• 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!

Boehner wants to raise the retirement age to 70

The fun things to do for a living don't pay **** and are physically demanding. I wouldn't be able to do them in my later years and would require savings to retire on. Retiring on those incomes would be impossible. Besides, doing said work, even if it is fun, is a JOB. It's an obligation. I want to be free of said obligations and do what I WANT to do, not what I'm obligated to do. And, there's no job that's going to pay me to sail around the world, climb everest, bungee jump off victoria falls, visit the various countries I want to visit and see the sights I want to see.

And, as I've already experienced, the most fun jobs in the world eventually turn into work and become 'not so fun'. I absolutely love running whitewater, and I did it for a living for nearly a decade. But those last couple of years were crap. I hated going to work, I hated my job, i hated that my job ruined something that I loved so much to do. The fact that I was obligated to do the job made the job not fun after a few years. I still LOVE to run whitewater, and I do it and will continue to do it every chance I get. But now I do it on MY terms. I do it for ME, not for a living. Not because I'm obligated to. And I will never do it as a job again. Not to mention, I could in no way support myself in my later years with that income.

Well - a lot of elderly people become depressed being retired because it's pointless . . . sitting around and doing nothing. So they take on various things to occupy their time - working might be one of those things. . . so it's never idle unless someone just wants to be idle.

I fail to see how someone can actually plan for retirement - if you retire at, say, 65 - and intend on traveling the world - and you also have to pay bills and eat - you have to put a huge amount of money into savings within a 30 or 40 year period. What if you go into retirement at 65 and stick around for 30 more years? Is it even possible for someone to save up for 30 years of unemployment and travel?

That's a lot of money to save up for :shrug: I don't see how people manage to pull it off.
 
Last edited:
Not really -- because you'll live longer.

When social security began, life expectancy was much shorter. Not that many people lived into their 70s. Now, people are still working way past that time (including a recent President and quite a few Senators).

Most people get more back from social security than they put in, which is one of the reasons it's going broke after all.

Would this bolded part have anything to do with the fact that I started paying in when I made $1.55/hr? You cannot simply use amounts when we are talking about a span of 50 years. In another post you stated ~ people that make 50k/yr shouldn't need any help from SS. Suppose their retirement age is 40 years from now. 50k won't pay for basic necessities in 2050.
 
Well - a lot of elderly people become depressed being retired because it's pointless . . . sitting around and doing nothing. So they take on various things to occupy their time - working might be one of those things. . . so it's never idle unless someone just wants to be idle.

I fail to see how someone can actually plan for retirement - if you retire at, say, 65 - and intend on traveling the world - and you also have to pay bills and eat - you have to put a huge amount of money into savings within a 30 or 40 year period. What if you go into retirement at 65 and stick around for 30 more years? Is it even possible for someone to save up for 30 years of unemployment and travel?

That's a lot of money to save up for :shrug: I don't see how people manage to pull it off.

I'm planning on retiring LONG before 65. I currently have a 5 year plan to be retired before 45. Does this mean I won't *ever* work and pull in any income? Of course not. But what it means is that I'll be debt free, own my own car, and own my sailboat with savings to boot and an untouched IRA still building. I can do the odd jobs here and there for income if necessary, but I don't want to have a full time job again. If I need to, I will, but I hope that I don't. Sailing around doesn't cost that much once you own the boat. And hopefully I'll be able to sail my ass right on down to Dominica or some other beautiful island, buy myself a small patch of land and live out my days there once I'm done seeing the things I want to see.

It just seems you think "retire" means sitting around and doing nothing. To me, "retire" means doing all the things I can't do while I'm working full time.
 
You work so you CAN retire and have a good life. Who the **** wants to work? I want to be able to retire as soon as financially possible so I can do more of the things I *want* to do.


I can't fathom not ever retiring. If I thought I could never retire, I'd probably just shoot myself now. I'm working now simply to survive and so that I CAN retire and do all the things I want to do. Who the **** wants to work all the time? I want to go see more of the world and do fun things. Not sit in an office for the rest of my ****ing life.

To each their own...Ive seen the world...and plan to CONTINUE to see the world. I simply cant fathom NOT working. For months at a time (hence the sabbaticals I mentioned)...sure...

Personally I get antsy after 4-5 days off. Its really hard to enjoy a 2 week vacation...but Im working on it!
 
I guess because I want to work and can't I miss work and thus can't imagine not ever working (like I am now) and consider the idea to be annoying beyond belief. LOL
 
What don't you understand about "disposable income? So what if they pay more taxes? They make more money. Should they pay only as much as everybody else? That would create an aristocracy. Oh never mind! We already have a crypto aristocracy.

What part of "disposable income" makes you think YOU or the fed or anyone else has a right to it? I bust my ass for that 'disposable income'. Its mine. I earned it. Petty class warfare and jealousy is pathetic.
 
What part of "disposable income" makes you think YOU or the fed or anyone else has a right to it? I bust my ass for that 'disposable income'. Its mine. I earned it. Petty class warfare and jealousy is pathetic.

Answer: the rule of law.
 
Why? so more money can be stolen? That seems smart.


j-mac

Of COURSE. To the downtrodden it makes SENSE to penalize the only segment of our society that is successful and driving the economy. Of course its lost on them that by doing so you inhibit economic growth and investment...
 
Of COURSE. To the downtrodden it makes SENSE to penalize the only segment of our society that is successful and driving the economy. Of course its lost on them that by doing so you inhibit economic growth and investment...

Or in other words, "Hail Ceasar". Would you pass the grey poupon, please?
 
The fun things to do for a living don't pay **** and are physically demanding. I wouldn't be able to do them in my later years and would require savings to retire on. Retiring on those incomes would be impossible. Besides, doing said work, even if it is fun, is a JOB. It's an obligation. I want to be free of said obligations and do what I WANT to do, not what I'm obligated to do. And, there's no job that's going to pay me to sail around the world, climb everest, bungee jump off victoria falls, visit the various countries I want to visit and see the sights I want to see.

And, as I've already experienced, the most fun jobs in the world eventually turn into work and become 'not so fun'. I absolutely love running whitewater, and I did it for a living for nearly a decade. But those last couple of years were crap. I hated going to work, I hated my job, i hated that my job ruined something that I loved so much to do. The fact that I was obligated to do the job made the job not fun after a few years. I still LOVE to run whitewater, and I do it and will continue to do it every chance I get. But now I do it on MY terms. I do it for ME, not for a living. Not because I'm obligated to. And I will never do it as a job again. Not to mention, I could in no way support myself in my later years with that income.

I dont get the angst...if you want to and can afford to retire then of course you SHOULD. Some dont (I just cant fathom doing nothing...thats not a knock on anyone...thats just me). On the plus side...if you can afford to retire then you could ALSO support to do SOMETHING like craft or consulting or WHATEVER that would be more supplemtnal income or in my case...just something to keep me busy...young...engaged.
 
Or in other words, "Hail Ceasar". Would you pass the grey poupon, please?

No...in other words I have chosen to work very hard to earn and provide for my family and for my grandchildren and you can either do the same for yours or eat **** for all I care...but in THIS country you have no right to other peoples success.
 
No...in other words I have chosen to work very hard to earn and provide for my family and for my grandchildren and you can either do the same for yours or eat **** for all I care...but in THIS country you have no right to other peoples success.

You are not the only one who works hard. What makes you so special that you can ignore the law?
 
To each their own...Ive seen the world...and plan to CONTINUE to see the world. I simply cant fathom NOT working. For months at a time (hence the sabbaticals I mentioned)...sure...

Personally I get antsy after 4-5 days off. Its really hard to enjoy a 2 week vacation...but Im working on it!

I dont get the angst...if you want to and can afford to retire then of course you SHOULD. Some dont (I just cant fathom doing nothing...thats not a knock on anyone...thats just me). On the plus side...if you can afford to retire then you could ALSO support to do SOMETHING like craft or consulting or WHATEVER that would be more supplemtnal income or in my case...just something to keep me busy...young...engaged.

It seems as though you're doing what Auntie is doing... assuming that retiring means doing nothing. To me, retiring means doing all the things I can't do while working full time. Who said anything about doing nothing? Retiring, to me, means sailing around the world. Going boogie-boarding on the Zambezi, the Pacuare, the Rio Futaleufu etc, . Bungee jumping at Victoria Falls. Climbing to at least the 2nd base camp of Everest. Seeing Petra, the great pyramids, Valley of Kings, and riding a camel in the Sahara. Going on a walkabout in Australia and then diving the Great Barrier Reef (and maybe getting paid to take others diving there ;) ) Visiting Tikal, Nazca Peru, and the Andes. Ice diving in Alaska. Wandering around the Irish countryside. Taking a mud bath in Iceland. Dive the Andria Doria. Dive the Red Sea. Etc, etc, etc.

And of course I could supplement my income, I plan on it. I have many skills in many different areas that can be utilized all over the world. I just don't want to do it full time. Odd jobs here and there, no problem. Full time work - sucks.


I guess because I want to work and can't I miss work and thus can't imagine not ever working (like I am now) and consider the idea to be annoying beyond belief. LOL
Sounds like part of your issue is that you don't have a choice in the matter. Which is entirely understandable. The grass is always greener... ;)
 
Back to the main point though:

Social Security doesn't have enough money. Assuming we're not going to get rid of it, the choices are:

(a) raise the retirement age;

(b) limit who gets it and how much; and/or

(c) raise taxes.

I prefer a and b myself.
 
Back to the main point though:

Social Security doesn't have enough money. Assuming we're not going to get rid of it, the choices are:

(a) raise the retirement age;

(b) limit who gets it and how much; and/or

(c) raise taxes.

I prefer a and b myself.

Curious - why didn't you include "opt out" as an option? I would think a restructure is in order for those willing to stay in the system, but those who opt out are on their own.
 
Curious - why didn't you include "opt out" as an option? I would think a restructure is in order for those willing to stay in the system, but those who opt out are on their own.

Because I don't think that is a real possibility that will get considered by Congress.

And it has real problems: LOTS of people will "opt out" because they want their money now, and don't think about the future. Then, when they retire, they'll be broke and have to go on welfare, become homeless, take up money at emergency rooms, or otherwise become a burden to the system without having ever contributing to the system at all. That will break the system even more, and put us even deeper in debt.
 
Curious - why didn't you include "opt out" as an option? I would think a restructure is in order for those willing to stay in the system, but those who opt out are on their own.

He's being realistic.
As much as I would love to opt out of it, there isn't a hot chance in hell of that happening.
 
You are not the only one who works hard. What makes you so special that you can ignore the law?

Where on earth have i suggested I view myself as either special or above the law? We were discussing seizing peoples disposable income and giving it to the poor pathetic crippled and dependent pets...
 
It seems as though you're doing what Auntie is doing... assuming that retiring means doing nothing. To me, retiring means doing all the things I can't do while working full time. Who said anything about doing nothing? Retiring, to me, means sailing around the world. Going boogie-boarding on the Zambezi, the Pacuare, the Rio Futaleufu etc, . Bungee jumping at Victoria Falls. Climbing to at least the 2nd base camp of Everest. Seeing Petra, the great pyramids, Valley of Kings, and riding a camel in the Sahara. Going on a walkabout in Australia and then diving the Great Barrier Reef (and maybe getting paid to take others diving there ;) ) Visiting Tikal, Nazca Peru, and the Andes. Ice diving in Alaska. Wandering around the Irish countryside. Taking a mud bath in Iceland. Dive the Andria Doria. Dive the Red Sea. Etc, etc, etc.

And of course I could supplement my income, I plan on it. I have many skills in many different areas that can be utilized all over the world. I just don't want to do it full time. Odd jobs here and there, no problem. Full time work - sucks.



Sounds like part of your issue is that you don't have a choice in the matter. Which is entirely understandable. The grass is always greener... ;)

I absolutely hope that becomes a reality for you. I think we are talking semantics...and probably saying the same thing. I intend to 'work' til I die. Not in on office...not for others...and certainly not because I have to. I also intend to full on enjoy life as I have and continue to do. So...yeah...I think we are on the same page.
 
Back to the main point though:

Social Security doesn't have enough money. Assuming we're not going to get rid of it, the choices are:

(a) raise the retirement age;

(b) limit who gets it and how much; and/or

(c) raise taxes.

I prefer a and b myself.

Im fine with raising the retirment age with an option for keeping it where it is for those that are medically unable to continue working. The workforce will have to be restructured of course to ensure agism doesnt prevent older folk from working. Oh...and since people will be staying in those jobs longer unemployment will increase and the higher paying jobs will stay in the hands of the older and more established employees. So...some consequences there...

Its usually the folks that dont have much to lose that would opt for option b.
 
Because I don't think that is a real possibility that will get considered by Congress.

And it has real problems: LOTS of people will "opt out" because they want their money now, and don't think about the future. Then, when they retire, they'll be broke and have to go on welfare, become homeless, take up money at emergency rooms, or otherwise become a burden to the system without having ever contributing to the system at all. That will break the system even more, and put us even deeper in debt.

While I agree it's not a realistic view given our current welfare state - it might just take something radical like removing the societal welfare to force people to plan for their future. For example, if said person blew their money and became destitute - their only salvation would be charity. The only reason we are in this mess is because of government putting us here. Now government is supposed to be our savior by legislating the problem THEY caused in the first place. What did people do prior to 1935 without Social Security? What did people do to survive before the 1930's welfare, food stamps, etc? Apparently they dd survive enough to increase our population, wealth and strength of this country.

My point here is, we cannot see our way free of the last 80 years of welfare creation. Government isn't the answer it's the problem. Here's a solution: Provide an opt out solution with the goal of dissolving SS in 20 years. Allow a 2% of the population (maximum) to opt out and require them to take at a minimum 50% of the money they no longer will be paying into SS, to now be put into a retirement account which they cannot withdraw from, but CAN invest. This 2% can change their mind and opt back into SS (with a penalty) in a 5 year time frame. [edit] Increase the % over time to include 100% of all workers in the 20 year period and issue a pay back for residual money left in the system - then close down SS. (Sorry - i didn't finish my thought on this)

In my case, I'm not counting on my SS to be there and am investing in my retirement on my own. I have another 23 years before I would be eligible to get SS benefits but I've mentally and fiscally already written all the money being paid into that system as non-existent. Were I to have that money available, I think I could do a better job with a better return than the government. The government however, needs SS to continue as it's a slush fund to use as they want instead of for their constituents retirement. Therefore, you and I and everyone else who's worked or is working or will work is being ripped off. Sorry if I'm not happy about that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom