The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Discussion in 'Politics' started by g5000, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    55,976
    Thanks Received:
    9,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,525
    This is the second in my The Way Forward series. You can find the first of the series here: The Way Forward: End Tax Expenditures


    We see on page 38 of the 1930 US census that 5.5 percent of the US population was over the age of 65 in 1930. 3.2 percent of the population was over 70.

    Five years later, the Social Security Act of 1935 was enacted.

    Thirty years after that, the Social Security Act of 1965 added government sponsored health insurance (Medicare) to the retirement benefits of our seniors. This is also when Medicaid was created, but that’s a separate subject.

    We see on page 6 in the US Census for that period that our national health had increased to the point that the ratio of people over 65 had crept up to 9.5 percent by then.

    In today’s Census, we find that the over 65 bunch has exploded to over 13 percent of the population. We have literally more than doubled the senior entitlement load for Social Security since 1935!

    Plus, we layered on another extremely expensive entitlement program on top of that load in 1965.



    6 percent of our population is now living beyond the age of 75.



    Life expectancy in 1935 was 61.7 years. Today, it is 78.7 years.

    If you went to work at 18 and retire at 65, then you worked for 47 years.

    In 1935, you may not have lived long enough to even collect Social Security. As we saw above, only 6 percent of the population lived long enough to collect even one cent.

    Today, you retire after 47 years, and 13 percent are living long enough to collect. And 6 percent are living long enough to collect for at least 13 years.

    The idea of continuing this way is beyond ridiculous.


    Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

    To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

    When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

    We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



    .
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,551
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    It's already started. I can't collect my full benefits until I'm 66. People younger than myself will have to wait until 67. I'm sure making some work until 70 isn't too far in the future.
     
  3. FJO
    Offline

    FJO Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    7,251
    Thanks Received:
    935
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Just North of the 49th
    Ratings:
    +2,615

    Life expectancy in 1935 was 61.7 years. Today, it is 78.7 years.

    And with Obamacare life expectancy will be at least 90 years.
     
  4. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,855
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    Social Security is not an entitlement program. It is money stolen from me that I will never get back as it is. And you want me to get even less of it. Screw you commie.
     
  5. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    I'd have little problem if it were based on fully accepting the debt in the Social Security Trust, and using actuarial tables to decide a reasonable retirement age for the future generations to keep the system solvent. What I do object to, is those who reaped the rewards of raiding the fund, and pretending that those promised notes are just pieces of payers. They are actual debts. Why shouldn't those who got the fattest on the idiotic Bush tax cuts have a greater obligation to make sure those debts are paid?
     
  6. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    55,976
    Thanks Received:
    9,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,525
    Yeah, but do you know how long ago that increase to 67 was set?

    1983.

    I kid you not.

    And the legislation was written so the gradual increase to 67 would not start until the year 2000 and would take 22 years to get to 67.

    That's right. It won't be until 2022 when the retirement age will be 67 for anyone born after 1960. Congress is taking 39 years to raise the retirement age by 2 years!


    Our life expectancy is increasing at a faster pace than that!


    The change needs to be done now. Immediately. A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

    Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  7. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,551
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    The problem isn't that people will be getting less, but that they're already getting unsustainably MORE. Why do you think you'll never get it back? Planning on dying early? Would help out the system,though, not enough people dying is part of the problem. :cool:
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    Or we could just not retire. I intend to work for a very long time. I like working. I just dont necessarily like my job all the time lol
     
  9. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    That's a pretty fair assessment, and is reflective of the changes made under Reagan to keep the system solvent for us boomers. The problem isn't solvency in the near term, it's that Republicans don't want to pay the bills they accrued.
     
  10. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,551
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    I agree, it needs to be stepped up a bit. I wasn't saying there wasn't anything wrong with it, just that it has already started.
     

Share This Page