It Is Past Time To Raise The SS And Medicare Eligibility Ages

[Oddball]

And who says if one keeps their own money

But there is very little reason to believe you will take home significantly more money, should the SS tax be eliminated. You would likely just be paid a lower gross amount, and the people at the top/investors would hoard more of the profit. You can watch a similar phenomenon happening right now with the trump tax cuts.

Yeah, those people who got raises and $1,000 or more bonuses sure got screwed, didn't they?

 

[Toro]

Irrelevant

Canada spends a higher amount on the government than America. You should know this by now.

How Canada chooses to invest its retirement savings has nothing to do with the how the government spends its money elsewhere.

I couldn't care less what the snow Mexicans are doing...It's none of The State's business what I or anyone else does with our earnings...They're not our mommy and daddy.

Actually, it is the State's business. People want it. So it exists.

 

[boedicca]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, it is the State's business. People want it. So it exists.

More easily kept in serfdom under the name of "the people" than any Royal...Good job.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So back to 1982.

The life expectancy at birth in 1982 was 74.36 years. 70.8 years for men, 78.1 years for women.

Today, the life expectancy at birth is 78.69 years. 76.3 for men, 81.2 for women.


Congress only added TWO years to the retirement age, yet we are living more than FOUR years longer now.


It is time to apply some common sense. We are LIVING longer, we should be WORKING longer.

There simply is no comeback to counter that logical, common sense argument.

We need to raise the retirement age to 70, immediately, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

This would go a long, long way toward balancing the federal budget.

Yeah ....no.....raise it immediately to 67......and we'll go from there after Congress cuts some of the royal perks they get.

 

[Toro]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

 

[Toro]

Actually, it is the State's business. People want it. So it exists.

More easily kept in serfdom under the name of "the people" and any Royal...Good job.

Perhaps it wouldn't exist if you had a better plan or a better argument.

 

[boedicca]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

It's snowballing into one. With the ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries collapsing towards 2:1, we are heading to the point where beneficiaries will receive less than they put in. Instead of the funds being properly invested, the government spent the money and stuffed the box with IOUs. This means that money must be collected from new people to pay off the prior contributors. Rather Ponzi-like, imo.

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps it wouldn't exist if you had a better plan or a better argument.

A great plan is to quit waving a gun in my face, while you steal my money and tell me how great your plan is....And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole, what will happen if I continually insist upon refusing to go along with The State's plan?

 

[Roo2]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't supposed to be, but it is.

 

[g5000]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

It's snowballing into one. With the ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries collapsing towards 2:1, we are heading to the point where beneficiaries will receive less than they put in. Instead of the funds being properly invested, the government spent the money and stuffed the box with IOUs. This means that money must be collected from new people to pay off the prior contributors. Rather Ponzi-like, imo.

That ratio is dropping precisely because we are living longer. A larger and larger percentage of Americans are over 65.

We are LIVING longer, we should be WORKING longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

 

[g5000]

Actually, it is the State's business. People want it. So it exists.

More easily kept in serfdom under the name of "the people" and any Royal...Good job.

Perhaps it wouldn't exist if you had a better plan or a better argument.

Precisely.

This also explains why Obamacare survives. The opponents are unable to come up with a better plan.

 

[boedicca]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

It's snowballing into one. With the ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries collapsing towards 2:1, we are heading to the point where beneficiaries will receive less than they put in. Instead of the funds being properly invested, the government spent the money and stuffed the box with IOUs. This means that money must be collected from new people to pay off the prior contributors. Rather Ponzi-like, imo.

That ratio is dropping precisely because we are living longer. A larger and larger percentage of Americans are over 65.

We are LIVING longer, we should be WORKING longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

B'loney. It's also increased because we have a dropping labor force participation rate and millions of people getting SS disability that are faking it.

 

[Roo2]

Just for ease of writing purposes, I am henceforth going to call the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age the "retirement age".

In 1982, a very cowardly Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. I call them cowardly because the 67 retirement age would not take full effect until 40 years in the future, after most of them were dead. They did not raise the retirement age immediately because they did not want to piss off the voters, and the 20 year olds who would be affected didn't vote in large numbers.

But consider the following facts.

1) In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy was 60.

2) In 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Social Security was intended to support those who lived past the average. It was not an "entitlement" for everyone. It was INSURANCE.

3) In 1965, when Medicare was added to the entitlement package, only 9 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. Remember that 9 percent figure.

4) Today, around 15 percent of the US population is over the age of 65.


What this means is that we have an unsustainable trend of a greater and greater proportion of Americans being supported by a smaller and smaller proportion of Americans.

Take a look at this: Social Security History

In 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every Social Security recipient.

By 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every Social Security recipient.

Today, there are only 2.8 workers for every Social Security recipient.

And this trend is just going to get worse.

More in the next post.

The Ponzi Scheme is still a Ponzi scheme no matter how high you make the age qualifier.

We wouldn't have this problem is people's SS taxes went into their own privately owned retirement funds instead.

Just sayin'.

SS is a bad system but it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

It's snowballing into one. With the ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries collapsing towards 2:1, we are heading to the point where beneficiaries will receive less than they put in. Instead of the funds being properly invested, the government spent the money and stuffed the box with IOUs. This means that money must be collected from new people to pay off the prior contributors. Rather Ponzi-like, imo.

That ratio is dropping precisely because we are living longer. A larger and larger percentage of Americans are over 65.

We are LIVING longer, we should be WORKING longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

Well sure, but YOUR solution is to go back and raise to an ager where everyone dies off before they can get it.

 

[Oddball]

Precisely.

This also explains why Obamacare survives. The opponents are unable to come up with a better plan.

I have a great plan: Mind your own fucking business, and quit pretending that you and your state-run schemes are in the best interests of people you neither know nor give two shits about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And who says if one keeps their own money

But there is very little reason to believe you will take home significantly more money, should the SS tax be eliminated. You would likely just be paid a lower gross amount, and the people at the top/investors would hoard more of the profit. You can watch a similar phenomenon happening right now with the trump tax cuts.

Yeah, those people who got raises and $1,000 or more bonuses sure got screwed, didn't they?

Except the statistics show that, while corporate profits have shot up, wages have stagnated. I will go with the statistics over your cherry picked andecdotes. Knock yourself out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's past time to abolish both those idiotic Ponzi schemes.

Philosophically, I agree, but in reality, it would be like trying to ban guns. It's politically impossible.

Demographics are the reality....We've run out of sheep to fleece, in order to hide the corrupt nature of these money pit scams.....Just admit it now and be done with it.

The Baby Boomers will never stop being thieves until they're all dead.

 

[Toro]

It's snowballing into one. With the ratio of taxpayers to beneficiaries collapsing towards 2:1, we are heading to the point where beneficiaries will receive less than they put in. Instead of the funds being properly invested, the government spent the money and stuffed the box with IOUs. This means that money must be collected from new people to pay off the prior contributors. Rather Ponzi-like, imo.

The average SS recipient has received more than they put in plus compounded interest simply because the average person has lived longer than originally expected. You can't expect that to last forever.

You are correct that the demographic problem will put strains on the system and ultimately will have to be changed. SS is a bad system. However, a Ponzi Scheme promises sky-high returns that are funded solely by other individuals contributions. Neither are true of SS.

 

[Toro]

Perhaps it wouldn't exist if you had a better plan or a better argument.

A great plan is to quit waving a gun in my face, while you steal my money and tell me how great your plan is....And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole, what will happen if I continually insist upon refusing to go along with The State's plan?

You are losing the argument with such ideological hyperbole.

 

[Oddball]

Except the statistics show that, while corporate profits have shot up, wages have stagnated. I will go with the statistics over your cherry picked andecdotes. Knock yourself out.

Figures lie and liars figure.

Besides that, all it takes is a relative few operators in the market to put upward pressure on wages...IOW, if just a few put their windfall into paying their employees (BTW the percentages in their business models don't change), other businesses will have to compete with them for the same laborers...This is a proven economic fact, jack.