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

[Pumpkin Row]

Ah, yes, I'm sure the businesses will conduct their business here in the face of infinitely rising tax rates

Non sequitur nonsense...what are you, an AM radio host?

t's not rhetoric that taxes are theft, it's fact.

No, it's idiotic fantasy.

You said that "we" raise their contributions, most rich are self-made, meaning that they owned businesses, or own businesses. ARE you claiming that you fix the economy by taxing the everloving hell out of businesses, and potentially causing them to leave for locations with lower taxes? It is also, in fact, infinitely rising, because the number of people in the US will increase, and as further innovations are made, people will live longer. So, yes, it will necessarily increase infinitely, it is unsustainable.

You did not provide a counter argument as to how it isn't theft, in response to my citation as to why. You are refusing to make an argument, likely because you're aware that you're wrong. You know, because to argue that it's not theft, you'd have to explain how calling yourself government makes it okay to steal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah, yes, I'm sure the businesses will conduct their business here in the face of infinitely rising tax rates

Non sequitur nonsense...what are you, an AM radio host?

t's not rhetoric that taxes are theft, it's fact.

No, it's idiotic fantasy.

You said that "we" raise their contributions, most rich are self-made, meaning that they owned businesses, or own businesses. ARE you claiming that you fix the economy by taxing the everloving hell out of businesses, and potentially causing them to leave for locations with lower taxes? It is also, in fact, infinitely rising, because the number of people in the US will increase, and as further innovations are made, people will live longer. So, yes, it will necessarily increase infinitely, it is unsustainable.

You did not provide a counter argument as to how it isn't theft, in response to my citation as to why. You are refusing to make an argument, likely because you're aware that you're wrong. You know, because to argue that it's not theft, you'd have to explain how calling yourself government makes it okay to steal.

We don't have to tax the hell out of them. There is plenty of wealth to go around. Your only argument boils down to "tax increase = infinite tax increase", which is hamhanded and dumb.

Just raise the contribution limits. they will still be rich, people will still make a lot of money, go team.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ah, yes, I'm sure the businesses will conduct their business here in the face of infinitely rising tax rates

Non sequitur nonsense...what are you, an AM radio host?

t's not rhetoric that taxes are theft, it's fact.

No, it's idiotic fantasy.

You said that "we" raise their contributions, most rich are self-made, meaning that they owned businesses, or own businesses. ARE you claiming that you fix the economy by taxing the everloving hell out of businesses, and potentially causing them to leave for locations with lower taxes? It is also, in fact, infinitely rising, because the number of people in the US will increase, and as further innovations are made, people will live longer. So, yes, it will necessarily increase infinitely, it is unsustainable.

You did not provide a counter argument as to how it isn't theft, in response to my citation as to why. You are refusing to make an argument, likely because you're aware that you're wrong. You know, because to argue that it's not theft, you'd have to explain how calling yourself government makes it okay to steal.

We don't have to tax the hell out of them. There is plenty of wealth to go around. Your only argument boils down to "tax increase = infinite tax increase", which is hamhanded and dumb.

Just raise the contribution limits. they will still be rich, people will still make a lot of money, go team.

Yes, yes you do, it's unsustainable for the reasons I've explained in my previous post. Ponsi Schemes are unsustainable, this is a Ponsi Scheme, as a Ponzi Schemeit will necessarily infinitely increase. Businesses would need to continue making money and conclude that locations with lower taxes would make them more money.

You neglected to respond to my statement regarding taxes being theft, your admission of defeat is noted.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, yes you do, it's unsustainable for the reasons I've explained in my previous post.

Which were garbage. I reject them. I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and i think your view of taxes is useless and fantasy-driven. the mathematics behind making social security soluble are in place and ready to act upon.. No, businesses will not flock away, that's a load of horseshit. No , rich people will not "quit trying" or all move to the Caymans. In fact the economy will flourish, as fewer people will live on a subsistence level. They are the people who actually spend tall their disposable income in our ground level economy. They don't destroy it stupidly by the bundle, like wealthy people do.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

Those that signed up for this "benefit" were coerced to do so by the threat of not being able to work because they didn't understand their rights. 15 percent of every fiat federal reserve note was confiscated and told that it would be doled out to them once they reached the age of 65. USA.INC stole from the fund even though this corporate entity never put a dime in the fund.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, yes you do, it's unsustainable for the reasons I've explained in my previous post.

Which were garbage. I reject them. I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and i think your view of taxes is useless and fantasy-driven. the mathematics behind making social security soluble are in place and ready to act upon.. No, businesses will not flock away, that's a load of horseshit. No , rich people will not "quit trying" or all move to the Caymans. In fact the economy will flourish, as fewer people will live on a subsistence level. They are the people who actually spend tall their disposable income in our ground level economy. They don't destroy it stupidly by the bundle, like wealthy people do.

Well, then, you must either believe that A: The population of the US will not continue to increase, or B: Ponzi Schemes are not unsustainable. If it's B, feel free to go invest in one. However, feel free to explain in detail the mathmatics for making a Ponzi Scheme sustainable, and while you're at it, I'd also love to hear the mathmatics behind dividing by zero as well.

So, you're saying that businesses are not driven by profit? I'm pretty sure they are, but if you can prove that they're fulfilling a demand by selling products to NOT earn a profit, go for it.

If my view on taxes is driven by fantasy, then please explain to me how the government isn't stealing by literally stealing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, then, you must either believe that A: The population of the US will not continue to increase

And you must believe it will increase infinitely, given your comments on "infinitely increasing" taxes. The only difference being, you actually said that, while what you just attributed to me is completely made up by you.

B: Ponzi Schemes are not unsustainable.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. I reject this nonsense, sorry. Peddle that zero-hedge fantasy somewhere else. I recommend at zero-hedge.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

After being told all my life that social security is at age 65, I and everyone born January 1, 1960 and after, have to wait two more years.

I missed that cut off by 6 lousy months. Had I been born 6 months earlier, it would still be 65 for me. Just as I was getting close to seeing that end goal, the goal posts were moved on us.

If you want to change retirement age again then do it on people who aren't working yet. Not on us who have spent decades in the work force and are close to that end goal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

First, and immediately, the maximum amount for social security (payroll tax) needs to be doubled, currently it is $128,400; everyone with earned income needs to pay into Medicare and Medicaid; all citizens need to be covered from cradle to grade with preventative healthcare.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well, then, you must either believe that A: The population of the US will not continue to increase

And you must believe it will increase infinitely, given your comments on "infinitely increasing" taxes. The only difference being, you actually said that, while what you just attributed to me is completely made up by you.

B: Ponzi Schemes are not unsustainable.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. I reject this nonsense, sorry. Peddle that zero-hedge fantasy somewhere else. I recommend at zero-hedge.

That would be because it WILL increase infinitely, because taxes must be raised to continue the Ponzi scheme in accordance with rising population, as I've explained three times now. I've clarified my position, unlike you.

It IS a ponzi scheme, the scheme being run by the government does not prevent it from following all of the same rules as everything else. When the government kills someone, it's murder, when the government arrests someone, it's kidnapping, when the government takes property, including money, it's theft. Declaring themselves government and our rulers does not change this. The crime syndicate, known as government, is still populated by people, and as people they are subject to everything any other person is.

I also want to point out that saying "I reject this" does not refute my argument, it just means you don't want to believe it. I see it as no more than covering your ears and yelling "Lalalala, I can't hear you!".

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd rather invest "my share" in pocket aces....Higher probability of a ROI.

The problem is that people like you would invest in get-rich-quick scams like Trump University courses, and then march on Washington to support you after you were wiped out.

SS is a stay poor scam

The FACTS contradict you. But don't let that stop you from parroting the bullshit fed to you by your propagandists.

The FACT is that if a person had control over the money confiscated for SS they would live a far more financially secure retirement.

For example the per capita income in the US ( of people 15 and over) is just over 50K a year

But let's use a more realistic number

35K

If a person makes 35 K a year every year for the duration of his working life say 21 to 66 what would his monthly SS check be?

Well the average SS check is just over 1400 a month so let's use that but we should consider that the person in this example would most likely get less since his income is below the average.

So 35 k a year

That's 181 a month taken out for Fica and the employer matches it

so 362 a month

Lets invest that at the 7% average return of the S&P 500

362 a month for 45 years

That's 1,381,290 dollars

Now how long will that last if he earns 3% on it in a bond fund for example

Let's say our person lives on 35 K a year in retirement

Notice he didn't have to decrease his standard of living in retirement

That money would last forever as he would not live long enough to spend it all

Compare that to the less than 1400 a month he will get from SS

and you should come to the conclusion that SS is a keep you poor scam

Your big mistake is that you invested the employer and the person's contribution.

Try going back and just investing the individual's $181 a month.

At your optimistic 7 percent ROI, that comes to $435,283 after 40 years. That's only 12 years on $35,000 a year.

And that assumes in that 40 year investing period the low income individual won't have car repairs, illnesses, etc.

Your employer matches what is taken from your pay. ( or didn't you know that?) I include the match because both the employee and employer contribution are taken for SS

And the employer contribution is actually part of your salary

And the money taken for SS can't be used for car repairs so why would the same amount of money invested in a private account have to be used for car repairs?

And FYI 7% is what the S&P 500 has averaged so it's hardly an optimistic ROR

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

And there you have it, hit the nail on the head.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It Is Past Time To Raise The SS And Medicare Eligibility Ages, because we have to pay for the 5 million non-citizens and at least that many inappropriately collecting disability, yannow

 

[Oddball]

Yes, yes you do, it's unsustainable for the reasons I've explained in my previous post.

Which were garbage. I reject them. I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and i think your view of taxes is useless and fantasy-driven. the mathematics behind making social security soluble are in place and ready to act upon.. No, businesses will not flock away, that's a load of horseshit. No , rich people will not "quit trying" or all move to the Caymans. In fact the economy will flourish, as fewer people will live on a subsistence level. They are the people who actually spend tall their disposable income in our ground level economy. They don't destroy it stupidly by the bundle, like wealthy people do.

 

[Oddball]

I reject your imbecilie's rhetoric that taxes are theft.

 

[WorldWatcher]

After being told all my life that social security is at age 65, I and everyone born January 1, 1960 and after, have to wait two more years.

If you were born December 31, 1959 full retirement age is 66 years 10 months, that's two months not two years. (I know this because I was born in December 1959.)

I missed that cut off by 6 lousy months. Had I been born 6 months earlier, it would still be 65 for me.

No it wouldn't.

Just as I was getting close to seeing that end goal, the goal posts were moved on us.

If you want to change retirement age again then do it on people who aren't working yet. Not on us who have spent decades in the work force and are close to that end goal.

Actually - IIRC - the retirement ages were changed in the early 1980's, my math says that was about 35 years ago.

If you were born six months after the January 1, 1960 deadline - congress would have changed the age requirement when you were 23, not as you approached 65 and then tacked on two years. It was tacked on when you still had 42 years left to reach even the full retirement age.


.>>>>

 

[Oddball]

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.

First, and immediately, the maximum amount for social security (payroll tax) needs to be doubled, currently it is $128,400; everyone with earned income needs to pay into Medicare and Medicaid; all citizens need to be covered from cradle to grade with preventative healthcare.

 

[bendog]

It's a tax, not a retirement investment. And none of us can opt out of taxes we don't like.

"Retirement investment"....ROFLMAO!

you think it should be one.

 

[Oddball]

It's a tax, not a retirement investment. And none of us can opt out of taxes we don't like.

"Retirement investment"....ROFLMAO!

you think it should be one.

No....It shouldn't exist at all.

 

[bendog]

After being told all my life that social security is at age 65, I and everyone born January 1, 1960 and after, have to wait two more years.

If you were born December 31, 1959 full retirement age is 66 years 10 months, that's two months not two years. (I know this because I was born in December 1959.)

I missed that cut off by 6 lousy months. Had I been born 6 months earlier, it would still be 65 for me.

No it wouldn't.

Just as I was getting close to seeing that end goal, the goal posts were moved on us.

If you want to change retirement age again then do it on people who aren't working yet. Not on us who have spent decades in the work force and are close to that end goal.

Actually - IIRC - the retirement ages were changed in the early 1980's, my math says that was about 35 years ago.

If you were born six months after the January 1, 1960 deadline - congress would have changed the age requirement when you were 23, not as you approached 65 and then tacked on two years. It was tacked on when you still had 42 years left to reach even the full retirement age.


.>>>>

The date on which one is eligible for "full" soc sec benefits shouldn't surprise anyone. The "rules" have been consistent for 40 some years, as you posted. And they've been availabele onlne. Soc sec still mails out their summary of benefits to each worker, which also explains eligibilty and benefits, though they aren't mailed every year as they once were.

But it does seem confusing, at least to me, that you have to do the medicare application BEFORE age 65, and you do that at a Soc Sec Office. I mean you don't have to apply for medicare, but if you don't and sign up later, it'll bite you in the ass.

I think it's somewhat applicable to the OP to note that you can get soc sec beneifts at age 62. And I know people who did. But it reduces your monthly benefits compared to what they'd be at "full retirement age," and maybe worse penalizes you for earning above some limit with employment while getting benefits. The people I know who did this basically got screwed in the great recession, and haven't found "decent" jobs since then. And they aren't disabled.