Raising retirement to 70 yrs..

[Old Rocks]

"Rich" people usually have more stress, which I know I would, what with working 20 hours days, etc. Illnesses such as cancer, ALS, MS, etc. happen to rich and poor alike. Look at Ted Kennedy with his brain cancer. All the money in the world couldn't fix him. Even "rich" people eat poorly. People are more active and young thinking nowadays well until their 80s even. Hell, my mother in law dated a man 26 years her junior until the day she died at 87.

If you make a concerted effort to eat healthy, I think you will find yourself spending more money on food. Organic, healthy, & naturally grown food is more expensive (just check out some of the Whole Foods prices), while cheap processed and canned food is generally less inexpensive.

Not all rich people eat healthy, but the point is if you want to eat healthy be prepared to dish out more money at the grocery store – a luxury that poor people often do not have – especially when there's kids involved and multiple mouths to feed.

Also, yes, maybe the entrepreneurial CEO might have a very stressful and hectic life, but when we generally talk about rich people we must also consider the folks who make maybe $150k+ a year. A lot of those jobs are desk jobs, and after being with a company for years some of these slots can get rather “easy” and relaxed. This is especially true when you compare that to having to dig ditches for 8 hours every day, or having to do some of the heavy manual labor that comes with a lot of the lower skilled positions.
.
.
.

Digging ditches is hard? It's mindless nothing work. I could do that for the rest of my life no problem. I choose not to.

So states someone that has obviously never dug one.

 

[Vel]

Yeah, I've only paid into this for the last 30 fucking years. Fuck me right? The rich need their fucking taxes cut IN FUCKING HALF in that SAME TIME FRAME.

I mean the SUPER RICH can't be expected to pull their own weight like WORKING PEOPLE can, huh?
They need HELP, the poor wilting darlings.

Do you understand social security taxes? Social security taxes are probably the most fair tax that we pay. Rich and poor alike pay the same percentage on each dollar. People should quit trying to engage in class warfare on every issue.

 

[Douger]

Today, more Americans live 20 or even 30 years past age 65.
When SS was established life expectancy WAS age 65 and the planners never anticipated several factors:
A) Americans living longer and B) More Americans living longer!

So why is there a big hangup on raising the age to 70 when people can start collecting?
No one under age 55 would be affected.
BUT the financial savings would be tremendous.

YET the politicians are claiming those that want to correct this are totally wrong when they say they want to destroy grandma's social security.

Why not just be honest here.
It's not wrong to correct an issue that wasn't considered 70 years ago that people would live longer so why not allow a correction with out all the name calling and accusations.

How about your beloved socialist military meatheads ? They can call it quits at 38-39 after 20 years of "service". So can many of your nazi's in blue.Matter of fact many fully retire from the meathead corps only to do another 20 as a county or state Nazi and double dip at about age 60.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just make SS an option. If you don't trust your own ability to invest your dollars then, by all means, opt for government to give you a small pittance when you retire.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is clear that there are people who will believe anything.

 

[sparky]

I'm thirty and have paid FICA taxes since I was 16, no way in hell I will see SS when I retire. If I do it will be extra and have nothing to do with my choice of when to retire.

i hear this a lot

interesting that so many of your generation are dead sure the social contract your buying into won't serve you

~S~

 

[sarahgop]

why keep raising the age? let people have the money whenever they want.

 

[Zander]

If we want to keep the program solvent we need to make adjustments for reality. People are living longer and drawing benefits for a longer time. We should add 6 months to the Social Security retirement age every year for the next 10 years - eventually raising "Full retirement" to age 72 and "early retirement" to 67. Gradual changes allow people to adjust and these minor adjustments will ensure the program is around for the people that are paying into it.

Remember, there are no free lunches.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The trinkets from the treasury are about gone.

 

[initforme]

"Are you afraid to invest ten percent? To have an actual account where you have some say so."

Nope. Not at all. But it had better be GUARANTEED. There better be NO WAY I can lose out on it. Then yeah, I'm all for it. But there should be ZERO chance of not getting my 10 percent back HUGE.

 

[KevinWestern]

If we want to keep the program solvent we need to make adjustments for reality. People are living longer and drawing benefits for a longer time. We should add 6 months to the Social Security retirement age every year for the next 10 years - eventually raising "Full retirement" to age 72 and "early retirement" to 67. Gradual changes allow people to adjust and these minor adjustments will ensure the program is around for the people that are paying into it.

Remember, there are no free lunches.

Yep, I agree. I think everyone needs to be realistic about this. We especially need to consider the fact that this is a program where the non-retired directly support the retired, and the trend lately is for families to have less children. When the baby boomer population begins to retire and beyond, there's going to be a smaller ratio of workers to retirees. We need to make adjustments or the whole thing will eventually fail unfortunately.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Thats it !!!!!!!! Just delay the payment of benefits and raise the tax................

Problem solved.............LoL

 

[KevinWestern]

Thats it !!!!!!!! Just delay the payment of benefits and raise the tax................

Problem solved.............LoL

No, increasing retirement age will help to create a greater ratio of workers to retirees, which helps offset the longer life expectancy of people today vs 1950, and offset the fact that baby boomers had less kids than their parents and thus less workers/taxpayers to support them in retirement.

Look, I can care less if they phase out the program by the time I retire; I plan to be supported by my 401k. But if you want to keep the program around, you'll need to make some adjustments.

 

[healthmyths]

Moving it over to private investments is how you risk their social security.

All you need for proof is this past stock market crash.

Wow... do you bury your money in the backyard or under your mattress?

How cliched! How stupid!
YOU so missed the point here!
A) WITHOUT privatization just moving the retirement age to 70 SAVES Social Security!

HAS NOTHING TO do with buying stocks!

How f..king.. stupid!

 

[healthmyths]

Moving it over to private investments is how you risk their social security.

All you need for proof is this past stock market crash.

If it went into private investments


There would be money in the accounts, You cant say that about the current system.

In fact we had to threaten to withhold checks if we couldnt borrow more.

Yes the crash would have lowered values, but looking further the damn government is who started that ball rolling.

Are you afraid to invest ten percent? To have an actual account where you have some say so.

I would never bet my life on the scam assed stock market

yOU dumb as.... You realize over last 40 years the "stock market" grew 8% which is the best return!
BUT more importantly... WHERE IN the f..k do you think the banks that keep your checking account money put their money??? Dum... sh...T

What do you do hide your money under the mattress??

Point is it is OK for smart people to make money on the stock market while you dum..fk... sit around drink your beer and play with your se...!

 

[healthmyths]

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons.
Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.
By the Trustees:
Trustees Report Summary

TRANSLATION.. RAISE the age to 70!
After all when SS was set up most people died before the retired..i.e. life span was about 65!
It's not now!
Raise retirement age to 70 for all people UNDER AGE 55!
Problem solved.
US OLD retired folk on SS now WILL NOT BE AFFECTED!
PLEASE Don't listen to the idiotic scare tactics of Democrats!
Let workers accumulate at 3% interest in savings over 35 years $600,000 for the average worker!
NO investing in stock market. just local bank !
THAT won't happen though!

 

[healthmyths]

Hey what reason would us OLD folk already getting Social Security have any concern???
WELL it's primarily because WE care about the younger generation and WANT something for them!

Let the younger generation at least vote on raising the age to 70!
And let the younger generation vote on self directed (NO stock market if they don't want!!) accumulation and then when they retire have $600,000 to live on pay health costs and if
any left over at death leave for their children or whatever but...!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It might have something to do with people in their 60s and even 50s being all but unemployable. Since it is so difficult for older people to get and keep jobs how is raising the eligibility age not cheating them out of something they worked for?

I would sure as hell hate to be on the job market at my age!

Another factor is that some jobs are much more punishing and tend to cost more in terms of health. I'm lucky in that my jobs was physically easy but I worked hard to stay in good condition. I also started saving and investing very early and never let up.

What about the guy who works in a warehouse? or some other job that is physically taxing?

Or, what about a job that is especially stressful or the individual who suffers from any of a bunch of debilitating illnesses as they age?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The trinkets from the treasury are about gone.

But they're not lost .. Just pat down the pubs and bags.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Are you afraid to invest ten percent? To have an actual account where you have some say so."

Nope. Not at all. But it had better be GUARANTEED. There better be NO WAY I can lose out on it. Then yeah, I'm all for it. But there should be ZERO chance of not getting my 10 percent back HUGE.

Then don't invest in Wall Street.

As we all saw, that loss was a lot more than 10%.

Didn't lose so much as one penny from the SS account though.

Anyone remember the says of buying US bonds? Why are rw's so against investing in their own country?