Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 14, 2005.
Makes sense to me. People are living longer.
Yeah, it does if you sit behind a desk. What if you're an assembly line worker, or a pilot with a mandatory retirement age of 60, or a housekeeper or retail worker, or construction worker? Just because we're living longer doesn't mean we are able to hold down a full time job longer.
A lot of people have pensions that kick in well before they even turn 65.
I'm not one of them, but long ago I accepted the proposition that Social Security benefits would be delayed. We live a lot longer and in many cases have longer working lives than people did in 1935. I'm willing to accept something along these lines, so long as it comes with an increased taxable wages cap, and none of the other cockamamie stuff being pushed by the president.
I am a pilot, and have no mandatory retirement age. Only airline pilots do, and they can get another type of flying job after 60, such as corporate, or fractional.
Makes sense to me too. But none, zero, nada of my retirement is modeled on receiving any SS income.
I wish they would remove the salary limit too. Make ya pay in on as much as you earn, the limit now I think is in the 90,000 dollar range.
Hope this passes, since their are few ways to keep it going much longer, other than paying in more and letting less out.
I'm with Ugg. On the one hand, our government is complaining about how our increased longevity is costing us a lot more in health care, because as we get older more things go wrong with us. On the other hand, our government wants us to work even longer. Makes no sense.
No, this is the Republicans' way of reducing or eliminating SS for many of us. More people will die before they can collect, and the ones who live will be collecting for a shorter period.
All that, just so people making over $90,000 a year don't have to chip in a few more bucks. We wouldn't want to inconvenience them.
Well, have a solution that includes this modification as well as the modification of raising (or eliminating) the salary limit.
As for Ugg's point. I disagree. The fact that we are living longer is wholely related to our ability to hold down a full-time job longer. Line, retail, and construction workers and housekeepers have (and will have in the years to come) more advanced medicine keeping them going than was available in the past. (Of course, whether or not they have any access to advanced medicine is an entirely different story. Perhaps we could tie this SS modification to socialized medicine. )
Besides, lots of people ease into retirement. In your late 60s you could live off your own assets and/or work part time. If you're truly poor, other social services could pick up the slack until SS kicks in.
I don't think it's a matter of the government "complaining" about increasingly longevity, it's just a fact. The math just doesn't work anymore. I'd look at all of these proposals very carefully (not that I don't trust congressional Republicans...) but I'm generally in favor of increasing the benefit age and lifting the cap in order to balance the Social Security account and to secure the program well into the future.
Blanket and uproveable statements like "will have more advanced medicine keeping them going" are meaningless and demeaning. You're going to gamble on these medicine's making it possible to work longer? What happens if they don't materialize, what then, ooooooops!
Life expectancy also has nothing to do with how long we are able to work. Better food, medicine, education are all clearly tied to longevity but not our ability to work.
I would agree to raising it to 69 if there was an opt in at 67 allowing those unable to work full-time, due to injury, etc, to collect partial benefits. Or those who've worked with their hands being able to retire early. Why should this increase affect those whose bodies are more likely to be seriously impaired because of their work? It's not reform if it severely impacts those earning the least and working the hardes.
If you're disabled or unable to work due to injury you can start collecting social security at 27, let alone 67.
Still, I certainly see your point. It would be hard for some people in various trades to work until they are 69. Hell, it'll be hard for anyone to work until 69, but I don't think it's that much different for 67. Still, many people will have to rely on their own savings, pensions, etc to get them through the gap, or pick up part time work. The truly poor can get food stamps or other government aid to tide them over.
I'm really not sure why you think that "Blanket and uproveable statements like 'will have more advanced medicine keeping them going' are meaningless and demeaning." I'm pretty sure knee surgeries have advanced in the last 50 years. I for one don't have a massive scar on my knee from where the surgury was done because of new, less invasive techiniques. I'm not sure who this demeans, and medicine doesn't even need to advance significantly for it to benefit the crop of future retirees. A 20-year old starting out today has the benefits of current medicine+future advances for his/her life, whereas someone who is 65 now was recieving 1960 medical treatment when they were 20.
statistically you are wrong:
You can still take your benefits early (under the current rules, 62 1/2 is the youngest, I believe) at a reduced rate. Most actuaries will recommend this anyway, due to the number of extra years you'd need to live to make up the difference of starting to collect a couple year earlier.
I have a friend who spent 30 years at Delta. Took early retirement at 58 for health reasons. He was told by his financial advisor that he too, as you suggest would be better off getting SS at 62.5. He continued to work a few odd jobs here and there and has/had a pretty good retirement. Now, however, Delta is threatening all its retirees with cuts in their pensions, increased copays for health care, etc, etc. Not surprising, every other old school airline is doing the same. Now he's 67, still working a little bit, has a decent savings, owns his own home, but is being threatened with serious loss of income from Delta, much less increased health care costs.
Now, he wishes he had waited the extra few years for his SS to start. The only way it makes sense is if your health is really, really bad, you have no other option, and you know absolutely beyond a doubt that your other income is not going to change. In this day and age of corporate irresponsibility, I would seriously caution anyone againts early SS payments. Too risky.
For a brief, shining moment I read the thread title and thought it was a mandatory retirement age for SENATORS.
I guess they're safe as long as nobody brings in a mandatory 69 retirement IQ minimum...
Believe it or not, one thing I could actually get behind is the idea that the retirement age moved WAY back, to say, 72. But, private accounts would make up for the difference, so most people could still retire at 65. The point of the private accounts would just be to get you from 65 to 72. This way, if your private accounts tanked, the worst off you'd be is maybe retiring at 68 instead of 65. As opposed to the Bush plan, where maybe your private account runs out at age 85, and there's no other source of income for you when you REALLY need it.
I'm not much of a number-cruncher myself, but coming from people who are, the advice is, take your Social Security early, unless you are still working.
i'd be interested in knowing all the reasons, but i can think of at least one: the other option is to start drawing out of other accounts, such as a 401k, which may have steeper penalties. the SS money can tide one over until they can draw on their other accounts penalty-free.
I think the primary reason is, you'd have to live to a pretty ripe old age to make up the difference, because the penalty for collecting early isn't that great.
That may show that the overall life expectancy is rising, but it still stands to reason that if you have people collecting SS now at age 67, and you start postponing it to age 69, some of those people are going to die before reaching that age.
first, off, the paragraph showed death rate has lowered 42%. the life expectancy is actually 77.2 years. that means people are living longer, and dieing at a lower rate than when social security started.
also, lets not forgot counting the boy who get killed in a traffic accident delvering pizza. he didn't a chance to collect his social security. social security isn't a right at any age, it is a progressive entitlement. however, if you want social security to around awhile perhaps looking objectively that most americans are living longer and dieing less than than did when social security got its start. also look at the people baby boomers about to collect social security, and the amount of workers paying in.
It makes sense to have some sort of a bridge account and I would be willing to back this given the right program. This would also eliminate the annuity plan that bushco is pushing. Annuities are geared to benefit those who offer them, not those they serve. Also, did you notice that bushco only started talking about annuities after he trumpeted his "ownership society"? What a bunch of hogwash, the only time anyone's heirs would benefit under that plan is if they died before retirement age.
No annuities means that the savings plan total would be divided by the number of years between retirement and the age of 72. Anything left over if the person died before 72 would go to their estate. Also, it would protect the most vulnerable age group from poverty in their final years.
Yeah, I can see this as being a workable alternative.
I'm not trying to be picky, but those statements saying that people are dying at a lower rate are amusing. AFAIK, people are still dying at a 100% rate. I had a "WTF?" moment until I realized that they meant prior to retirement age.
Anyway, any argument is academic, since the one statistic we don't have is whether moving the retirement age to 69 would negate that 42% lower death rate (at retirement) that you quoted.
Even if it didn't, what of it? My basic argument is that as people get into that age bracket, they have more problems with basic activities of daily living, let alone actually working at a job. Science may someday push the average age of death to 95, but that doesn't mean we should expect people to work until they're 90, just to keep from raising the $90,000 tax cap.
I've got a crazy idea. How about we figure out how to bring the retirement age down instead of up? A civil society should not have as its goal the extension of working years for its elderly citizens. Folks want to work until 69 or later - fine, but let's not force those who can least afford it into working all of their lives to make ends meet. There should be such a thing as retirement for all citizens, not just those rich enough to afford it.
You'll have to convince Americans that the goal of life is something other than acquiring a 56" TV.
you don't understand the importantance of the statistics, nor understand how they are calculated. did you that one of the criteria to declare a country a "third world country" is that fact that the death rate is high than the birth rate? I bet even you have used the term "third world" and not even really understood what it ment. Yes, the argument is academic even logical. Isn't that what we should basis policy on. I'd agree with you that the salary cap is debatable because our population and economy are always in a state flux, but that doesn't mean we can ignore all the other data because more weathly people should pay more more into the social security pot. Did you know 75% of the income tax is paid by about 10% of americans?