR the option to choose where the money goes. The freedom to put the money into FDIC insured savings account every payday and accumulating principal and interest tax sheltered would then provide the individual even MORE money then the traditional SS payments.
AND before you jump to that stupid liberal argument "RISKY stock market" NOTE I said they would have the choice! Put into FDIC secured savings!
The point is millions of people would prefer to have their SS payments accumulate and earning interest AND then paid out at retirement!

Finally...please don't use terms like "many"... be specific because that's what get's us in trouble...generalizations that become the rule!
How many people can't keep digging ditches at 69? How many people do dig ditches at 69? SEE?
Can't make those generalizations OK?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is 60 the New 40?
"Elderly."
Most of us hear the word and think of our parents in wheelchairs," said Marcella Lorfing, who teaches a memoir writing workshop at the Davis Art Center in California. "Now that was elderly."

After a recent Sacramento Bee story described a 60-year-old woman as elderly, one 60-year-old reader called to complain. "What's up with you guys," she asked, "don't you know that's just plain wrong?"

And the statistics, not to mention a cultural shift in attitude in how aging is viewed, back her up.
Those in the 60-and-older crowd are living longer and healthier lives than their parents by adhering to today's doctrines of diet and keeping the mind and body active.

So what is the new elderly?

The consensus seems to be that 60 is the new 40. Or at least a 40 with far different pressures and responsibilities. If not retired, then working with less pressure. The kids are grown and gone. And there's just more time to do fun stuff.
Is 60 the New 40 - Chicago Tribune

OK for those pointy small brained... here is the point!
RAISE Social Security RETIREMENT AGE from 65 to 69 for all those people UNDER 55! GET IT???
See you ignorant liberal/progressive democrats totally forget that SS was started at the time extremely few people lived past age 65!
So SS was betting that MOST workers paying into SS would never use it!
Great CON wasn't it???
BUT we are living longer and we are using up SS faster...

Simply raising the age for ALL workers NOW that are under 55 will save SS extinction by several decades.
As it is now SS trustees projects the demise by 2030!
From the Social Security TRUSTEES.
Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 41 percent of Federal expenditures in fiscal year 2013.
[Note for you ignorami, this means the GENERAL FUND of Federal government spends 41% on SS & Medicare.]
Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

Trustees Report Summary

If you're going change the retirement age why not pro-rate it in incrementally, instead of having an abrupt cutoff date.
Why should the guy who's 55 get in at 65 and the guy who's 54 have to wait an extra 4 years?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about 67 instead of 69? Many people won't be able to physically keep working at 69 years of age... what are they to do? Also, those under 45 instead of 55. Too many under 55 have paid in for too long not to receive it. aaWe can't expect people to work a physically demanding job until almost 70.

The suggestions (not mine, I'm not smart enough to come up with this!!) is that people could do as they do now.. retire earlier and not get full payment at 69 but could retire at 65 take lesser (probably equal to what right now full retirement at 65 pays) payment.
As far as 55 I didn't also share though the option for those under 55 that is the CHOICE of whether to continue SS as we know it i.e. send money in and have NO control OR the option to choose where the money goes. The freedom to put the money into FDIC insured savings account every payday and accumulating principal and interest tax sheltered would then provide the individual even MORE money then the traditional SS payments.
AND before you jump to that stupid liberal argument "RISKY stock market" NOTE I said they would have the choice! Put into FDIC secured savings!
The point is millions of people would prefer to have their SS payments accumulate and earning interest AND then paid out at retirement!

Finally...please don't use terms like "many"... be specific because that's what get's us in trouble...generalizations that become the rule!
How many people can't keep digging ditches at 69? How many people do dig ditches at 69? SEE?
Can't make those generalizations OK?

Do you have any idea what an FDIC insured account is paying in interest compared to what the SS Trust Fund rate is?

 

[healthmyths]

I just turned 60 last month, and if 60 is the new 40, would somebody do me a solid and inform my back. It apparently didn't get the word.

TIA.

WHO cares? The point is the Majority of people not the exceptions like you!
SS was never designed for the individual...but for ALL people regardless of their back issues!
AND NOW you understand the problem don't you?
Federal government programs are cookie cutter i.e. one size fits all. They can't! It is too big to customize SS around your back issue.
BUT... as I've pointed out that revising SS to allow people the CHOICE of whether to let the government manage my SS payments' accumulations (which they don't they lump it in with general revenue of which 41% comes from SS/Medicare by the way..).. then situations like your back can be managed financially by you!
Say when you were 25 and had the choice to put your SS/Medicare payments deducted automatically from your paycheck and you could ONLY instruct them to
put the $$ into a FDIC bank insured savings. Do you know how much $$ you would have at age 60 to count on for retirement??? Calculate it out as I did for myself and if I had at age 25 in 1967 been given the choice I'd have over a $1 million accumulated by now and NOT in the risky stock market!

 

[healthmyths]

How about 67 instead of 69? Many people won't be able to physically keep working at 69 years of age... what are they to do? Also, those under 45 instead of 55. Too many under 55 have paid in for too long not to receive it. aaWe can't expect people to work a physically demanding job until almost 70.

The suggestions (not mine, I'm not smart enough to come up with this!!) is that people could do as they do now.. retire earlier and not get full payment at 69 but could retire at 65 take lesser (probably equal to what right now full retirement at 65 pays) payment.
As far as 55 I didn't also share though the option for those under 55 that is the CHOICE of whether to continue SS as we know it i.e. send money in and have NO control OR the option to choose where the money goes. The freedom to put the money into FDIC insured savings account every payday and accumulating principal and interest tax sheltered would then provide the individual even MORE money then the traditional SS payments.
AND before you jump to that stupid liberal argument "RISKY stock market" NOTE I said they would have the choice! Put into FDIC secured savings!
The point is millions of people would prefer to have their SS payments accumulate and earning interest AND then paid out at retirement!

Finally...please don't use terms like "many"... be specific because that's what get's us in trouble...generalizations that become the rule!
How many people can't keep digging ditches at 69? How many people do dig ditches at 69? SEE?
Can't make those generalizations OK?

Do you have any idea what an FDIC insured account is paying in interest compared to what the SS Trust Fund rate is?

YES! 1% but see you are forgetting several things!
1) Your employer matches your 6.2% or a total of 12.2% deducted so you are accumulating more money then if you simply have an outside FDIC account!
2) It is tax sheltered!
3) NO idiot would keep their entire 40 year working accumulations in a 1% FDIC account DUMMY!!!
I was showing how even at FDIC insured starting at 1% but 2 times more put away then outside of SS as a START! NOT the end all.
4) Putting at age 25 starting salary of $30,000 the $3,720 for 20 years at 7% average appreciation of the stock market then
Beginner Investing Made Easy
5) Switching the accumulation to 5% bonds,treasuries,etc. from 45 to 65
6) The accumulation would be $1,421,966....Again the majority of people choosing to manage their own SS would do this! Not idiots like you!
Are you aware that 52 million American workers were active 401(k) participants,? Are they stupid?

Are you aware that in an April 2012 Gallup poll, 53 percent of respondents said they had money invested in the stock market.
That was the smallest percentage in any poll since Gallup began tracking the number. The high was 67 percent in June 2002.

 

[Mr Natural]

You know what else will save SS? Eliminating the earnings cap.

 

[kiwiman127]

Is 60 the New 40?
"Elderly."
Most of us hear the word and think of our parents in wheelchairs," said Marcella Lorfing, who teaches a memoir writing workshop at the Davis Art Center in California. "Now that was elderly."

After a recent Sacramento Bee story described a 60-year-old woman as elderly, one 60-year-old reader called to complain. "What's up with you guys," she asked, "don't you know that's just plain wrong?"

And the statistics, not to mention a cultural shift in attitude in how aging is viewed, back her up.
Those in the 60-and-older crowd are living longer and healthier lives than their parents by adhering to today's doctrines of diet and keeping the mind and body active.

So what is the new elderly?

The consensus seems to be that 60 is the new 40. Or at least a 40 with far different pressures and responsibilities. If not retired, then working with less pressure. The kids are grown and gone. And there's just more time to do fun stuff.
Is 60 the New 40 - Chicago Tribune

OK for those pointy small brained... here is the point!
RAISE Social Security RETIREMENT AGE from 65 to 69 for all those people UNDER 55! GET IT???
See you ignorant liberal/progressive democrats totally forget that SS was started at the time extremely few people lived past age 65!
So SS was betting that MOST workers paying into SS would never use it!
Great CON wasn't it???
BUT we are living longer and we are using up SS faster...

Simply raising the age for ALL workers NOW that are under 55 will save SS extinction by several decades.
As it is now SS trustees projects the demise by 2030!
From the Social Security TRUSTEES.
Social Security and Medicare together accounted for 41 percent of Federal expenditures in fiscal year 2013.
[Note for you ignorami, this means the GENERAL FUND of Federal government spends 41% on SS & Medicare.]
Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.

Trustees Report Summary

I agree with raising the age from 65 to 69.
However, Healthmyths, you seem to have anger issues.
Right off the bat you are accusing other posters of being idiots. Right off the bat you go on the offensive, dispersing name calling.
Who in the hell would read an OP when it's laced with assumptions about those who will read your OP. And this is typical you. All you are doing is encouraging abuse.
Fuck man, take a chill pill ! I think you have claimed to be in your 60's at one time, I could be wrong. Anyway, I have some advice for you. Being that wound up and angry will shorten your life span. You may not be one of the ones who live to meet America's life expectancy if you keep up your emotional lifestyle.