Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security

[afx114]

[quote=flu]Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…[/quote]

A little perspective:

[Arraya]

We were socialist back in the 40s and 50s.

[Arraya]

We were socialist back in the 40s and 50s.

[Arraya]

We were socialist back in the 40s and 50s.

[Arraya]

We were socialist back in the 40s and 50s.

[Arraya]

We were socialist back in the 40s and 50s.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. The reason the SS Administration set 65 as the age at which folks would start receiving benefits (back in the 1930s) is that the average American’s life expectancy was… 65 at the time. Today it’s 75 (or thereabouts). The norm until just a few decades back was that most folks worked until they died – physical labor or otherwise. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the norm today. “Retirement” is a fairly modern notion that should only realistically apply to a much smaller percentage of the population than it actually does. Most folks should work until they keel over. That’s reality.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. The reason the SS Administration set 65 as the age at which folks would start receiving benefits (back in the 1930s) is that the average American’s life expectancy was… 65 at the time. Today it’s 75 (or thereabouts). The norm until just a few decades back was that most folks worked until they died – physical labor or otherwise. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the norm today. “Retirement” is a fairly modern notion that should only realistically apply to a much smaller percentage of the population than it actually does. Most folks should work until they keel over. That’s reality.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. The reason the SS Administration set 65 as the age at which folks would start receiving benefits (back in the 1930s) is that the average American’s life expectancy was… 65 at the time. Today it’s 75 (or thereabouts). The norm until just a few decades back was that most folks worked until they died – physical labor or otherwise. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the norm today. “Retirement” is a fairly modern notion that should only realistically apply to a much smaller percentage of the population than it actually does. Most folks should work until they keel over. That’s reality.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. The reason the SS Administration set 65 as the age at which folks would start receiving benefits (back in the 1930s) is that the average American’s life expectancy was… 65 at the time. Today it’s 75 (or thereabouts). The norm until just a few decades back was that most folks worked until they died – physical labor or otherwise. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the norm today. “Retirement” is a fairly modern notion that should only realistically apply to a much smaller percentage of the population than it actually does. Most folks should work until they keel over. That’s reality.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. The reason the SS Administration set 65 as the age at which folks would start receiving benefits (back in the 1930s) is that the average American’s life expectancy was… 65 at the time. Today it’s 75 (or thereabouts). The norm until just a few decades back was that most folks worked until they died – physical labor or otherwise. I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the norm today. “Retirement” is a fairly modern notion that should only realistically apply to a much smaller percentage of the population than it actually does. Most folks should work until they keel over. That’s reality.

[Arraya]

If you change the retiring age it helps is if they are not competing with their kids for work. The way it’s shaping up they won’t get their SS or have an option to work. It won’t be work the gets extended it will be the nuclear family that ends. A century ago they worked till they died but they also lived on a family farm for the most part.

[Arraya]

If you change the retiring age it helps is if they are not competing with their kids for work. The way it’s shaping up they won’t get their SS or have an option to work. It won’t be work the gets extended it will be the nuclear family that ends. A century ago they worked till they died but they also lived on a family farm for the most part.

[Arraya]

If you change the retiring age it helps is if they are not competing with their kids for work. The way it’s shaping up they won’t get their SS or have an option to work. It won’t be work the gets extended it will be the nuclear family that ends. A century ago they worked till they died but they also lived on a family farm for the most part.

[Arraya]

If you change the retiring age it helps is if they are not competing with their kids for work. The way it’s shaping up they won’t get their SS or have an option to work. It won’t be work the gets extended it will be the nuclear family that ends. A century ago they worked till they died but they also lived on a family farm for the most part.

[Author]

Posts