Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[g5000]

Life expectancy: Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2010

Percent of population over 65 in 1930 and 1960 (see page 9): https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p23-209.pdf

Percent of population over 65 in 2014: USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau


We see that in 1935, when Social Security was enacted, life expectancy was 61.7. The average person wasn't even going to live long enough to collect Social Security. That's why it is called insurance.

And that is why just 5.4% of the population was over 65 when Social Security was enacted.


Moving forward to when Medicare was added to government retirement benefits (1965), we find the average life expectancy had increased to right around 70 years.

We also find the percentage of Americans over 65 had climbed to 9.2%. Remember that number.

Today, the average life expectancy is 78.7 years, and the percentage of Americans over 65 is now at...drum roll please...

14.5%

We are rapidly approaching a tripling of the original senior load.

This is an unsustainable trend. We either have to cut benefits, or increase the eligibility age.

And that is why you consistently hear me say we need to immediately raise the eligibility age for Medicare and SS to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Looking at the numbers for 1965, you can see where I get the 9 percent figure.



Put simply, we are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

 

[initforme]

Social security is the one thing millions upon millions depend on to barely scrape by. Good luck messing with it.

 

[danielpalos]

I vote we end the drug war first, before adjusting social security.

 

[initforme]

Legalize pot then tax it and pump it into as since a very large percent use it

 

[danielpalos]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

 

[Kosh]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

More proof you are far left drone!

How about a single payer system where I pay my doctor without any interference..

 

[leftwinger]

Incrementally increase retirement age and increase the salary cap, and I suspect we'll be fine without decreasing benefits.

Then, once the Baby Boomer population passes through the system we'll probably be able to decrease that tax.

Much ado about not much.
.

Even if you want to wort to 70, traditional employers don't want you. Layoffs round the clock for those 55 and up. 62 seemed fair.......optional to 67.

 

[leftwinger]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

 

[leftwinger]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

Yes. We should blame them, DemWits and ourselves. "We" voted in too many lunatics for too long. SS is a pyramid scheme doomed to fail without constant tinkering. They started stealing funds 40 years ago and no one has done anything about it!

GWB gave us TSA and big budget Homeland Security and Medicare extra and what else? Duplication.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

Opting out of social security? Isn't that what caused us to have as much socialism as we currently have? How did that work in 1929?

social safety nets are not an option for first world economies, but a requirement.

simplification simply costs less.

 

[leftwinger]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

Opting out of social security? Isn't that what caused us to have as much socialism as we currently have? How did that work in 1929?

social safety nets are not an option for first world economies, but a requirement.

simplification simply costs less.

I believe if you opted out you had to put the same funds in some sort of 401K

 

[danielpalos]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

Opting out of social security? Isn't that what caused us to have as much socialism as we currently have? How did that work in 1929?

social safety nets are not an option for first world economies, but a requirement.

simplification simply costs less.

I believe if you opted out you had to put the same funds in some sort of 401K

what about the unemployed?

 

[leftwinger]

The response to simply raise taxes on the wealthy seems easy but, there are so many screwed up parts of GOVT do you raise taxes on wealthy to fix them all? (DEBT, medicare, whatever).

How do they separate Small business from wealthy? Small business gives you jobs to live on. If you tax them they just pass it on to customers. We pay....need a good smart businessman to fix it all. Not some Orange faced Alkie or turtle headed goof and a Community organizing thief or a lying hag!

I am becoming Angry again.........serenity now.


My most huge pet peeve! Urban talks says New immigrants and Illegals get SSI and their elderly relatives! Never payed a dime in but they hand it out............DemWits want a vote any way they can steal one. Please let one thing not be true and hidden from us by political sleeze!

 

[leftwinger]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

Opting out of social security? Isn't that what caused us to have as much socialism as we currently have? How did that work in 1929?

social safety nets are not an option for first world economies, but a requirement.

simplification simply costs less.

I believe if you opted out you had to put the same funds in some sort of 401K

what about the unemployed?

If you unemployed you not adding to your SSI fund anyway. When you reach 62 you get squat. Stay on Welfare forever. They ain't in either program.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we "blame the Right" for not coming up with such simple solutions for free; while claiming we need to reduce our tax burden.

GWB tried to fix it when first elected........newcomers could begin to opt out. HE was lambasted by media DemWits and RINO too if my lame memory is good? His idea did not get started.

In fact I remember his idea seemed quite good.

Opting out of social security? Isn't that what caused us to have as much socialism as we currently have? How did that work in 1929?

social safety nets are not an option for first world economies, but a requirement.

simplification simply costs less.

I believe if you opted out you had to put the same funds in some sort of 401K

what about the unemployed?

If you unemployed you not adding to your SSI fund anyway. When you reach 62 you get squat. Stay on Welfare forever. They ain't in either program.

Now we know why we have as much socialism as we do; moral capital hazard for free.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

I could support that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

LOL:

Stealing is against the law, taxes are passed and legally imposed.

Your idea of fairness is ridiculous, a horse race, a handicap in golf and a progressive tax system are examples of things which each seek fairness.

A bank charges double digit interest and pays less than 1% interest and charges those with small balances a fee, while providing loans at a lesser rate to those with large accounts and paying a higher rate of interest isn't fair, and is an example of legal institutional discrimination.

Double digit interest? Are you living in 1978? My mortgage was about 4%, my stepfather's car loan is 1.5%.

 

[SAYIT]

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

SS is not intended to be sole support but rather to supplement

There are many legit reasons why one could be in poor financial straits at retirement but those who failed to sacrifice some spending and save for retirement have indeed failed and, I would argue, did so knowingly, perhaps believing others - family or gov't - would carry them.

SS's biggest problem is the mass of soon-to-be retired (and collecting SS) baby-boomers. Currently there are 5 workers for every SS beneficiary. In 10 years the ratio will be 3.5 to 1.

A bank charges double digit interest and pays less than 1% interest and charges those with small balances a fee, while providing loans at a lesser rate to those with large accounts and paying a higher rate of interest isn't fair, and is an example of legal institutional discrimination.

Double digit interest? Are you living in 1978? My mortgage was about 4%, my stepfather's car loan is 1.5%.

Wry seems to live in a loony leftist fog where any lie that smears "the rich" is justifiable. Hers is a pretty common Bernie Sanders lament where the rich are rich because the poor are poor.

It's stupid but it seems to make them feel good about themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.