• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Retirement Age Be Raised to 70?

Should SSI Retirement Be Set At 70?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • No

    Votes: 23 54.8%
  • Maybe (explain)

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Total voters
    42
In that case it's unjust. Why should somebody have to pay for someone else's retirement?

You have to look at it as insurance. You are paying into it so that you can pay your bills after you retire and if you don't make it that long, you don't collect.

My suggestion was to make it even more like insurance -- insurance against being poor. If you retire and you have millions in the bank, you don't collect but if you're poor, you do.
 
Nice idea, only one failing, how do you keep a future Government from deciding that the pensions pot should be for ALL the people.
Please do not tell me that this cannot happen in a Democracy, for I would tell you it already has, although rather than actually steal the pot, the government concerned taxed the pot to exhaution.


Civics 101, any act of Congress can be turned on its ear by another act of Congress.

You could also be struck by lightning, hit with a stray bullet, blown up by a mad bomber, raped by flying monkeys and any of a host of other misfortunes over which you have just as much control.


TED,
Said "better," not "perfect."
 
Oh wait; let’s raise it every 6 months: 70, 80, and 90, forever.
 
Sure you can. It's just a matter of how much you pay in premiums. And the original retirement age was higher than the life expectancy at the time, so the vast majority of people did not collect.

Now that the opposite is true, it isn't insurance but a prepayment plan for most people.
It's a moronic system.

I can agree with the disability angle, even more so if it were reformed but for retirement, it's dumb.
 
What's more interesting is people supporting the idea of raising it or getting rid of it all together can't respond to a real world example, instead choose to ignore it and keep going on with their perfect scenarios where getting rid of SSI or raising the age will somehow make everyone happier.
 
Get rid of that damn thief's pot. My money should be going where ever the hell I want it to go. If I want to pay into a retirement, fund I'll do it of my own choosing and whoever manages it will quite a helluva lot more apt than the U.S. government.

We're all adults and can decide how to save our own money.

Collect our tax dollars and use it to protect us and help only the most destitute. Get rid of everything else.
 
What's more interesting is people supporting the idea of raising it or getting rid of it all together can't respond to a real world example, instead choose to ignore it and keep going on with their perfect scenarios where getting rid of SSI or raising the age will somehow make everyone happier.

Most people wouldn't have a problem keeping SSI or SSD, it's SS retirement that's a problem.
It isn't a good investment for a lot of people (For further reference, ask me).
 
What's more interesting is people supporting the idea of raising it or getting rid of it all together can't respond to a real world example, instead choose to ignore it and keep going on with their perfect scenarios where getting rid of SSI or raising the age will somehow make everyone happier.

Post 29. :mrgreen:
 
No! I feel we should all be able to retire at age 59:)
 
The best idea is to just let people invest their own money for retirement, but since there are lots of people who would just squander it, it's probably not feasible. The next best is to put all of the SS money into interest-bearing accounts and everyone gets back exactly what they put into it, plus interest, not one penny more or less. Of course, as you said, that would require that the government have any self-control whatsoever, which we all know it doesn't.

Must be nice to have money that you can invest. :roll: It's really insulting when someone says what you just said.

Not everyone has money that they can invest. Anyone that makes minimum wage has no chance of it. Especially if they have a family. Between rent, food bill, electric bill, gas bill, water bill, garbage bill, gas for car, insurance for car, insurance for house (or just your belongings if you are renting), health/medical insurance, clothing bill (gotta keep those kids in cloths that actually fit if at all possible), school supplies, and probably more that I'm not thinking of atm. Between all that a person/s making minimum wage you don't even have a penny with which to invest into anything.

People keep on blaming the failure of SS on not enough of Gen-X, too many baby boomers retireing but the fact is that SS would not be in trouble if our government had kept its paws out of SS. But no they had to put their grubby little paws into the pot and use it in a way in which it was not designed to be used. For example when they took money out of SS during Vietnam without telling anyone about it until after the vet's got back home in 1975.
 
Back
Top Bottom