Discussion in 'Politics' started by Article 15, Jul 11, 2010.
I think this is inevitable, really.
People are living longer so expecting the working people to support more and more and more retirees is a formula for disaster.
This is a compromise that is necessary.
Eventually it will have to be linked to life expectancy. That can be expected to keep going up to 100-120 years further down the road.
We'd best find (read create) some work for the people, then.
Right now efficiencies in technology and of course the harnessing of the third worlds (much younger) workforce is making more and more of we Americans basically redundant.
we'll all be happy with the tired part of retired then?
IN much the same way that we'll be happy eating the food that is part of the DOG FOOD, I suppose.
I've said that the retirement age must be raised for years now, should have started when life expectancies hit the 70's in 1970 at least. Actually the retirement age then was likely above 65. No one is going to force you to work, never has, it is when you may receive SSI and Medicare.
Both of which cannot be 'saved' with this change alone. Indeed I've said and still do that we should be able to receive back the money with interest that have been confiscated over X number of years, beginning at retirement age. Once that amount is returned, there should be means testing of some sort for X number of years, while SSI is phased out totally or made optional.
The SSI was not set up like a 401K. It's more like an annuity. That's the contract.
That said, in 1935, life expectancy for all races, both genders was under 60 on average. Now, in spite of the FACT that the USA has the absolutely worst medical care in the history of the Universe, life expectancy is just under 78 years for all. This is probably the greatest reason why the cost have risen so dramatically.
Taking th letter of the "contract", we should expect to have the same age benefit sunrise. Using the "spirit" of the law, we should begin to enjoy benefits if we outlive the average.
One last "however": While medicine has advanced to keep us from dying, we are still prone to things like joints locking up and brains, too. Being capable of producing while in a spirit is willing, but the flesh is worn out state is the reality.
Means testing? From each according to his needs or whatever? You plays the game and you takes your chances. If you die before 65, you get nada. If you survive to the finish line, you get the cash. Play by the rules.
Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2005 — Infoplease.com
Code1211, you are an idiot of the highest order.
On topic, age 65 for retirement was instituted by Bismark in Imperial Germany. The reason was that most people died in their mid 50s, so someone who reached 65 is about like someone reaching 85 today. We absolutely need to raise the retirement age otherwise the system will go bankrupt. I would gladly give up 2 years of benefits to insure many more.
Or are the pirates in Somalia getting treatments at an African version of John Hopkins that I am unaware of?
Separate names with a comma.