• 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!

Retirement age

Should the retirement age be raised?

  • yes

    Votes: 15 20.0%

  • no

    Votes: 44 58.7%

  • base it on income level

    Votes: 4 5.3%

  • abolish social security

    Votes: 4 5.3%

  • other

    Votes: 8 10.7%
  • Total voters
    75
noonereal said:
I don't agree across the board but I had not thought of freezing the upper end alone which is along the lines of needs based which I support.

I disagree with you on the numbers with the cap removed and when how much becomes available but am not gonna search for a link...

have a good one
Click to expand...

Peace <>< :) Let me know if you ever want to nug down into a more detailed discussion involving actual numbers and actual possibilities.
 
cpwill said:
Peace <>< :) Let me know if you ever want to nug down into a more detailed discussion involving actual numbers and actual possibilities.
Click to expand...

I never want to.

my gift is understanding in macro and seeing how things interrelate

I also know that people can come up with whatever number suits their position. Christ, I did not professionally for decades.
 
noonereal said:
Not relevant if you paid $1 in 2000. Good grief. We all know prices fluctuate.
Click to expand...

....first you claim that price fluctuations in gasoline were relevant to your generation.

Then, when I point out that my generation saw a similar price fluctuation in gasoline, you claimed it only occurred over decades.

Then when I pointed out it actually occurred in less than a decade, you declared price fluctuations over a short time period "not relevant" because "we all know prices fluctuate".


.....


Kinda seems like either you need to abandon your first claim, or admit that you've switched positions on this.



The point was the price jump 350% in less than a year. It changed how we drove. It changed how much money we had.
Click to expand...

:lol: and nobody else has any experience like that, whatsoever. My disposable income (at the time, pretty low) didn't shrink rapidly, I didn't have to cancel trips to see family, and I wasn't forced to carpool for a couple of years, no-siree.

Oh. Wait. Those things happened. And yet, somehow, I managed to save money by consistently living on less than I made.

You are purposely distorting to try to hold on to your warped view. You were in the military, that is socialism. It's easy to save when big brother is taking care of you. Plus you need to be so acclimated by nature to do so. Most people are not.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be acclimated by nature to budget and live on less than you make. There is no genetic determinant for it. You simply have to build the habit, and build the discipline to stick to it.

I teach people who have never budgeted before how to budget, people who have never saved before how to save, and people who have lived paycheck to paycheck to stop doing that, regardless of the paycheck. I've never once come across someone who was naturally incapable of doing so, except the child of one couple who was special needs and couldn't do the 3rd-5th grade math required. So that kid gets a pass. But everyone else?

I saved a hundred dollars a week for years in addition to stocks/bonds/ precious metals when I was young and mildly successful
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but clearly you did not. After all, you have assured me that doing so was impossible, given stagflation, and the price of gas fluctuating. :)

Life kept happening and I had to use these monies and was unable to save. Finally I "got lucky" and I was able to save again. This time $1,000 a week. Guess what? Life happened again.

Your idea that "if everyone is like me" chest pounding nonsense is just not practical in LIFE for all or most. Is it possible? Sure, if nothing goes wrong.
Click to expand...

That's why you keep an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. Think I've never had Life Happen? I had to pay for a PCS overseas out of pocket because the government lost the paperwork and it took months to get it back. I spent months unemployed after I left the military. I had unexpected children, unexpected medical emergencies, unexpected loss of vehicles, etc., so on, and so forth. We bought a house (a bit more house than really I should have bought, but Mrs CPWILL loved it, and I'm a sucker for her), and within three months lost plumbing and electricity in ways that - conveniently - weren't covered by warranties or insurance (damn little script), and had to replace both. I've never lost a child (thank God), or been through cancer, but I've had good and plenty use of that Emergency Fund, which is why it is always the first thing refilled.

If I were you I'd thank my good fortune and let it be.
Click to expand...

I thank God for the many blessings in my life, but No. I'm not content to leave others in servitude to the poor results of their own bad decisions, when I can help them improve their lives. Having done that for over a decade for hundreds of families, I can say that fewer things bring me greater joy. They seem fairly happy with it, too :).
 
noonereal said:
I never want to.

my gift is understanding in macro and seeing how things interrelate
Click to expand...

Ah. So more of a "Narrative" than a "Hypothesis supported by Data" kind of guy?


I also know that people can come up with whatever number suits their position. Christ, I did not professionally for decades.
Click to expand...

I source my numbers, precisely so people can check them, and show my math, precisely so people can check it. So far you've not provided much (any, really) evidence to support your contention that what many people accomplished and are accomplishing is, in fact, impossible.
 
Other. SS is not retirement. That's the problem. Many consider it retirement, it's not. It's designed to supplement retirement, to ensure our elders at the least can afford 3 squares a day.
 
cpwill said:
....first you claim that price fluctuations in gasoline were relevant to your generation.

Then, when I point out that my generation saw a similar price fluctuation in gasoline, you claimed it only occurred over decades.

Then when I pointed out it actually occurred in less than a decade, you declared price fluctuations over a short time period "not relevant" because "we all know prices fluctuate".


.....


Kinda seems like either you need to abandon your first claim, or admit that you've switched positions on this.





:lol: and nobody else has any experience like that, whatsoever. My disposable income (at the time, pretty low) didn't shrink rapidly, I didn't have to cancel trips to see family, and I wasn't forced to carpool for a couple of years, no-siree.

Oh. Wait. Those things happened. And yet, somehow, I managed to save money by consistently living on less than I made.



You don't need to be acclimated by nature to budget and live on less than you make. There is no genetic determinant for it. You simply have to build the habit, and build the discipline to stick to it.

I teach people who have never budgeted before how to budget, people who have never saved before how to save, and people who have lived paycheck to paycheck to stop doing that, regardless of the paycheck. I've never once come across someone who was naturally incapable of doing so, except the child of one couple who was special needs and couldn't do the 3rd-5th grade math required. So that kid gets a pass. But everyone else?



I'm sorry, but clearly you did not. After all, you have assured me that doing so was impossible, given stagflation, and the price of gas fluctuating. :)



That's why you keep an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. Think I've never had Life Happen? I had to pay for a PCS overseas out of pocket because the government lost the paperwork and it took months to get it back. I spent months unemployed after I left the military. I had unexpected children, unexpected medical emergencies, unexpected loss of vehicles, etc., so on, and so forth. We bought a house (a bit more house than really I should have bought, but Mrs CPWILL loved it, and I'm a sucker for her), and within three months lost plumbing and electricity in ways that - conveniently - weren't covered by warranties or insurance (damn little script), and had to replace both. I've never lost a child (thank God), or been through cancer, but I've had good and plenty use of that Emergency Fund, which is why it is always the first thing refilled.



I thank God for the many blessings in my life, but No. I'm not content to leave others in servitude to the poor results of their own bad decisions, when I can help them improve their lives. Having done that for over a decade for hundreds of families, I can say that fewer things bring me greater joy. They seem fairly happy with it, too :).
Click to expand...

3-6 months of funds when you get sick?
Lost pluming/ electric????

Honest, I am flabbergasted.

God bless you.

Your wife/boyfriend must go through hell with you.

I know you, you need the last word, have at it.

Ill be the adult.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. So more of a "Narrative" than a "Hypothesis supported by Data" kind of guy?




I source my numbers, precisely so people can check them, and show my math, precisely so people can check it. So far you've not provided much (any, really) evidence to support your contention that what many people accomplished and are accomplishing is, in fact, impossible.
Click to expand...

I can't post what needs to be posted.
 
noonereal said:
3-6 months of funds when you get sick?
Lost pluming/ electric????

Honest, I am flabbergasted.

God bless you.

Your wife/boyfriend must go through hell with you.
Click to expand...

3-6 months is the generally recommended amount. I've never regretted having too much stashed away for an emergency.

The wife has been through a lot :) How I got that one, I don't know, and suspect I never will (I try not to question too much, or out-loud, lest I risk accidentally convincing her she made a mistake :D)


I can't post what needs to be posted.
Click to expand...

economic data over the past few decades isn't that hard to come by, what did you have in mind?
 
rickc said:
i hope the republicans do that. best way i can think of to finally get that party out of washington.

stupid idea to boot. working class people in their 60's are just about broken down. Companies want.to get.rid of high paid experienced workers and replace them with cheaper young workers.

why not just start euthanasia at 65 if the person is not financially ready for retirement. that should go over very well with the republican elite.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we should only raise it for rich people who have white collar jobs.
 
MTAtech said:
The issue in question is the future of Social Security, which if the program was a person, would have been receiving Social Security for at least 13 years. The retirement program is, of course, both extremely popular and a long-term target of conservatives, who want to kill it precisely because its popularity helps legitimize government action in general. As the right-wing activist Stephen Moore (now chief economist of the Heritage Foundation) once declared, Social Security is “the soft underbelly of the welfare state”; “jab your spear through that” and you can undermine the whole thing.

In particular, the right has been declaring that the retirement age, which has already been pushed up from 65 to 66, and now 67, should go up even further.

Jeb Bush once said that the retirement age should be pushed back to “68 or 70”. Scott Walker echoed that position. Marco Rubio wanted both to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits for higher-income seniors. Rand Paul wanted to raise the retirement age to 70 and means-test benefits. Ted Cruz is on record saying he would revive the Bush privatization plan.

For the record, these proposals would be really bad public policy, a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who depend on Social Security, often have jobs that involve manual labor, and have not, in fact, seen a big rise in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the decline of private pensions has left working Americans more reliant on Social Security than ever.

And no, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue.

Still, nobody should be surprised at the spectacle of conservative politicians who have enthusiastically endorsed destructive policies. What’s puzzling about the Republican assault on Social Security is that it looks like bad politics as well as bad policy. Americans love Social Security, so why aren’t the candidates at least pretending to share that sentiment?

The answer, I’d suggest, is that it’s all about the big money.

Wealthy individuals have long played a disproportionate role in politics, but we’ve never seen anything like what’s happening now: domination of campaign finance, especially on the Republican side, by a tiny group of immensely wealthy donors. Indeed, more than half the funds raised by Republican candidates through June came from just 130 families.

And while most Americans love Social Security, the wealthy don’t. Five years ago a pioneering study of the policy preferences of the very wealthy found many contrasts with the views of the general public; as you might expect, the rich are politically different from you and me. But nowhere are they as different as they are on the matter of Social Security. By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1% want to see it cut. And guess which party is beholden to wealthy interests?
Click to expand...

Darn it! I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what you write. As a conservative, that isn't easy to admit, when I reflexively jump back from your Liberal affiliation. Are you sure you're not just a rudder for conservatives?
I do have bit of problem with the seeming attempt at the Us vs. Them point. There is no conspiracy among the rich to trample the poor. I'm certain each class has its own objectives, but not necessarily at the expense of others.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
Darn it! I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what you write. As a conservative, that isn't easy to admit, when I reflexively jump back from your Liberal affiliation. Are you sure you're not just a rudder for conservatives?
I do have bit of problem with the seeming attempt at the Us vs. Them point. There is no conspiracy among the rich to trample the poor. I'm certain each class has its own objectives, but not necessarily at the expense of others.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...
Gee, maybe you're really a liberal. It reminds me of when Reagan, who had high approval ratings, was president. People identified with being "conservative" more but opposed his policies by wide margins.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
Learn to be self-sufficient and not dependent on government stealing from others for your survival. Thanks!
Click to expand...

This is wholly wrong and selfish in thought.

The goal of a wise man is the look for the greater good of the tribe as it is the tribe that brings security, comfort and prosperity.

Watch a nature show and realize man is a heard animal.

Maybe you will learn.
 
noonereal said:
This is wholly wrong and selfish in thought.

The goal of a wise man is the look for the greater good of the tribe as it is the tribe that brings security, comfort and prosperity.

Watch a nature show and realize man is a heard animal.

Maybe you will learn.
Click to expand...

Man is not a herd (not heard) animal; man is an ape. Ape's have a pecking order, nothing democratic about it. One top boss and a hierarchy the rest of the way down. The apes at the bottom are often outcasts. Sometimes killed. Ape society can be very brutal. So be careful when you use "nature" as an example. There now, you learned something.
 
Waddy said:
Man is not a herd (not heard) animal; man is an ape. Ape's have a pecking order, nothing democratic about it. One top boss and a hierarchy the rest of the way down. The apes at the bottom are often outcasts. Sometimes killed. Ape society can be very brutal. So be careful when you use "nature" as an example. There now, you learned something.
Click to expand...

Choose whatever word you like... We area social animal who benefits best by gathering together in a tribe.


How do individuals benefit by living in groups?

1. Cooperative food collection. Wolves hunt together. By doing so each can more easily track and take down large game. Although the individual has to share meat, each still benefits from group hunting. Group hunting is less important in primates. Chimps hunt some but meat is not a major part of their diets. Group hunting is important in many human societies, however.

2. Sleeping together to conserve warmth. This explains why individuals form groups at night but it does not explain why groups are maintained during the day.

3. Shared information. By forming groups, individuals can exchange critical information (reciprocity). For example, frugivores let each other know where fruit trees are located.

4. Protection from predators. There are three reasons why an individual may live in group to avoid predation.

a. Cooperative defense against predators. Several baboon males can deter a hyena but a solitary baboon will become prey.

b. Selfish herd. To buffer themselves from predators sheep form herds, fish swim in schools, and birds fly in flocks. Predators can't eat an entire group. An individual lives in a group so as to get someone else between them and a predator. Safety in numbers. This reason is called the selfish herd because, obviously, individuals want to be in the central core of a group, not on the periphery.

c. Cooperative defense against other groups of your species. Some primates form groups and defend valuable resources, such as fruit-trees, against groups of their own species. Chimp groups defend fruit-trees.
 
noonereal said:
Choose whatever word you like... We area social animal who benefits best by gathering together in a tribe.


How do individuals benefit by living in groups?

1. Cooperative food collection. Wolves hunt together. By doing so each can more easily track and take down large game. Although the individual has to share meat, each still benefits from group hunting. Group hunting is less important in primates. Chimps hunt some but meat is not a major part of their diets. Group hunting is important in many human societies, however.

2. Sleeping together to conserve warmth. This explains why individuals form groups at night but it does not explain why groups are maintained during the day.

3. Shared information. By forming groups, individuals can exchange critical information (reciprocity). For example, frugivores let each other know where fruit trees are located.

4. Protection from predators. There are three reasons why an individual may live in group to avoid predation.

a. Cooperative defense against predators. Several baboon males can deter a hyena but a solitary baboon will become prey.

b. Selfish herd. To buffer themselves from predators sheep form herds, fish swim in schools, and birds fly in flocks. Predators can't eat an entire group. An individual lives in a group so as to get someone else between them and a predator. Safety in numbers. This reason is called the selfish herd because, obviously, individuals want to be in the central core of a group, not on the periphery.

c. Cooperative defense against other groups of your species. Some primates form groups and defend valuable resources, such as fruit-trees, against groups of their own species. Chimp groups defend fruit-trees.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you write, but caution; humans are more adept at stealing from other pack members, than most animals looking for just the next meal. And, we are better at (and for) caring about the lesser of our huge tribe. Don't you think the balance of worthiness is the point of discussion? I contend that there are few among us who don't want to help the truly needy. At the same time, the same group likely objects to being made a sucker.
Regards,
CP
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, it should be raised to at least 70. And the early retirement with reduced benefits option should be removed.
Click to expand...

And what reasons do you have for raising the age to 70?
 
Masterhawk said:
When social security was first created in 1935, the retirement age was set at 65 and it has stayed that way ever since. Life expectancy has risen since then which leads some people to advocate raising the retirement age.

Perhaps one solution would be to make the retirement age life expectancy minus 10 (if it's a decimal, round down) or in line with health life expectancy (average life expectancy without disabilities), both of which which would put the current retirement age at 69. When social security first began, the life expectancy was 61 (4 years higher than the life expectancy). There were also more payers per recipient back then. Back in 1995, there were 4.2 workers for every pensioner. In 2050, that number is projected to have fallen to 2.3.
https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_051804.html

On the other hand, life expectancy varies by income level and white collar workers generally live healthy lives for longer than blue collar workers.
Click to expand...

Leave right where it is.
 
concernedpuma said:
I contend that there are few among us who don't want to help the truly needy.
CP
Click to expand...

And herein lies the rub. We all have a different definition of truly needy.

Not only that, we seldom understand from other perspectives.

Lot's I could speak to on these points.
 
molten_dragon said:
To keep social security solvent.
Click to expand...

Social security is nowhere near being insolvent. That's a myth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-and-medicare-are-not-insolvent-idUSKCN1J22OR

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/08/14/social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/#2b3bf3337145

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...ing-six-more-myths-about-social-security.html

It works like any pension fund: it's based on contributions and with jobs being what they are, contributions are high. This raise the age 'till 70 business is only a ruse to cut you out of at least five years worth of benefits.
 
noonereal said:
Choose whatever word you like... We area social animal who benefits best by gathering together in a tribe.


How do individuals benefit by living in groups?

1. Cooperative food collection. Wolves hunt together. By doing so each can more easily track and take down large game. Although the individual has to share meat, each still benefits from group hunting. Group hunting is less important in primates. Chimps hunt some but meat is not a major part of their diets. Group hunting is important in many human societies, however.

2. Sleeping together to conserve warmth. This explains why individuals form groups at night but it does not explain why groups are maintained during the day.

3. Shared information. By forming groups, individuals can exchange critical information (reciprocity). For example, frugivores let each other know where fruit trees are located.

4. Protection from predators. There are three reasons why an individual may live in group to avoid predation.

a. Cooperative defense against predators. Several baboon males can deter a hyena but a solitary baboon will become prey.

b. Selfish herd. To buffer themselves from predators sheep form herds, fish swim in schools, and birds fly in flocks. Predators can't eat an entire group. An individual lives in a group so as to get someone else between them and a predator. Safety in numbers. This reason is called the selfish herd because, obviously, individuals want to be in the central core of a group, not on the periphery.

c. Cooperative defense against other groups of your species. Some primates form groups and defend valuable resources, such as fruit-trees, against groups of their own species. Chimp groups defend fruit-trees.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything at all wrong with this well presented post.
Good job, and Thank you.
Regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom