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

[healthmyths]

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

Are YOU aware that the employers pay the equal amount of 6.2%?
Raising the cap then would mean ALL employers would see their payroll costs skyrocket because of that?
OH right you are one of those SCREW the wealthy people because they screwed you right?
Or are you a jealous venal juvenile that will never ever be ambitious enough to improve but constantly want to drag every one down to your level?
Is that what you mean?

 

[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.

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

Wow, I hope you didn't burst a blood vessel.

What did you post that disproved anything I posted?

I have lived a fairly long life and nothing of modern medicine made that happen, I mean actions taken to extend life. I was born in a gas station and have not once spent a day in the hospital due to illness. In colonial days if a woman survived her child bearing years she could live quite a bit longer then the average age. The average being moved downward because a whole lot of people did not survive their childhood. And a whole lot of people died in childbirth. Death was a normal part of life.

But that does not mean that the body does not wear out just as fast. Remember Dolly and her clone? If you do then you will remember that the clone aged quickly to the same age as Dolly. Jim Fix ran every day citing the virtue of running, yet he died young. It is my opinion, aging is bred into our DNA or genes, or whatever. We were meant to be born, live and die to a timetable already set. War, disease and such only speeds up the time table.

I do agree that modern science and society has allowed folks to live a whole lot longer.

But I will caution you, getting so upset over an internet post can't be good for your longevity, or can it???

 

[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

Wow, I hope you didn't burst a blood vessel.

What did you post that disproved anything I posted?

I have lived a fairly long life and nothing of modern medicine made that happen, I mean actions taken to extend life. I was born in a gas station and have not once spent a day in the hospital due to illness. In colonial days if a woman survived her child bearing years she could live quite a bit longer then the average age. The average being moved downward because a whole lot of people did not survive their childhood. And a whole lot of people died in childbirth. Death was a normal part of life.

But that does not mean that the body does not wear out just as fast. Remember Dolly and her clone? If you do then you will remember that the clone aged quickly to the same age as Dolly. Jim Fix ran every day citing the virtue of running, yet he died young. It is my opinion, aging is bred into our DNA or genes, or whatever. We were meant to be born, live and die to a timetable already set. War, disease and such only speeds up the time table.

I do agree that modern science and society has allowed folks to live a whole lot longer.

But I will caution you, getting so upset over an internet post can't be good for your longevity, or can it???

See there you are doing what I was cautioning you against doing... assuming without any validation that I was upset.
OK let's deal with the FACTS first:
1) Dolly... you stated: "AGED quickly to the same age as Dolly"
WHAT did this have to do with the body wearing out just as fast?
Some cloned mammals, including Dolly, have shorter telomeres than other animals of the same age.
Telomeres are pieces of DNA that protect the ends of chromosomes. They shorten as cells divide and are therefore considered a measure of aging in cells.
Dolly the sheep dies young - 14 February 2003 - New Scientist

What does that have to do with people living longer?

The fact is that people would die if it weren't all the advances in health care that keep people living longer.
Nothing genetic there except maybe a genetic disposition to better health such as yourself... but the body wears out is true.
Just in some faster then others and in some without medical advances they die.
BUT that doesn't alter the fact: People are living longer!

People don't dig ditches at age 65 anymore nor do strenuous lifting,etc. at 65.
The majority of working people don't strain their bodies as we did when I was 11 60 years ago!
There fore the majority of people are living longer which is an unalterable fact!
So given the FACT that SS will not be sustainable with current age 65 retirement which was designed in a past period when few lived to 65 what is
the problem with raising the age to 69 and comprehending
A) people are living longer due to health advances
B) people aren't working strenuous physical jobs as they did in the 30s when SS began.

As far as Jim Fix...get your facts straight! Use the internet before you conjecture!
His genetic predisposition for heart problems and other previous lifestyle factors that may have caused his heart attack.
Fixx started running in 1967 at age 35.
He weighed 240 pounds (110 kg) and smoked two packs of cigarettes per day.
Ten years later, when his book, The Complete Book of Running (which spent 11 weeks at No. 1 on the best-seller list) was published, he was 60 pounds (27 kg) lighter and smoke-free.
In his books and on television talk shows, he extolled the benefits of physical exercise and how it considerably increased the average life expectancy.
Jim Fixx - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He smoked and was overweight for several years before running at age 35.

FACTS... funny how they get in the way of "MYTHS"!

 

[Mr Natural]

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

Are YOU aware that the employers pay the equal amount of 6.2%?
Raising the cap then would mean ALL employers would see their payroll costs skyrocket because of that?
OH right you are one of those SCREW the wealthy people because they screwed you right?
Or are you a jealous venal juvenile that will never ever be ambitious enough to improve but constantly want to drag every one down to your level?
Is that what you mean?

That's right! You live here, you work here, you pay in no exclusions.

You don't like it? Too bad.

 

[percysunshine]

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

"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???"


Changing the age just delays the confidence game and foregoes the day of reckoning. In the long run, it would be best to just pay everyone out now and abolish the entire program.

.

 

[BullKurtz]

I made it into my 60's by ignoring the number....the only birthday I feared was 50...that seems like a milestone and maybe it was....it was the last time I tried raise my 6'2" of coiled mayhem into dunking a basketball on a regulation rim.....One shot deal....I did it! but the next day I felt like I'd been hit by a truck....every connective tissue was used to make that hop....I'd have the pics to prove it but my GF shot the top of the backboard and some trees in the yard instead of me....never trust an amateur photog with a defining moment in your journey.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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!

It was just a little joke, there, fella.

Might I suggest you switch to decaf? Your rant button seems stuck on the "on" position.

 

[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

"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???"


Changing the age just delays the confidence game and foregoes the day of reckoning. In the long run, it would be best to just pay everyone out now and abolish the entire program.

.

You are right about JUST changing the age.
That's why I added the "CHOICE" comments.
Why not let the individual choose whether to become a total dependent of the state or at least have the power to choose where the SS deductions go?
Given the "CHOICE" three things would happen:
1) those that choose to determine their SS deductions accumulations range from improving bank deposits to helping startup companies...choice is the worker!
2) The government doesn't count the money as their money nor is it then the responsibility of the government to pay it out!
3) Not only then does it reduce the government liabilities, but improves the economy immensely because now the worker after death has an estate to leave his
family or someone... it is an accumulation of some funds that are either spun back into the economy invested or whatever but is NOT the government's!

 

[konradv]

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!

What evidence do you have that people "totally forget"? You're hardly the only one with a brain, albeit a sick and twisted one.

 

[healthmyths]

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!

What evidence do you have that people "totally forget"? You're hardly the only one with a brain, albeit a sick and twisted one.

You are right.
I made an assumption that most people weren't alive when SS was started.
I also made the assumption that our schools haven't taught ancient history i.e. what happened in the 30s.
I also made the assumption that most people aren't aware that their employer ALSO pays a matching 6.2% for SS and 1.45% for Medicare. I made that assumption because most idiots NEVER include the employer's contributions when the discuss raising the minimum wage. I was wrong to assume MOST americans are as
Gruber stated part of the "stupidity of the American voter" that bought into Obamacare and all the other phony statements.
I was wrong to assume that based on these observations that most Americans don't think in 30 second sound bites or just read the headlines.
According to you I was wrong to assume that?