Increase Retirement Age in US

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AFPoster, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. AFPoster macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #1
    Mitt Romney - Republican - Presidential Candidate - believes that we should raise the retirement age from 67 to a number in the 70's.

    Just curious what's everyone's thoughts on this? I am a Republican and I can tell you I feel that the retirement age should be 60 -64. My reasoning is I know people and have family in this age range that can't work anymore because of back issues, loss of memory and primarily just old age. 60 is not the new 30 by any means and not all of us can afford plastic surgery like Kristie Alley to look like she's in the 40's, just to name one person.

    I feel that if we raise the age any higher more people will die on the job from stress, over working, etc.

    Mitt also wants to "reinvigorate" Social Security by doing this, even though we all know none of us (born in the late 70's to present) will never see a payment from the S.S. department even though we put thousands in it.
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    "Reinvigorate" is Mitt's spin for working your ass off for another 3 years, for the betterment of "society".
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    People are living longer now and 67 really isn't that old anymore. I know a lot of people that don't want to retire and just keep going.
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    Yes, but that is their choice.

    Why are these 'extra' years being co-opted by Big Business/Government?
     
  5. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    What about forced early retirement?

    You could probably have it go both ways, either opt out early and take a cut in benefits or stay longer.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    How about control the spending? Stop the endless wars and we would have plenty of $$$.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    70 sounds too high for now. It's just simply not necessary, and we can readjust the math for people who are in their teens now in a few decades. It's all speculation at this point about how things will look in 50 years anyway.

    I think we should slowly raise the retirement age to 69, starting say with people born in 1965 (46 today) can retire at 67 with full benefits, just as they currently can. 1966, you have to wait until 67 years and one month. 67 = 67 and 2 months, and so on, up to 1989 would be 69. It's the same system the SSA used to raise the original age of 65 for people born before 1937 to 67 for people born in 1960.

    http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

    At the same time, I think we'd need to expand disability benefits to workers who are truly worn out in their early 60s and can't bridge this new widening gap. I imagine this essential component is missing from any Republican's plan.
     
  8. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #8
    I agree with all of your post, but especially this.

    Workers in their late 50s and early 60s are most vulnerable to the twin devastations of structural unemployment as well as poor health. As much as possible we need to reform SS to not marginalize these people.

    For the broader problem of long-term SSA stabilizing, I think we should partially restructure how benefits are paid out. There is only a small progressive distribution within SS benefits. Someone at the top of the income scale can receive as much as 5 times as someone who is at the bottom of the income scale when they retire. I think we all like a little meritocracy, but readjusting the payments to be more reasonable could allow us to prevent people in their 70s from going into abject poverty while avoiding a retirement age in the 70s.
     
  9. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #9
    Do we really want a slew of 70 year olds clogging up the lanes during rush hour every day? We would have the lower the speed limits to 40 MPH.

    ;) I kid. (mostly)
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    Unless I'm missing something, the issue isn't actually the age of retirement, but the age at which someone is eligible for Social Security benefits. The difference in verbiage isn't insignificant for people who like to sing that the Social-Security-was-never-meant-to-be-your-retirment chorus. Put another way, if you believe Social Security benefits are merely a supplement to a separate, substantial retirement account, or (for that matter) if you believe Social Security will "bankrupt," then this debate doesn't actually have much to do with actual retirement from work.
     
  11. edifyingGerbil macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    #11
    Since the baby boomers apparently plundered our inheritance we don't have any choice but to continue working. Back in the days when people lived to about 70 it was considered generous to give them a few years off work where they can enjoy freetime and not worry but now that we're living a lot longer it doesn't make sense to force able people to stop at 65 or 67 and then stop contributing for the next 13 or however many years.

    If you want to retire early then invest your money in a good 401k or pension plan, don't depend on the gov't to authorise it.
     
  12. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #12
    Seeing as how i will not see SS when I am eligible, I would love to be able to opt out of this effing program
     
  13. AFPoster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #13
    Do we also want to wait for 60+yr olds to retire before our younger generation's can get jobs to replace them? We have no market for college students these days, not only with clogging up the highway because more people will be driving to work, but more will be driving for job opportunities and not getting them.
     
  14. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #14
    Would be a great spur for the economy. We would have to build a lot of wal-marts for the influx of greeters into the economy.
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    I bet you would but seeing how I have paid into it for 35 years I dont want these stinking polticians touching it!

    How many times have these politicians raided the funds? Clinton had everything shored up.......Bush & Cheney blew every single dollar they could on Iraq and the Banks to big to fail and pretending to chase Bin Laden.

    We should take all those billions back from Goldmansachs and all the other banks that were to big to fail and throw it into this account.
     
  16. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #16
    Yes people are living longer...so what? Does that mean that today you feel younger at 65 than 10 years ago?

    Besides, the current retirement age is high enough

    [​IMG]

    Screw that, raise taxes on the rich that don't need any social security benefits.
     
  17. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #17
    I wouldn't mind them raising the SS age if there was a reasonable way to get health insurance without a job before that. I could retire at 60 and live off savings and investments until SS started up at 70 if I could afford the insurance in the interim.
     
  18. AFPoster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #18
    LMAO... This cracked me up. So true though.

    I wonder if they will increase the Retirement age for military. We serve 20 years (active duty) and get 50% benefits and Social Security kicks in at 67, if medically discharged and other things that 50 can go up.

    Congress, President, etc serves 1 term (2-4-8 years) gets 100% retirement, etc etc etc. I hope they make everything the same one day. -- Sorry I sidetracked on this one.
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    I think we need to redefine disability. Right now it's mostly an all or nothing situation. As people get older, their ability to work in physically stressful jobs is limited and you can only have so many supervisors. I'd like to see more flex jobs with more flexible hours and more work at home hours. Such jobs should have higher workmens' compensation fees and pay into a fund designed to support workers who can no longer work.

    I like the idea but once again, it doesn't really address the disability issue. Health destructive jobs need to pay more into disability funds in order to allow workers time to recuperate. Maybe they can work a couple of hours a day but it might take 9 months for them to get back up to speed.

    The black and white approach to health is really outdated in today's dynamic and tech saturated society.

    SS will be able to pay out 75% of benefits. Why do you think you won't "see" them? Are you going progressively blind?
     
  20. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #20
    Wow, that sounds so un-Republican of you. ;)

    I think if we need to save money and get out of the deficit, pulling out of at least two of the wars we are in (officially or not) is a good start. It would also make sense not to make plans for another war (Pakistan, Iran, or taking down a warlord in Africa).

    I don't know what Mitt Romney means when he says in the 70s. If he's thinking 75 or so, that is downright scary. It's scary because since Obama has an approval rating which is usually below 50 on Gallup these days, Romney seems to by far the most likely to be in the White House for any GOP candidate. Palin is a running joke, and Trump never really means what he says. Gingrich is as loud and obnoxious as the other mouth from the South (Ted Turner). Pawlenty is a no-name even though he may be the nicest person out there and Ron Paul stokes votes for a movement, but not himself. Daniels is a guy who can get moderates, and if well played can invoke interest from liberals like me, but he swears he is not running.

    I have a feeling there is an even 50-50 chance that Romney will be the man come January, 2013. When and if he becomes president, he will find that repairing this economy won't happen on his watch, or anybody's watch in the 2013-2017 time period and any such president then will be blamed for the recession since Americans have incredibly short memory spans.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    I'm sorry (to my fellow liberals), but it is logical to raise the age at which seniors are eligible for a program that was initially designed as a last ditch program for the very few who lived beyond the age where the vast majority of their peer lived. This is true because people are living far longer, working longer, and capable of providing for themselves.

    (edit) that doesn't mean we can't have two programs... one supplemental, and one as a guarantee for the "very elderly."

    That being said, as a democrat, I have to say... this is all GWB's fault.... :)
     
  22. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #22
    People might be living longer, but they aren't necessarily healthy enough to work. The elderly are getting maybe 5 more years of being bed bound on an oxygen machine.

    I have a feeling we will be returning to the days when it will be the norm for the elderly to move in permanently with their children--or out onto the street. There will be no money for a nursing home or caregivers. If you're lucky you will be able to sell your parent's home to pay for expensive treatments.

    This debate has been argued well before the current economic slump. Even when the economy is booming, there is little support for entitlement programs anymore. I think we will all live to bitterly regret the loss of these programs.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Easy cure... soilant green.

    Mmmmm your grandma tastes lovely.
     
  24. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #24
    Though a tad gamey.
     
  25. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #25
    Thank you. It was an exception year, for her vintage.
     

Share This Page