Christie vows to raise retirement age to 69

[Disir]

Lift the cap!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Outlaw Jersey whale .....Chris Christie ladies and gents...

 

[Mac1958]

.

Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.

Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.

This has nothing to do with Wall Street.

Is this a trick question?

.

Agreed, but there are problems with that...

Who is going to keep the elderly employed until 69 or whatever age it is determined is eligible for SS, with technology advancing all the time, jobs are being eliminated? And...it is clear the power elite want cheap labor, so they are flooding the nation with immigrants...who may be pushing older workers out of the work force. What about age discrimination? It seems many employers practice it without consequences...

I think that's all correct and it's coming soon. Work through the facts you provided and you end up with an increase in income disparity, as those who can leverage and/or take advantage of technological advances pull further and further away from those who can't, increasing their comparative income more and more.

The ultimate fix will almost certainly end up being significantly higher income tax rates (or new tax rates) on the higher end, some kind of net worth tax, and/or much higher corporate taxes. And, as a result of that, a generally lower standard of living across the board. The only question will be how much lower.

Forget for a moment what you would like to see. Walk it through intellectually and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

.

 

[martybegan]

Personally I think it's a good idea to raise the SS retirement age.

The social security system was designed when the average life expectancy was 65. You retired at 62 or 65, collected checks for a few years, then died. Now it's 85. People are living longer and collecting longer. Social Security is not going to be able to pay out full benefits in a few years.

You can't take a transaction tax and use it to fund SS. Social Security is self funded by worker and employer contributions- it's not a "tax the other guy" system. You (and your employer) pay in, you get money out (if you live long enough!).

If you want the SS program to survive, the retirement age needs to be raised to 69 or 70 then indexed to life expectancy.

Suck it up bitches!!

I've never understood a SS tax cap on earnings...what is it, up to $120K now?

It's because your returns are capped as well. Once you hit the max, you pay in a set amount because you can only get a max amount in monthly payments. SS is not a progressive income tax where the rich subsidize everyone else.

 

[martybegan]

Lift the cap!

Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.

 

[Disir]

Lift the cap!

Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.

Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.

 

[gipper]

.

Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.

Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.

This has nothing to do with Wall Street.

Is this a trick question?

.

Agreed, but there are problems with that...

Who is going to keep the elderly employed until 69 or whatever age it is determined is eligible for SS, with technology advancing all the time, jobs are being eliminated? And...it is clear the power elite want cheap labor, so they are flooding the nation with immigrants...who may be pushing older workers out of the work force. What about age discrimination? It seems many employers practice it without consequences...

I think that's all correct and it's coming soon. Work through the facts you provided and you end up with an increase in income disparity, as those who can leverage and/or take advantage of technological advances pull further and further away from those who can't, increasing their comparative income more and more.

The ultimate fix will almost certainly end up being significantly higher income tax rates (or new tax rates) on the higher end, some kind of net worth tax, and/or much higher corporate taxes. And, as a result of that, a generally lower standard of living across the board. The only question will be how much lower.

Forget for a moment what you would like to see. Walk it through intellectually and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

.

No doubt our corrupt central government would like higher taxes on income and wealth, of course they are likely to squander any windfall on subsides for the oligarchy.

IMO we need a better government...and the removal of illegal immigrants, while stopping immigration to all but the most qualified.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Increasing/eliminating the cap and increasing the retirement age are both inevitable at some point, and they'll work.

Hey, look at the bright side: At least social security has fixes. The one to worry about is Medicare.

.

 

[Disir]

If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.

 

[Freewill]

.

Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.

Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.

This has nothing to do with "Wall Street".

Is this a trick question?

.

According to the SS administration what you have posted is not true. It is not true. If SS can survive the Baby Boom shear numbers then it seems like it might become more stable. It seems to be that job participation rate is a bigger concern then how long a person lives. And treating age as a number instead of a condition of a person seems to be a bit cold hearted. The age could be raised to 80 and SS would be completely solvent. But people would still age, and no 60 is NOT the new 40.

From the SS administration:

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

Social Security History

(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)

 

[Mac1958]

.

Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.

Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.

This has nothing to do with "Wall Street".

Is this a trick question?

.

According to the SS administration what you have posted is not true. It is not true. If SS can survive the Baby Boom shear numbers then it seems like it might become more stable. It seems to be that job participation rate is a bigger concern then how long a person lives. And treating age as a number instead of a condition of a person seems to be a bit cold hearted. The age could be raised to 80 and SS would be completely solvent. But people would still age, and no 60 is NOT the new 40.

From the SS administration:

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

Social Security History

(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)

But your third sentence is my point. We don't know today whether social security will survive the Baby Boom, and rapid advances in health technology will put more and more pressure on social security with time: Could you live until 1000 years old Someone probably will

This simply an unknown right now.

So let's put it this way: If we need to increase money to social security coffers, the fixes are clearly identifiable and relatively easy. Compared to a potential disaster like Medicare, that's at least a little comforting.

.

 

[Freewill]

If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.

Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.

The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.

 

[Roadrunner]

Personally I think it's a good idea to raise the SS retirement age.

The social security system was designed when the average life expectancy was 65. You retired at 62 or 65, collected checks for a few years, then died. Now it's 85. People are living longer and collecting longer. Social Security is not going to be able to pay out full benefits in a few years.

You can't take a transaction tax and use it to fund SS. Social Security is self funded by worker and employer contributions- it's not a "tax the other guy" system. You (and your employer) pay in, you get money out (if you live long enough!).

If you want the SS program to survive, the retirement age needs to be raised to 69 or 70 then indexed to life expectancy.

Suck it up bitches!!

Money is money no matter where it comes from. The SS contributions were supposed to be in a "lockbox" to quote Al Gore. After Clinton robbed the SS trust fund all money comes from one big $4-trillion pot. SS is solvent thru 2030, after that it can only pay 70% of promised benefits...unless we make up the money with a "transaction tax" on Wall Street. The Transaction Tax has two purposes, it raises cash and also inhibits short-sellers and high frequency traders who steal our 401k money.

I'm just amazed Christie is so stupid to try and play the "suck it up bitches" card.

Nobody is stealing your 401K money by active trading or short selling. In a free market people are free to trade as much and as often as they like. At the end of the day, "active traders" make far less than regular folks who buy and hold for the long term. There is massive data to back this up. Ever heard the expression : there is no such thing as a free lunch? TINSTAAFL!! Its true. Nobody beats the market over the long term.

Simply raise the retirement age incrementally (we recently did this - from 65 to 67) and tax all earnings. We can do it gradually and systematically. Then index the retirement age to life expectancy.

Presto!! Problem solved permanently. Remember- TINSTAAFL!!

Should probably means test it too. Rush Limbaugh, barrack obama, Clintons, Bushes and Trump don't need the money. Ideally, begin phasing out SS altogether.

I oppose "means testing" on principle. The one redeeming factor about Social Security system is that it is not a welfare system, it's basically an insurance plan administered (poorly) by the government. If you pay in and live to retirement age or become disabled, you get paid back. Period.

If we means test it and eliminate wealthier people, it becomes just another welfare program.

Wrong on several points.

SSD and SSI are often paid to people who did not pay in.

And some of us paid in, but not long enough to get enough quarters to get a pay out.

Everything I put in is just gone, I get a reminder every year, that is it.

I retired from a different system, and the point of retiring was to retire, not go work to collect from SS.

 

[Roadrunner]

Lift the cap!

Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.

Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.

Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.

 

[Freewill]

.

Of course we'll have to increase the retirement age with time, as life expectancies continue to increase.

Social security wasn't built to pay people for 30+ years.

This has nothing to do with "Wall Street".

Is this a trick question?

.

According to the SS administration what you have posted is not true. It is not true. If SS can survive the Baby Boom shear numbers then it seems like it might become more stable. It seems to be that job participation rate is a bigger concern then how long a person lives. And treating age as a number instead of a condition of a person seems to be a bit cold hearted. The age could be raised to 80 and SS would be completely solvent. But people would still age, and no 60 is NOT the new 40.

From the SS administration:

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

Social Security History

(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)

But your third sentence is my point. We don't know today whether social security will survive the Baby Boom, and rapid advances in health technology will put more and more pressure on social security with time: Could you live until 1000 years old Someone probably will

This simply an unknown right now.

So let's put it this way: If we need to increase money to social security coffers, the fixes are clearly identifiable and relatively easy. Compared to a potential disaster like Medicare, that's at least a little comforting.

.

Being a financial planner I would think that the determination of whether or not SS will survive is a matter of numbers. Insurance companies make large sums of money using actuary tables.

Don't you make educated guess as to when your clients will be able to retire?

The facts presented are that the life expectancy has NOT risen as high as a lot of people seem to think. Living 1000 years? Really? For that to happen they need to figure out how to keep the body from naturally aging. If they do then there would be no reason for a person to retire at 65 or whatever. But until then the body still ages and although people live longer those last years can be pretty crappy.

My opinion is we need to do something about the job participation rate. The increase in SS disability payments. The downward pressure illegal and legal immigration has on wages.

 

[martybegan]

Lift the cap!

Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.

Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.

Then you have to completely re-write the social security law.

 

[martybegan]

If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.

Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?

 

[Disir]

If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.

Right now, today, the SS is solvent. It is not in debt it is in surplus. Maybe that won't last forever but I think the reason so many programs, other then retirement, that is a drain on the system, were added is because there is a large nest egg of money and politicians can't stand just having money sit around.

The truth is that SS payment isn't exactly enough for a person to live on now, at least comfortably. So if someone wants to retire at 62 and collect SS they had better have some back up. Or live dirt poor. Add to that the requirement to buy medical insurance until they are 65 and retirement doesn't looks so easy before 65 at least.

You're making the assumption that people have an option. That isn't necessarily true. That sure isn't what we saw in the last decade. Nobody says, well, shucks, I am going to rely on social security. We didn't see that either. We saw rents skyrocket, we saw people forced into retirement, we saw pensions raided at earlier times and then try to blame the people that were to collect.

 

[Disir]

Lift the cap!

Then you have to lift the payout cap as well.

Lift the cap! The people at the top don't need it.

Lift the cap, let anyone who wants to decline participation.

Lets protect the class that is busy deciding the fate of the little people? No.

Let them take that train ride as well.

 

[Disir]

If you lift the cap then you don't have to raise the age of retirement.

Again, then you are radically changing the purpose and method of Social Security. How about you offset the increase to these people by reducing their federal taxes by an equal amount?

Lift the cap and it really is that simple. There is no excuse.