Retirement age

[Daisy]

Please don't misunderstand. I wasn't calling you out. Just trying to set the record straight.

No problem...I appreciate it...all these years I thought wrong, when all I had to do was ask Dad...that's what I get for ASSuming...:doh

 

[Daisy]

If he was military, he could retire after 20 years. I had a friend who retired at 38, 2 years before his dad.

He did everything right. High school ROTC. Military scholarship. Spent his career on the national rifle team. Gathering retirement points every step of the way.

My paternal uncle retired from the Air Force at 38...my Dad only pulled his time and came out...he saw too much ugly stuff in Korea...

 

[fredmertzz]

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.

I agree that the changes that have occurred in life expectancy should be reflected in Social Security.

But being 80 years old now vs 50 years ago has similar health-restrictions to 'enjoying life'. Sure, you can fund the elderly. But to what end?

Instead, I suggest we keep the same retirement age span, 62-70, with 67 being full retirement age, but we make the following tweaks:

Instead of a 25% reduction in benefits for collecting early (at age 62), we change that to 50% reduction. And instead of a 33% increase for waiting until age 70, we decrease that to 25%. (and scaled appropriately for those that start collecting between those ages).

This will keep those in the work force longer. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people who "retire early" do so as a result of necessity. Usually health reasons. That's a big catch to this plan. Something to iron out.

Overall, the SSI is supporting a number of people it was not designed for originally. But it is. We either 1) decrease those costs (unlikely) or 2) we increase revenue. If we eliminated the cap on Social Security (currently only taxed on the first $127k of income), and had any dollars earning above that limit taxed at just 2%, that would solve SSI, as it currently stands, for the next 100 years.

 

[rickc]

the whole right wing argument against social security is so stupid

do we do away with social security and move all those elderly workers to welfare or put them on the street to starve

you are going to pay for it one way or another

 

[Winchester]

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.

People should be able to retire whenever they want. That being said the age to receive full benefits from SS ought to be raised to insure it's continued solvency, other things can be done (raise taxes) to help as well.

Also way too many people jump the gun and retire too early for their own financial well being.

 

[Winchester]

I think the retirement age for people who push paper around could be raised into the 70's. But people who work in the restaurant business, the trades, and even factory work should not have their retirement age raised. A coal miner should retire in his 60's at the latest, if he makes it that long. Someone doing concrete work usually has blown out knees and back by their 50's. Raising retirement on people who do no physical labor might be OK, but people who do strenuous physical labor need that early retirement.

You're discounting the stress related illness caused by white collar work.

 

[Rogue Valley]

People should be able to retire whenever they want. That being said the age to receive full benefits from SS ought to be raised to insure it's continued solvency, other things can be done (raise taxes) to help as well.

Also way too many people jump the gun and retire too early for their own financial well being.

Many people have no choice. Automation has claimed their job, and virtually no one will hire anyone 60+.

If they do hire, it's at entry-level wages.

 

[Winchester]

I was one of the guys who had to toss the bales 8 to 10 feet high as the truck became full.Probably ate more hay in 14 hours than a large horse eats in a week.

They must have been light bales cause if I remember right the ones I was moving around (not tossing) ran between 50-75#. I'm surprised I still don't have calluses from using the bale hooks all day. Guy would have this attachment thing on the front of a tractor that would pick up 8-10 bales at a time from the stack, he'd then set them on the back of the semi trailer and I'd have to organize the stack on the truck.

 

[Winchester]

Many people have no choice. Automation has claimed their job, and virtually no one will hire anyone 60+.

If they do hire, it's at entry-level wages.

I understand that, but they should try and get their financial life in order so they can support themselves as a Walmart greeter if need be. Most people are screwed though as they didn't/couldn't save and just plain didn't live within their means during their productive years. Working at least part-time during traditional retirement years is going to get more and more common.

 

[Carjosse]

People should be able to retire whenever they want. That being said the age to receive full benefits from SS ought to be raised to insure it's continued solvency, other things can be done (raise taxes) to help as well.

Also way too many people jump the gun and retire too early for their own financial well being.

Part of it is not their fault, life expectancy has increased quite a bit and probably will continue to rise.

 

[Waddy]

You're discounting the stress related illness caused by white collar work.

I doubt that mental stress is comparable to the stress imposed on the body by hard physical work. And physical work also carries that mental type of stress along with the sheer physical exhaustion. The stress you're talking about goes with every job, white collar and blue, but can be dealt with. It's seldom disabling. So, yes, I am discounting it somewhat. It simply doesn't compare to the gradual destruction of the body encountered by many blue collar workers doing hard labor. Apples and oranges.

 

[Helix]

I support 65 as a retirement age. I don't want to work until I'm ****ing dead.

 

[Winchester]

Part of it is not their fault, life expectancy has increased quite a bit and probably will continue to rise.

If they didn't factor in a generous life expectancy prior to pulling the retirement trigger it is most likely is all their fault. ie I only need my assets to last till 78, oh **** I passed that mark, not much sympathy. Plan your assets to last till 95 and you make till 100 okay I'll give you a pass. If one doesn't or can't save for retirement welcome to the growing class of people that must work at least part time till they die. My grandfather fit that bill. He retired from full-time work at age 65 but continued to work part-time (taking insurance pictures and driving rental cars to where they needed them till he was 95 and could no longer drive).

 

[Winchester]

I support 65 as a retirement age. I don't want to work until I'm ****ing dead.

Start saving.

 

[Winchester]

I doubt that mental stress is comparable to the stress imposed on the body by hard physical work. And physical work also carries that mental type of stress along with the sheer physical exhaustion. The stress you're talking about goes with every job, white collar and blue, but can be dealt with. It's seldom disabling. So, yes, I am discounting it somewhat. It simply doesn't compare to the gradual destruction of the body encountered by many blue collar workers doing hard labor. Apples and oranges.

Would you support a higher payroll tax on said workers classes to cover their expected earlier retirement? Heck that might even be an option for everyone. If you want full SS benefits at 62 you can elect to pay a higher percentage in than those who are willing to wait till 67.

 

[Waddy]

People should be able to retire whenever they want. That being said the age to receive full benefits from SS ought to be raised to insure it's continued solvency, other things can be done (raise taxes) to help as well.

Also way too many people jump the gun and retire too early for their own financial well being.

People don't plan for retirement. They would rather have a new car and take that vacation. Every study bears this out.

78 million baby boomers retiring. 10,000+ per DAY. No money in Social Security. It comes out of the General Fund because it was put into the General Fund by Lyndon Johnson (to hide the huge deficit incurred by fighting a war in Vietnam and a War on Poverty at home), and has been spent ever since. Senator Daniel Patrick Monyihan spoke against the idea, but he wasn't supported.

Here's how it will play out;

Many baby boomers will never retire, or take jobs they can find.
They will want government subsidies for housing, food, health care, transportation and long term nursing home care.
Some of them will cut expenses by having room mates and eating cheap.
Some will move in with their grown kids.
The government will be paying for lots of cremations. Few baby boomers have planned or saved for their funerals.

There is simply no way younger people or business can be taxed enough to pay for all these needs. Only 2 workers for each retiree. The math doesn't add up.

And if the government tries to tax the hell out of young workers another issue will crop up. This racially diverse work force will rebel at paying so much to old white people. I don't blame them.

I would also add that making any serious changes that reduce benefits will be suicide for politicians. Baby Boomers will still be the biggest voting block by far. They will never vote for politicians advocating a pay cut for them.

 

[Waddy]

Would you support a higher payroll tax on said workers classes to cover their expected earlier retirement? Heck that might even be an option for everyone. If you want full SS benefits at 62 you can elect to pay a higher percentage in than those who are willing to wait till 67.

Something like that is a good idea and might just work for future retirees but nothing is going to fix this present mess. The can has been kicked down the road by government and individuals for far too long.

 

[Carjosse]

If they didn't factor in a generous life expectancy prior to pulling the retirement trigger it is most likely is all their fault. ie I only need my assets to last till 78, oh **** I passed that mark, not much sympathy. Plan your assets to last till 95 and you make till 100 okay I'll give you a pass. If one doesn't or can't save for retirement welcome to the growing class of people that must work at least part time till they die. My grandfather fit that bill. He retired from full-time work at age 65 but continued to work part-time (taking insurance pictures and driving rental cars to where they needed them till he was 95 and could no longer drive).

I would argue things, especially technology and medicine, can change a lot over 20, 30 or even 40 years.

 

[Carjosse]

People should be able to retire whenever they want. That being said the age to receive full benefits from SS ought to be raised to insure it's continued solvency, other things can be done (raise taxes) to help as well.

Also way too many people jump the gun and retire too early for their own financial well being.

I also think part of it is you need better management, the CCP actually turns a profit for the Canadian government, SS should for the US.

 

[Conaeolos]

Let see,

This particular baby-boomer generation has elected policies which have resulted in 21.1 Trillion in debt and growing; Tax revenues sitting at about 3.10T that in the best cases is a 300 year unpaid debt (without major asset concessions) and not counting the amount absorbed by current deflation, this burden all being billed to an underprepared younger generation, so yeah 100% abolish their Social Security. Tough luck.

The humanitarian side of my soul says sure allow for some type of “Medicare” but otherwise government income support for seniors going into the future is a financial nonstarter. Unless of course we go the direction of taxing a growing ultra-productive AI workforce, where in there is hope the net costs are bearable. After-all in that ideal world without budgetary pressure, where government have the funds for whatever is "socially just", a retirement age around 55-60 is ideal. 0-22 being support for developmental reasons, 23-55 being contributory, 55-80+ being supported for offering guidance to next generation. I pray that is where we find ourselves.

However, at this rate current trajectory, proponents for any age lower than 80 though are basically advancing a 140% tax rate. [100% tax rate plus deficit spending]. You simply can't support a ponzi-esk distrbution model on a flat demographic curve. And importing workers is at best a stop-gap. This due to vast cuts to lifestyle demanded to allow for that type of population demand on any economy/reasoruces.

 

[Jarhead1369]

it's sad commentary for the people of our country that so many think retirement is dictated by whatever age the government says it will begin giving you back some of the money they stole from you.

I am semi-retired. I have no military pension, no other government pension and don't plan on collecting Social Security or Medicare. My funds for any "full" retirement are 100% a function of my savings from my earnings and investments. But I don't plan on ever fully retiring...I am enjoying being semi-retired...working when I want and how I want...continuing to be a productive member of society.

Where did we get this notion that we are entitled to other people's money so that we can quit earning our own way?

 

[Bullseye]

I support 65 as a retirement age. I don't want to work until I'm ****ing dead.

What ever you've been able to save or invest double it. If you haven't saved or invested, find a way to start.

 

[VanceMack]

It depends on your goal. Are you making adjustments to ensure solvency in the system or are you attempting to impact the job availability for a younger workforce?

 

[ttwtt78640]

it's sad commentary for the people of our country that so many think retirement is dictated by whatever age the government says it will begin giving you back some of the money they stole from you.

I am semi-retired. I have no military pension, no other government pension and don't plan on collecting Social Security or Medicare. My funds for any "full" retirement are 100% a function of my savings from my earnings and investments. But I don't plan on ever fully retiring...I am enjoying being semi-retired...working when I want and how I want...continuing to be a productive member of society.

Where did we get this notion that we are entitled to other people's money so that we can quit earning our own way?

Perhaps from our government which decided that 15.3% of every dollar that was worked for (up to about double the median household income) must be spent that way.

 

[noonereal]

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.

your poll seems to deal with more than simply should we or should we not raise the retirement age.

seems you are asking what is the best way to fix the expected deficits.

if so, you missed a lot.

if i were king i'd

raise the retirement age
have a needs test
remove the FICA cap

this would make us able to not only save the program but it would also allow us to expand the benefit rate, significantly

hope this helps!