Retirement age

[noonereal]

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?

get over yourself

thanks!

 

[Irwin Corey]

Better than murdering the unborn.

Yes, we know that life is sacrosanct, for evangelical republican'ts, until the baby is born; then mother and child can eat **** and die for all they care.

 

[Helix]

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

i'm doing what i can. i should probably do more.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Both the old apples and oranges take up room in the fruit basket (workplace) that could otherwise be filled with younger fruit. Raising the retirement age would reduce employment and promotional opportunities for younger workers.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Since Republicans hate government programs, raise their retirement to 80. All others, keep it the same.

 

[Bodi]

Yep, and that law covers the current retirement age changes. The fact that you think it should have been based on (past?) life expectancy does not mean that the law was structured that way.

https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/retirement-age

That is how it was structured and why they are trying to change it. The issue with the change is the resistance from the elderly special interst groups.

https://votesmart.org/interest-group/271/national-committee-to-preserve-social-security-and-medicare

 

[Waddy]

Both the old apples and oranges take up room in the fruit basket (workplace) that could otherwise be filled with younger fruit. Raising the retirement age would reduce employment and promotional opportunities for younger workers.

I agree. The unspoken agreement was that the oldsters get a pension and get out of the way. But that is changing. It will mean younger workers wait longer for those promotions. And that's the group we want to tax at higher rates to pay for the baby boomers? Get real; we're heading for a generational conflict.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree. The unspoken agreement was that the oldsters get a pension and get out of the way. But that is changing. It will mean younger workers wait longer for those promotions. And that's the group we want to tax at higher rates to pay for the baby boomers? Get real; we're heading for a generational conflict.

What we have is funding shortage to keep SS benefits at their current level (and adjusted for inflation) as more boomers retire in the very near future. If one simply accepts that basic definition of the problem then many solutions are possible - one of which is simply to raise the current flat rate FICA tax. That creates the problems of being an even more regressive tax and of making future SS payments higher (because they are based on past FICA tax 'contributions').

I suggest using more federal income tax (FIT) revenue to cover the 'boomer bump' - which is a temporary fix for a temporary problem. That too can be done in many possible ways one of which is by bracket rate increases - but adds the ability to make its effect more progressive. Another is to close 'loopholes' and leave the bracket rates as they are - simply eliminate/reduce deductions, credits and exclusions until sufficient revenue is added.

 

[Winchester]

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!

Screw the needs test beyond what it already is. ie the payout formula is already skewed towards the lower earners and higher income retired folks get to include up to 85% of the SS as taxable income. If you take away the some if not all of the incentive for people to save outside of SS for retirement you're going to convert a bunch of ants to grasshoppers.

 

[rickc]

i know the righties don't think anything FDR did or any part of the social safety net should exist. that is until they need it.

but

our government took our money for social security. they made the deal. the fact that they have squandered it does not change the deal they made. we are good now to 2033.

plenty of ways to fix it without changing the retirement age or cutting benefits. Remove the $127,000 salary cap. Raise the tax. make all income subject to the social security tax.

they also should raise the amount a person can earn on social security without losing the benefits

if the young people of America want to do.away with it,.and i think that would be very foolish,.then let.them vote for a cutoff age.

 

[Waddy]

What we have is funding shortage to keep SS benefits at their current level (and adjusted for inflation) as more boomers retire in the very near future. If one simply accepts that basic definition of the problem then many solutions are possible - one of which is simply to raise the current flat rate FICA tax. That creates the problems of being an even more regressive tax and of making future SS payments higher (because they are based on past FICA tax 'contributions').

I suggest using more federal income tax (FIT) revenue to cover the 'boomer bump' - which is a temporary fix for a temporary problem. That too can be done in many possible ways one of which is by bracket rate increases - but adds the ability to make its effect more progressive. Another is to close 'loopholes' and leave the bracket rates as they are - simply eliminate/reduce deductions, credits and exclusions until sufficient revenue is added.

And the answer is; none of those will be implemented. We're beyond what those things will fix. What will happen is two things; upper income retirees will be means tested. Everybody hates the rich, and so what if they get cut off from SS. They don't need it anyhow!! (Or so the logic will go). The other thing that will happen is we borrow to meet these payments. The national debt is a little over 100% of GDP right now, and Japan has shown us we can go well past 200% of GDP, maybe a lot more. In other words, we will print our way to meet obligations once people making over $100K have been weeded out.

And retirements will be greatly changed for the nexty generation. They will accept the changes because they know what's happened, and they don't much count on SS anyways.

The other thing that is going to happen is federalizing state pensions. No state is going to go bankrupt. In a CYA move, he feds will step in and cover their asses. This will further increase the federal debt.

But don't worry about all that federal national debt. We ain't payin' it back anyhoooo.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And the answer is; none of those will be implemented. We're beyond what those things will fix. What will happen is two things; upper income retirees will be means tested. Everybody hates the rich, and so what if they get cut off from SS. They don't need it anyhow!! (Or so the logic will go). The other thing that will happen is we borrow to meet these payments. The national debt is a little over 100% of GDP right now, and Japan has shown us we can go well past 200% of GDP, maybe a lot more. In other words, we will print our way to meet obligations once people making over $100K have been weeded out.

And retirements will be greatly changed for the nexty generation. They will accept the changes because they know what's happened, and they don't much count on SS anyways.

The other thing that is going to happen is federalizing state pensions. No state is going to go bankrupt. In a CYA move, he feds will step in and cover their asses. This will further increase the federal debt.

But don't worry about all that federal national debt. We ain't payin' it back anyhoooo.

If SS is (further) means tseted then it simply becomes yet another income redistribution (welfare) program rather than its original intent of being a universal retirement supplement based on past 'contributions'.

This article is fairly good and addresses many predicted, yet not much talked about, side effects of (further) means testing of SS benefits.

https://www.actuary.org/files/Means_Testing_SS_IB.pdf

 

[gulfman]

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

Make the millenials pay more to support us baby boomers.Even if they have to work 80 hours a week.We deserve to live like royalty in our golden years.

 

[Bullseye]

i know the righties don't think anything FDR did or any part of the social safety net should exist. that is until they need it.

great start if you're interested in flame throwing, but not if you're trying to join a rational discussion.

but

our government took our money for social security. they made the deal. the fact that they have squandered it does not change the deal they made. we are good now to 2033.

First off, understand that what you and your employer pay to SS and MC are a TAX, not a deposit. Your money goes out the door to current retirees as soon as it's taken in.

plenty of ways to fix it without changing the retirement age or cutting benefits. Remove the $127,000 salary cap. Raise the tax. make all income subject to the social security tax.

All of which have been studied to death and shown to be ineffective.

they also should raise the amount a person can earn on social security without losing the benefits

This actually has merit.

if the young people of America want to do.away with it,.and i think that would be very foolish,.then let.them vote for a cutoff age.

Huh?

 

[Waddy]

If SS is (further) means tseted then it simply becomes yet another income redistribution (welfare) program rather than its original intent of being a universal retirement supplement based on past 'contributions'.

This article is fairly good and addresses many predicted, yet not much talked about, side effects of (further) means testing of SS benefits.

https://www.actuary.org/files/Means_Testing_SS_IB.pdf

Hey, I agree with you. But this is what I think the future holds. SS will become another welfare program. And it will have opposition, as do ALL welfare programs. What was genius about SS is that it applied to EVERYONE, regardless of income. That's why it has enjoyed widespread support. It's like the GI Bill; because it was made available to ALL veterans it had great support. But there is no easy fix for SS; too many baby boomers. Remember the big SS increase under Ronald Reagan; supposed to save SS for future generations.....well, they spent it. There are always LOTS of "worthy" programs to spend other people's money on.... And they did. And on wars we didn't need to fight, from Johnson's Vietnam to Bush's Iraq.... I think there ought to be a rule that any war we fight has to be paid for up front !!!

 

[Waddy]

i know the righties don't think anything FDR did or any part of the social safety net should exist. that is until they need it.

but

our government took our money for social security. they made the deal. the fact that they have squandered it does not change the deal they made. we are good now to 2033.

plenty of ways to fix it without changing the retirement age or cutting benefits. Remove the $127,000 salary cap. Raise the tax. make all income subject to the social security tax.

they also should raise the amount a person can earn on social security without losing the benefits

if the young people of America want to do.away with it,.and i think that would be very foolish,.then let.them vote for a cutoff age.

"we are good until 2033"...that is a fallacy. SS has no money on hand beyond what's coming in every month from current workers. We now have, right now have, a big monthly shortfall. THAT money must come from the General Fund; and since the GF spends more than it collects ($1.55 for every $1.00 it collects) the money must be borrowed. That's how we are making up the difference, a difference that widens every day. We are borrowing the money. Better hope the creditors stay the course.....

 

[Aberration]

Since Republicans hate government programs, raise their retirement to 80. All others, keep it the same.

I got a better idea. Let me keep my money and I won’t use the program.

 

[Aberration]

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.

Automation is not claiming that many jobs.

 

[Waddy]

Automation is not claiming that many jobs.

I think the stats will show that automation has claimed more jobs than off-shoring. Where my wife worked before retiring years ago the entire payroll department was eliminated by a software payroll program. Walk into any modern machine shop; you will see maybe 3 or 4 workers, where decades ago there would have been over a dozen machinists. Modern computer controlled CNC machining just isn't very labor intensive. Modern factories are much more automated, less labor intensive than decades ago; it's the main reason it's become practical to move production back here from overseas.

 

[marke]

I think the stats will show that automation has claimed more jobs than off-shoring. Where my wife worked before retiring years ago the entire payroll department was eliminated by a software payroll program. Walk into any modern machine shop; you will see maybe 3 or 4 workers, where decades ago there would have been over a dozen machinists. Modern computer controlled CNC machining just isn't very labor intensive. Modern factories are much more automated, less labor intensive than decades ago; it's the main reason it's become practical to move production back here from overseas.

Lefties see technological advances as enemies of worker rights to remain in the dark ages. When Obama talked about shovel ready jobs, he was not talking about automated machinery. His reference was more like that of manually shoveling crap out of animal stalls.

 

[Waddy]

Lefties see technological advances as enemies of worker rights to remain in the dark ages. When Obama talked about shovel ready jobs, he was not talking about automated machinery. His reference was more like that of manually shoveling crap out of animal stalls.

Here's a prediction from the St.Louis Federal Reserve; 60% of jobs could be automated in the next 20 years. What's interesting is that many of those jobs will be white collar work, where as in the past it was usually manual labor, like factory workers, who got replaced.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicat...erm=other&utm_content=pub&utm_campaign=5063_1

Here's how I think this intense drive to automate will change the economy. Right now there are only a couple of engineering degrees with shortages and a big demand for recent college grads. Those two are Petroleum Engineering and Software Engineers. All other types of engineering have a surplus of graduates. Software Engineering is at the heart of automation. Salaries for recent college grads are sky high due to demand. And that's what will happen to the economy in general. Those technically minded people who master how automation works, and can design systems, or install systems, or service systems, will become the upper class. because they will be well paid for their expertise. Those who can manage teams of such people will do well. It won't necessarily be only those with a college degree. Technology will need competent techs as well as college educated engineers. The other end of society will be people without technical skills, who will make far less money if they can find work at all. Lastly, a relatively few non-technical people, like artists, athletes, actors, etc, will also do well, just aren't many out there at a high level of skill.

 

[marke]

Here's a prediction from the St.Louis Federal Reserve; 60% of jobs could be automated in the next 20 years. What's interesting is that many of those jobs will be white collar work, where as in the past it was usually manual labor, like factory workers, who got replaced.

More soothsaying, now from chicken little analysts at the Federal Reserve? My guess is that these prognosticators are not the same ones who correctly predicted the crash of 2008 due to the dismissal of credit standards for obtaining home mortgages instituted by Clinton in 2000?

Don't be afraid. God will take care of His people in good times or in bad.

 

[itsforthekids]

Yes, we know that life is sacrosanct, for evangelical republican'ts, until the baby is born; then mother and child can eat **** and die for all they care.

There are numerous private and government programs which are designed to take care of them.

 

[Irwin Corey]

There are numerous private and government programs which are designed to take care of them.

But if the right had it’s way there wouldn’t be.

 

[cabse5]

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

I started out as a Computer Programmer/Analyst (this field is now called IT, I guess) and retired early from the business due to stress related illness.