• 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
We have far too many "public servants".
Decrease this number by 50%; I see no earthly need for 535 representatives and 100 senators..
What do they really do to earn their money?
Leave the retirement age as is.
I have the notion that the Libertarian agenda is to revert our nation back to the 1600s.
 
Or maybe Libertarians are the only ones who know that the system is broken.

Yeah, I'll vote for that option.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Social Security needs to exist for people who are, by virtue of age or disability, unable to continue working.
Click to expand...

People lived, prospered and made better lives for themselves before the existance of Social Security - they can again. If it MUST continue to exist, I agree with other posters - that the money needs to stay in the SS realm and not used as a bucket of money for every pet project that comes down the pike. If it MUST exist, reform is best, but if not and it continues to be abused - the only way to keep it solvent is to extend the age limit so the pet projects can continue to funded, and the people who pay into it, continue to be robbed.
 
I voted "no," because I've got a better idea.

In the interest of having a little honesty in our government, let's tell everybody under a particular age (say 50, for example), "Sorry, but you're never going to see a dime."

Once the last qualified recipient is dead, we give everybody the option of either keeping that portion of their weekly tax burden (which would be taxable income like something else) or sending it to an investment fund to be forever tax-free.

It's not the best solution, but our government is too broken to do any better than that.
 
reefedjib said:
We have to raise it because the projections are that it will grow beyond the amount of money we take in for it, eliminating the excess they use for general funds and eating into the budget. Raising the age to 70 will reduce the costs and grow the revenue. It will still grow, but be paid for for longer. The next beast to tackle will be Medicare, which is growing faster than SS.
Click to expand...

AGree with you on Medicare.

The government has already increased the retirement age to 67 for people born 1960 and later. Increasing the retirement age is another way of saying, "We're cutting your benefits." The system's a mess. (BTW, here's the link that shows that unless one was born 1938 or earlier, nobody's getting full benefits at 65.) http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You may have a point with disability but as far as age goes, there's this novel invention called a bank.
People should use it.
Click to expand...

Banks are not noted for being "people friendly".
They must learn this.
They must also learn how to be open and honest;their clients should, at all times, know how toxic the bank assets are.
What the Rat states is how things are now.
If social security needs more money, they should control Medicare better, and, the biggie; put an end to the "cut off" of social security contributions.
Its not right that the rich, the very rich, and the filthy rich all pay the same.
And this will never change as long as the conservatives/libertarians remain in power.
 
Ockham said:
People lived, prospered and made better lives for themselves before the existance of Social Security - they can again. If it MUST continue to exist, I agree with other posters - that the money needs to stay in the SS realm and not used as a bucket of money for every pet project that comes down the pike. If it MUST exist, reform is best, but if not and it continues to be abused - the only way to keep it solvent is to extend the age limit so the pet projects can continue to funded, and the people who pay into it, continue to be robbed.
Click to expand...

This statement, of course, is not true.
Amend "some".
Eradicate "robbed".

I am not rich, I do not represent the rich. The working men of America should establish their own political party, one that would look after their interests.
All social security needs to do is to up the limits on contributions - the rich must pay their share.
 
Social Security if it must exist should be voluntary. You shouldn't be forced to participate.
 
I generally don't like agreeing with the GOP but I do on this one.

It only makes sense. Back when the age was set at 65, the average age of death was 60 or something. As people live longer it only makes sense to raise the age at the same time. People are still working into their 70s. We've had a President older than that.
 
earthworm said:
Banks are not noted for being "people friendly".
They must learn this.
They must also learn how to be open and honest;their clients should, at all times, know how toxic the bank assets are.
What the Rat states is how things are now.
If social security needs more money, they should control Medicare better, and, the biggie; put an end to the "cut off" of social security contributions.
Its not right that the rich, the very rich, and the filthy rich all pay the same.
And this will never change as long as the conservatives/libertarians remain in power.
Click to expand...

My bank is very friendly, when you account for all the free benefits they give me, I'm earning well in excess of the basic interest rate on savings accounts.
They also happen to be my brokerage as well, I get free trades all the time.

I'm not rich by most peoples standards.
 
earthworm said:
We have far too many "public servants".
Decrease this number by 50%; I see no earthly need for 535 representatives and 100 senators..
What do they really do to earn their money?
Leave the retirement age as is.
I have the notion that the Libertarian agenda is to revert our nation back to the 1600s.
Click to expand...

Not at all, we just want people to be responsible for their lives.
If that is considered the 1600's, so be it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all, we just want people to be responsible for their lives.
If that is considered the 1600's, so be it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the 1600s was a ****ty time to be alive.
 
megaprogman said:
The problem is that the 1600s was a ****ty time to be alive.
Click to expand...

For some people I'm sure but what I'm advocating for isn't the 1600's.

It's disturbing when we as a society must categorize everyone into a massive group and say this is the acceptable retirement age.
Of course you can plot your own path and retire earlier but at an increased cost, that you otherwise might not have to incur.

It's unfair, SS should not exist to reward those who beat the life expectancy game, it shouldn't reward those who don't actively plan their finances.

It's wrong on so many different levels.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
For some people I'm sure but what I'm advocating for isn't the 1600's.
Click to expand...

For anyone who wasn't rich I am guessing.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's disturbing when we as a society must categorize everyone into a massive group and say this is the acceptable retirement age.
Of course you can plot your own path and retire earlier but at an increased cost, that you otherwise might not have to incur.
Click to expand...

Blame it on industrialization. The side effect is mass everything, including retirement.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's unfair, SS should not exist to reward those who beat the life expectancy game, it shouldn't reward those who don't actively plan their finances.

It's wrong on so many different levels.
Click to expand...

What you see as a reward, I see as keeping people from dying (which is something I have no problem with spending my money on, through government, I see it as charity). At least that was the case in the early 1900s, now we have less of that, but its largely due to government subsidy. If you take that away, you will see lots of people dying again.
 
megaprogman said:
For anyone who wasn't rich I am guessing.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure I believe that.

megaprogman said:
Blame it on industrialization. The side effect is mass everything, including retirement.
Click to expand...

It was designed to cover less than half of the people.
That's why the original retirement age was above the average life expectancy.

So lets get this straight, we're going to create a retirement system that doesn't cover a majority of people but makes all working people pay into it. :shock:


megaprogman said:
What you see as a reward, I see as keeping people from dying (which is something I have no problem with spending my money on, through government, I see it as charity). At least that was the case in the early 1900s, now we have less of that, but its largely due to government subsidy. If you take that away, you will see lots of people dying again.
Click to expand...

Bull, you're going to have to present evidence, that before Social Security, elderly people died more often because they were broke.
You're just making assumptions.
 
megaprogman said:
For anyone who wasn't rich I am guessing.
Click to expand...
Depends on your perspective. Sure compared to today, it was ****ty back then. I'm sure those who lived in the 1600's thought some of them have it better than others who lived in the 1400's or 1500's. Every era however has their downtrodden, oppressed and groups who have a ****ty life, even in today's world. Given their perspective in the 1600's, they may have been very thankful it wasn't still the 1300's. :shrug:
 
samsmart said:
What I would rather happen is that the money that people pay into SS actually go into it instead of being turned into T-bills. If the Republicans and Democrats would just use the money paid into Social Security for Social Security payouts instead of paying for other government programs, we wouldn't have to raise the retirement age.
Click to expand...

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.
 
No, the retirement age should not be raised to 70 so long as the government has control over SS. If it was privatized than sure, people could opt out of retiring at 70 and retiring whenever they want. We pay into SS all our lives only to have the spendhappy government squander our "retirement" that was established for our own good. This is just a move to get 5 more earning years from people and 5 less years of having to give them what they have paid into all their lives.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not entirely sure I believe that.
Click to expand...

If you don't than I have an indentured servent to sell you. ;)

Harry Guerrilla said:
It was designed to cover less than half of the people.
That's why the original retirement age was above the average life expectancy.

So lets get this straight, we're going to create a retirement system that doesn't cover a majority of people but makes all working people pay into it. :shock:
Click to expand...

When it was created, the concept of retirement was probably foreign to most people and it functioned more to cover disability brought on by old age.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Bull, you're going to have to present evidence, that before Social Security, elderly people died more often because they were broke.
You're just making assumptions.
Click to expand...

There seems to be little data about that from the 1930s, or at least nothing I can find, but I think we can look at the effect by analyzing the effect that SS has on poverty and the effect poverty has on life expectancy.

Social Security Lifts 13 Million Seniors Above the Poverty Line — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Blog_Life_Expectancy_Income.jpg
 
megaprogman said:
If you don't than I have an indentured servent to sell you. ;)
Click to expand...

That's just one small aspect of the 1600's.
I don't buy everything people popularly believe about history.

megaprogman said:
When it was created, the concept of retirement was probably foreign to most people and it functioned more to cover disability brought on by old age.
Click to expand...

To some people I'm sure, then again a lot of people retired to work with their children, helping raise their grandchildren and maintain the household while the parents worked.

megaprogman said:
There seems to be little data about that from the 1930s, or at least nothing I can find, but I think we can look at the effect by analyzing the effect that SS has on poverty and the effect poverty has on life expectancy.

Social Security Lifts 13 Million Seniors Above the Poverty Line — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Blog_Life_Expectancy_Income.jpg
Click to expand...

Poverty isn't accurately represented in this.
A lot of elderly people, prior to Social Security, had smaller incomes but lived with other people, specifically family members.
So to say they were impoverished, would be false.

The facts are that the U.S. was #6 in life expectancy in the 1900's with Australia and Northern European countries beating us.
We've have more or less remained in a similar spot the whole time, I don't think you can credit that to Social Security.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's just one small aspect of the 1600's.
I don't buy everything people popularly believe about history.
Click to expand...

Its an important one though. It shows that people were desperate enough to sell their very life to another (or at least a few years of their life).

Harry Guerrilla said:
To some people I'm sure, then again a lot of people retired to work with their children, helping raise their grandchildren and maintain the household while the parents worked.
Click to expand...

I was more referring to the common concept of retirement today where you are pretty much on an extended vacation.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Poverty isn't accurately represented in this.
A lot of elderly people, prior to Social Security, had smaller incomes but lived with other people, specifically family members.
So to say they were impoverished, would be false.
Click to expand...

Its possible that you may be right. I haven't seen much data either way on it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The facts are that the U.S. was #6 in life expectancy in the 1900's with Australia and Northern European countries beating us.
We've have more or less remained in a similar spot the whole time, I don't think you can credit that to Social Security.
Click to expand...

Thats a relative position and also you are comparing us to other countries that have socialized retirement benefits.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Its an important one though. It shows that people were desperate enough to sell their very life to another (or at least a few years of their life).
Click to expand...

People do that now, in a less extreme fashion.
When you go to work, you're selling your life.

megaprogman said:
I was more referring to the common concept of retirement today where you are pretty much on an extended vacation.
Click to expand...

I can't think it efficient to pay people not to work.
Doesn't make much sense, from a taxation standpoint.

megaprogman said:
Its possible that you may be right. I haven't seen much data either way on it.
Click to expand...

Economic History of Retirement in the United States | Economic History Services

A big read.

megaprogman said:
Thats a relative position and also you are comparing us to other countries that have socialized retirement benefits.
Click to expand...

Australia didn't start an old age pension system until 1909, the numbers I'm talking about are in 1900.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/55/6/1196S.pdf
 
I think this is greater than a surface issue. This is a complex. Black men have a far lesser life expectancy than white men (most recent studies suggest about 6.2 years). The overall average life expectancy is 77. Raising it to 70 would have some consequences on minorities for sure. Also raising Social Security would change retirement ages which would mean older people would stay in senior employment positions decreasing job and promotion opportunities for younger folk. If we look just at social security there is a significant disparity in those that take it earlier than later.

I think they should leave it where it is at but give people that can afford it an option to take it later at a significantly higher rate.
 
digsbe said:
This is just a move to get 5 more earning years from people and 5 less years of having to give them what they have paid into all their lives.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what it is. And that is the only way to save Social Security-- ensure that more people pay into it and fewer collect.
 
Live longer? You need to retire later.

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom