Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]You totally missed my point. Total life expectancy is immaterial. Life expectancy at retirement age is what’s important. I think that number is 7 years higher now than it was when SS started.[/quote]Data?
Here’s the full retirement age for SS: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm. Are you saying your generation total life expectancy is only a few months to <2 years higher than your parents', since according to SS's full retirement age, that's how much older you'd have to be to reach full retirement age. Yet, over the last 50 years, life expectance have gone up 9 years.[/quote]

I may have overstated it.

I can't quickly come up with newer numbers, but direct from the SSA:

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1940 - Males 12.7 Females 14.7

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1990 - Males 15.3 Females 19.6

I doubt life expectancy has increased any faster over the last couple decades, so I'm guessing the increase overall is probably closer to 6 years now.

And you continue to ignore the important number. It is not total life expectancy. It is life expectancy AFTER retirement benefits begin.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Spend less CAR.

No matter what you or anyone says, higher debt is a tax. I am fine with paying higher taxes but taxing more and spending more is ridiculous.[/quote]

Absolutely; I’ve never said otherwise. But we need to do both: raise taxes and cut spending. A good start would be to slash military spending and all of our spy agency expenses in half. We need to eliminate all domestic spying, especially where it concerns American citizens, IMHO. And we need to GTFO of other countries when we have no freaking right to be there killing innocent citizens and “insurgents” who are trying to protect their country from occupying invaders.

Then, we can means test for Social Security recipients and/or eliminate the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxes.

After that, enact a national healthcare system run 100% by the government with the option to upgrade via private market insurance. We already cover the most expensive patients — the elderly, indigent, and children — so we might as well take over the “profitable” patients which would make our average cost per capita decrease tremendously. That way, people would also be free to move from job to job, instead of being trapped with one employer because they fear losing their health insurance.

I’m sick and tired of socializing the losses and privatizing the profits…then having those who benefit most from this system complain that their taxes are too high. Enough, already.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you say about gen before you will be what us Gen X/Y will say about your generation. I can say with a certainty your generation will live longer than the gen before you. You’ll have access to stuff like, new cancer treatments, new AIDS treatments, new body party replacements using your own stem cell, etc. So, yes, on average, Boomers WILL live longer than their parents. So, you will use more than you put in to SS.[/quote]

I agree that we will live longer than WWII and Greatest Gen (not too many of these folks left). All I’m saying is that we put a LOT more into “the system” than our forebears did and are the first generation who very well may not see our “investment” come back to us in full. This is due to overpaying recipients who shouldn’t have qualified to get as high a benefit as they did and allowing some recipients to base their benefits on another’s work record when they didn’t contribute to “the system” themselves. I don’t care what anybody says. At all times after WWII, it was a personal choice of an individual (usually female) to stay out of the workforce for life. There are other ways to take care of someone until death who never worked and was never able to save anything for retirement. In other countries, the financial duty to care for indigent senior citizens falls on their family … as it should be. That same family benefited from the care and attention that (now indigent) non-working parent was able to give them when they were growing up.

Believe it or not, I am against “means testing” for OASDI benefits. A high-paid worker and/or worker with a long career deserves his/her SS based upon their contributions.

Since OASDI is funded by FICA employer and employee contributions, it should be used solely to help fund the retirements of those workers who contributed to it and no one else.[/quote]

BG,

You keep harping about SAHMs, but miss the fact that they **are** working and providing very real benefits that have financial value. They are not *paid,* but they ARE working.

How much do you think it would cost to have someone watch/teach your kids 24/7, do all your cleaning, shopping, cooking, bill paying, managing the schedule, etc.? Even if you get the cheapest full-time nanny/maid/personal assistant, you’d be paying many tens of thousands of dollars per year. To get a very competent person (or multiple people, most likely) to do this 24/7 would cost nearly $100K/year on the open market.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]You totally missed my point. Total life expectancy is immaterial. Life expectancy at retirement age is what’s important. I think that number is 7 years higher now than it was when SS started.[/quote]Data?
Here’s the full retirement age for SS: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm. Are you saying your generation total life expectancy is only a few months to <2 years higher than your parents', since according to SS's full retirement age, that's how much older you'd have to be to reach full retirement age. Yet, over the last 50 years, life expectance have gone up 9 years.[/quote]

I may have overstated it.

I can't quickly come up with newer numbers, but direct from the SSA:

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1940 - Males 12.7 Females 14.7

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1990 - Males 15.3 Females 19.6

I doubt life expectancy has increased any faster over the last couple decades, so I'm guessing the increase overall is probably closer to 6 years now.

And you continue to ignore the important number. It is not total life expectancy. It is life expectancy AFTER retirement benefits begin.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html%5B/quote%5D
Uh, unless math eludes me, life expectancy after retirement = total life expectancy - retirement age, no? If that's the case, it's it as simple as finding out what life expectancy is, then subtract the full retirement age?

Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We're talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there's also the fact that we're pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We're working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there's nano-tech that doesn't exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.

[CA renter]

delete

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]Uh, unless math eludes me, life expectancy after retirement = total life expectancy – retirement age, no? If that’s the case, it’s it as simple as finding out what life expectancy is, then subtract the full retirement age?

Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We’re talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there’s also the fact that we’re pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We’re working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there’s nano-tech that doesn’t exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s a math issue. It’s a logic issue. Life expectancy at retirement age is NOT total life expectancy less retirement age. Life expectancy at birth takes into account infants who die shortly after birth to those who die before they reach retirement age and every mortality in between. Their life expectancy is not material to this discussion since they will never collect any benefits. The only life expectancy that’s material to this discussion is how long people will live once they reach age 65 (or other retirement age).

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]You totally missed my point. Total life expectancy is immaterial. Life expectancy at retirement age is what’s important. I think that number is 7 years higher now than it was when SS started.[/quote]Data?
Here’s the full retirement age for SS: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm. Are you saying your generation total life expectancy is only a few months to <2 years higher than your parents', since according to SS's full retirement age, that's how much older you'd have to be to reach full retirement age. Yet, over the last 50 years, life expectance have gone up 9 years.[/quote]

I may have overstated it.

I can't quickly come up with newer numbers, but direct from the SSA:

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1940 - Males 12.7 Females 14.7

Life expectancy at age 65 in 1990 - Males 15.3 Females 19.6

I doubt life expectancy has increased any faster over the last couple decades, so I'm guessing the increase overall is probably closer to 6 years now.

And you continue to ignore the important number. It is not total life expectancy. It is life expectancy AFTER retirement benefits begin.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html%5B/quote%5D
Uh, unless math eludes me, life expectancy after retirement = total life expectancy - retirement age, no? If that's the case, it's it as simple as finding out what life expectancy is, then subtract the full retirement age?

Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We're talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there's also the fact that we're pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We're working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there's nano-tech that doesn't exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.[/quote]

No. What SK is trying to say is that "average life expectancy" means nothing when talking about retirement or SS. The vast majority of increases in life expectancy came decades ago and applied, almost entirely, to young people. The increases in life expectancy were largely due to vaccines, antibiotics, hygiene, infant and maternal care (so very many women and children died around childbirth back then), OSHA regulations/reduction in accidental deaths at work, etc.

IOW, the vast majority of the increases in life expectancy apply mostly to the front end of life, not the back end where it would have more of an effect on SS/retirement plans.

Older people of today are not living 9 years longer than *older people* of 50-ish years ago. In my family, the trend is decidedly down over the generations, but we have far, far fewer deaths at young ages than my ancestors did...like when a single sickness would often wipe out half of the kids in a single year.

......

To clarify a bit more, in your suggestion here:

…life expectancy after retirement = total life expectancy – retirement age, no? If that’s the case, it’s it as simple as finding out what life expectancy is, then subtract the full retirement age?

It confuses “total life expectancy – retirement age” with “life expectancy at the age of retirement.” Those are two different things, even though they sound similar. The first doesn’t account for the fact that “total life expectancy” is affected by increases in life expectancy at birth; or for those in their twenties, thirties, etc.

[an]

SK and CAR, if that’s your argument, then how do you have data to back up your claim when the things you claim hasn’t happen yet. The boomer haven’t enter retirement, so how can you be sure they will die as early as their parents’ generation? My argument is due to medical advancements today and going forward, boomers will live longer. We won’t know who’s right until 50+ years from now. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now, until the last boomer die, then we’ll know who’s right.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN] . . . Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We’re talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there’s also the fact that we’re pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We’re working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there’s nano-tech that doesn’t exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.[/quote]

Yes, AN, we (as a nation) are “working hard” to find a cure for cancer but there are so many different kinds and that cure eludes us. When one is terminal with cancer, they need to know when to throw in the towel, IMHO. I can honestly say that I would do same in that position as I’ve seen way too much in this regard.

The truth is, stage 3+ and 4 almost always come back … with a vengeance, EVEN if one obtains a “remission.” There IS NO CURE!

For most cancers, I think a “cure” is way off … if ever (“biologic agents” be damned).

For most terminal cancer patients, the “treatment” is way worse than letting the disease just take its course. It WILL, sooner or later, anyway.

Sorry for the pessimism, but I am a realist … and am now a self-proclaimed “expert” in funeral arrangements. Heck, I’m even getting “ready to roll” myself because you never know …. :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]SK and CAR, if that’s your argument, then how do you have data to back up your claim when the things you claim hasn’t happen yet. The boomer haven’t enter retirement, so how can you be sure they will die as early as their parents’ generation? My argument is due to medical advancements today and going forward, boomers will live longer. We won’t know who’s right until 50+ years from now. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now, until the last boomer die, then we’ll know who’s right.[/quote]

The first “boomers” (born 1946 to 1947) have already or will this year reach 66 years of age. They are allowed to retire at 66 with a full SS benefit. The retirement age creeps up to 67 for those born 1960 and later.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

In general, boomers had access to health education in public schools as well as free public health vaccines (however primitive – ex. polio sugar cube). In addition, they were subject to warnings on cigarette pkgs from an early age. For these reasons and the “fitness and jogging crazes” of decades past, there are many more boomers alive and fit today to weather their later years in much better shape than their parents and grandparents (I like to think myself is included, lol).

For these reasons, I think many boomers will live longer than previous generations but I don’t know how many years longer, since longitivity is primarily hereditary. But I DO believe that boomers will live their “golden years” with far less disability than their predecessors and thus have a MUCH better quality of life overall, because of their advance knowledge of known health risks and implementation of a healthier lifestyle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]BG,

You keep harping about SAHMs, but miss the fact that they **are** working and providing very real benefits that have financial value. They are not *paid,* but they ARE working.

How much do you think it would cost to have someone watch/teach your kids 24/7, do all your cleaning, shopping, cooking, bill paying, managing the schedule, etc.? Even if you get the cheapest full-time nanny/maid/personal assistant, you’d be paying many tens of thousands of dollars per year. To get a very competent person (or multiple people, most likely) to do this 24/7 would cost nearly $100K/year on the open market.[/quote]

Actually, I have nothing against SAHM’s. And I recognize the value of all those “services” and I also know that some of these “services” are just “eliminated” when there is no one at home to oversee them and life goes on. Unfortunately, a SAHM is not salaried and thus, does not accumulate a SS record in her own name. And I recognize the value of a former teacher, such as yourself, wanting to teach their own kids but also realize that your property taxes already pay for someone else to do the job, which will only cost you transportation expenses and possibly uniforms (I’m eliminating “lunches” because you already prepare them and that costs time and money). If you want to teach your children a curriculum that is not taught in the public school system, then that is your personal choice.

I realize that I was never qualified to teach school to my kids. ESPECIALLY the critical A-G requirements needed for college admission in CA. An eighth grade math book is over my head and out of my skillset. I’d rather stick with what I know and do best and let the pros at school do their work … as they were trained to do. I have the utmost respect for what they go thru, both to obtain their jobs and keep them. But this is just me.

What I was trying to say here is that it doesn’t take 50 years to raise children. A typical working life could occur between 16-66 years old (or any years in between). All it takes to qualify for SS is ten years of a solid work history. Perhaps you, CAR, already have that. I don’t know. It’s not even about education. There are many jobs one can do for ten years that only require a GED.

So many women of generations before me did NO PAID WORK their entire lives and thought their place was in the home. When their spouses died or they divorced, they were positively “destitute.” It is not a good life plan for a young woman of today to think they don’t need skills to work. One never knows when they will HAVE to work in order to survive. And it never wise to stake your entire future on another individual (your current “partner”) whether you are male or female. There are so many variables and you don’t know what the future will bring.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]The first “boomers” (born 1946 to 1947) have already or will this year reach 66 years of age. They are allowed to retire at 66 with a full SS benefit. The retirement age creeps up to 67 for those born 1960 and later.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

In general, boomers had access to health education in public schools as well as free public health vaccines (however primitive – ex. polio sugar cube). In addition, they were subject to warnings on cigarette pkgs from an early age. For these reasons and the “fitness and jogging crazes” of decades past, there are many more boomers alive and fit today to weather their later years in much better shape than their parents and grandparents (I like to think myself is included, lol).

For these reasons, I think many boomers will live longer than previous generations but I don’t know how many years longer, since longitivity is primarily hereditary. But I DO believe that boomers will live their “golden years” with far less disability than their predecessors and thus have a MUCH better quality of life overall, because of their advance knowledge of known health risks and implementation of a healthier lifestyle.[/quote]
Are we talking about medicare now instead of SS? It doesn’t matter why you live longer, if you live longer, you’ll drain more from SS. The question is, how much longer and how much more will they take from SS vs how much they put in. We won’t know till the last boomer die. My guess is, they’ll live much longer and they’ll take more from SS than they put in.

[all]

[quote=AN]SK and CAR, if that’s your argument, then how do you have data to back up your claim when the things you claim hasn’t happen yet. The boomer haven’t enter retirement, so how can you be sure they will die as early as their parents’ generation? My argument is due to medical advancements today and going forward, boomers will live longer. We won’t know who’s right until 50+ years from now. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now, until the last boomer die, then we’ll know who’s right.[/quote]

What is extrapolation?

That’s why it’s called expectancy. Once it is realized it is no longer expectancy (kind of like talking about probability that it rained at specific location yesterday).

[scaredyclassic]

when do we get to eat the pie?

[an]

[quote=craptcha][quote=AN]SK and CAR, if that’s your argument, then how do you have data to back up your claim when the things you claim hasn’t happen yet. The boomer haven’t enter retirement, so how can you be sure they will die as early as their parents’ generation? My argument is due to medical advancements today and going forward, boomers will live longer. We won’t know who’s right until 50+ years from now. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree for now, until the last boomer die, then we’ll know who’s right.[/quote]

What is extrapolation?

That’s why it’s called expectancy. Once it is realized it is no longer expectancy (kind of like talking about probability that it rained at specific location yesterday).[/quote]
My point is, we all are extrapolating, so we’ll just leave it at that. No point in debating further. We’ll just wait till the last boomer die then we’ll see who’s right. Kind of like one person 2 days ago saying it’s 100% probably that it’ll rain yesterday while the other say it’s 0% chance. Today, we’ll know who’s right. Two days ago, those two people can at least give their data saying because of x,y, and z, I expect the probability it’ll rain yesterday to be xx%.

[Author]

Posts