Two points to consider

[Freewill]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

While 7 years isn't a short period were you surprised it wasn't more? To hear most folks you would think people were all living to 100.

 

[Freewill]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

Actually that is just one of the fairy tales you folks like to tell yourself. Makes debate so much easier when you start with a false premise.

NO, ISIS is a religious army of Muslims, they are not a small group. Plus considering is see very few Muslims willing to stand up against the radical, I am thinking they are complicit.

But of course some idiot kid goes off and shoots a bunch of folks and you are more then willing to throw everyone into the same bucket. You know you do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

Again, what do you think should happen then? Should SS not have the retirement age ever increase?

I didn't say that any age increase would have to happen right at this moment. It could begin only for those who haven't paid into the system yet. However, if people are living longer after retirement age, some sort of adjustment seems prudent.

Well step number one is to consider whether we even want the program or not. If we want to keep it, then we have to fund it, say 10% higher deduction from our paychecks. If not, then we need to phase it out gradually so that nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something.

I totally agree with you that it simply can't go on as it is today. The system is headed for a brick wall and nobody is trying to stop it. However we can't wait until last minute to figure out the problem because by then, it may be way too late. Plus the fact it doesn't matter when you are born, if you have a physically aggressive job, it adds 10 to 20 years on your body.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

Again, what do you think should happen then? Should SS not have the retirement age ever increase?

I didn't say that any age increase would have to happen right at this moment. It could begin only for those who haven't paid into the system yet. However, if people are living longer after retirement age, some sort of adjustment seems prudent.

Well step number one is to consider whether we even want the program or not. If we want to keep it, then we have to fund it, say 10% higher deduction from our paychecks. If not, then we need to phase it out gradually so that nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something.

I totally agree with you that it simply can't go on as it is today. The system is headed for a brick wall and nobody is trying to stop it. However we can't wait until last minute to figure out the problem because by then, it may be way too late. Plus the fact it doesn't matter when you are born, if you have a physically aggressive job, it adds 10 to 20 years on your body.

BULLSHYTTE, Pub dupe. That's AARP's #1 myth. Even if nothing were done, it's good for 20 years. If they linked the upper limit of payroll taxes to inflation, there NEVER would be a problem. You GOPers are brainwashed chicken little fools of a-hole billionaires.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

Again, what do you think should happen then? Should SS not have the retirement age ever increase?

I didn't say that any age increase would have to happen right at this moment. It could begin only for those who haven't paid into the system yet. However, if people are living longer after retirement age, some sort of adjustment seems prudent.

Well step number one is to consider whether we even want the program or not. If we want to keep it, then we have to fund it, say 10% higher deduction from our paychecks. If not, then we need to phase it out gradually so that nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something.

I totally agree with you that it simply can't go on as it is today. The system is headed for a brick wall and nobody is trying to stop it. However we can't wait until last minute to figure out the problem because by then, it may be way too late. Plus the fact it doesn't matter when you are born, if you have a physically aggressive job, it adds 10 to 20 years on your body.

BULLSHYTTE, Pub dupe. That's AARP's #1 myth. Even if nothing were done, it's good for 20 years. If they linked the upper limit of payroll taxes to inflation, there NEVER would be a problem. You GOPers are brainwashed chicken little fools of a-hole billionaires.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

Actually that is just one of the fairy tales you folks like to tell yourself. Makes debate so much easier when you start with a false premise.

NO, ISIS is a religious army of Muslims, they are not a small group. Plus considering is see very few Muslims willing to stand up against the radical, I am thinking they are complicit.

But of course some idiot kid goes off and shoots a bunch of folks and you are more then willing to throw everyone into the same bucket. You know you do.

Refute this:

The US has more Muslim countries as allies than it does Muslim countries as enemies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

Actually that is just one of the fairy tales you folks like to tell yourself. Makes debate so much easier when you start with a false premise.

NO, ISIS is a religious army of Muslims, they are not a small group. Plus considering is see very few Muslims willing to stand up against the radical, I am thinking they are complicit.

But of course some idiot kid goes off and shoots a bunch of folks and you are more then willing to throw everyone into the same bucket. You know you do.

You're complicit then for condemning President Obama for killing terrorists with drones.

 

[Montrovant]

Following the logic that set the eligibility date at inception, today it should be at least 75.

Age 75? ridiculous. Even a truck driver at 62 can be falling apart. Eyesight, back, hips........A desk job with 3-4 hour stop/go commute can wipe out many by 65, sciatica, hip, knees. you folks is crazy.

When age 65 was decided upon, life expectancy was about 50. Now life expectancy is around 80.

You can not expect a fund survive when the 'takers' outnumber the 'givers'.

If you can see that don't you think accuaries can see the same problem? Back when SS started there certainly were a lot of people who collect a lot more then they ever put in. But that is natural when something starts new. That time has passed those who are lining up for SS paid their entire lives. They were promised a payment in return, now is their time.

I went through the numbers before. Yes, the life expectancy at birth when SS started was lower then it is today. But the life expectancy at 65 is approximately the same. In colonial times if a woman could make it through her child bearing years she could expect a long life, not much different then today.

Never the less actuaries look at these numbers, they recognize a problem, IN THE FUTURE, and steps will be taken.

Actually, this inspired me to do a little looking, and from what I found, life expectancy at 65 has gone up a decent amount since 1939, just a few years after the Social Security Act was passed. The numbers I found show life expectancy from birth in 1939 was about 64, while in 2014 it was about 77. In 1939 a 65 year old was expected to live another 12-14 years, while today the average is 19-21 years.

Here are the sites I got the numbers from, the CDC and SSA :
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life39-41_acturial.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus14.pdf#016
Calculators: Life Expectancy

So we have a 13 year increase in life expectancy from birth from just after the inception of SS and a 7 year increase in life expectancy from age 65 from the same point. A 7 year increase in retirement age from the original age seems reasonable based on those numbers, particularly if it would help with keeping the program solvent.

While 7 years isn't a short period were you surprised it wasn't more? To hear most folks you would think people were all living to 100.

I might have thought it would be a slightly bigger gap, but I wasn't really that surprised. I usually think of a big gap in life expectancy being prior to the 20th century when compared to today.

 

[Montrovant]

I bet you wouldn't say that when I'm hauling 45,000 lbs. of freight making my vehicle weigh 75,000 lbs total gross weight at the age of 72, and you're in front of me when the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the highway.

Since I wasn't basing my comments on the potential age of drivers, and also since based on the numbers I provided, 72 would be retirement age, and since anyone who cannot safely perform their job, whatever their age, shouldn't be doing it in the first place and would hopefully be kept from doing so by their employers, sure I would.

So what are employers supposed to do then, let an employee come to work and read the paper all day? Of course not. They would lay that employee off. And then with no SS, all they would have is a temporary income on unemployment and then out into the streets.

It's not our fault we were promised something that might be hard to accomplish right now. Had we taken action earlier, we could have eliminated SS and allow people to invest that money into the private market where they could possibly retire before the age of 65.

But we are stuck now, and there are many blue-collar jobs that can't keep people there until the age of 72. My industry is only one of many. I have two cousins that are remodelers. Both are struggling to make it to 65 now.

Again, what do you think should happen then? Should SS not have the retirement age ever increase?

I didn't say that any age increase would have to happen right at this moment. It could begin only for those who haven't paid into the system yet. However, if people are living longer after retirement age, some sort of adjustment seems prudent.

Well step number one is to consider whether we even want the program or not. If we want to keep it, then we have to fund it, say 10% higher deduction from our paychecks. If not, then we need to phase it out gradually so that nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something.

I totally agree with you that it simply can't go on as it is today. The system is headed for a brick wall and nobody is trying to stop it. However we can't wait until last minute to figure out the problem because by then, it may be way too late. Plus the fact it doesn't matter when you are born, if you have a physically aggressive job, it adds 10 to 20 years on your body.

BULLSHYTTE, Pub dupe. That's AARP's #1 myth. Even if nothing were done, it's good for 20 years. If they linked the upper limit of payroll taxes to inflation, there NEVER would be a problem. You GOPers are brainwashed chicken little fools of a-hole billionaires.

Do you think the SS retirement age should be permanent, even with increasing life expectancies?

 

[Freewill]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

Actually that is just one of the fairy tales you folks like to tell yourself. Makes debate so much easier when you start with a false premise.

NO, ISIS is a religious army of Muslims, they are not a small group. Plus considering is see very few Muslims willing to stand up against the radical, I am thinking they are complicit.

But of course some idiot kid goes off and shoots a bunch of folks and you are more then willing to throw everyone into the same bucket. You know you do.

You're complicit then for condemning President Obama for killing terrorists with drones.

I don't condemn anyone for killing terrorists, 16 year old American boys and innocent civilians, that's what you condone.

 

[Freewill]

So it IS wrong to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. No shit. How many times have we had to tell you that before it finally sunk in.

Actually that is just one of the fairy tales you folks like to tell yourself. Makes debate so much easier when you start with a false premise.

NO, ISIS is a religious army of Muslims, they are not a small group. Plus considering is see very few Muslims willing to stand up against the radical, I am thinking they are complicit.

But of course some idiot kid goes off and shoots a bunch of folks and you are more then willing to throw everyone into the same bucket. You know you do.

Refute this:

The US has more Muslim countries as allies than it does Muslim countries as enemies.

How about I agree and say, thank you GWB? Do you agree with that?

 

[amrchaos]

Wait, where did you get 1)

i don't consider all gun owners as lunatics. I consider the lunatics that shoot people as lunatics. Hey, did we not have a case where a lunatic stole the gun before he shot up an elementary school?

He did not own the gun he used. I hope this connection between lunatics and guns do not fly over peoples heads.