Posted on 03/06/2005 6:47:30 PM PST by Libloather
These are the same people who stick their parents into medicaid nursing homes and basically disown them. What do they think they're going to do when they get old? Oh yeah, they don't think about it. Or they brag about the retirement plans they're making for themselves. Well plans don't always work out.
In practice, in real life, SS has acted as a safety net for the long-lived working poor. It's done that effectively and well. By asking it to do more we've arrived at our current, unsustainable, highly divisive position.
This was done in 1983 raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 for full benefits. There are plenty of jobs in our society that have hard physcial demands. Working in a coal mine at 69 is not all that feasible.
The solution is to give people control over their retirement assets, i.e., own them. The current SS system beneftis can be changed by the whim or desire of Congress. Changing the retirement age is just more tinkering rather than solving the problem permanently and fairly.
As a 34 year old, all I can hope for is that SS is completely and utterly dead before my grandchildren get raped by it, although it's sure that Americans for many many generations to continue to feel the disasterous effects it is having upon the economy.
I guess both parties hope that we die before we can collect. That way the Federal Government does not have to payout Social Security to everyone. What a concept! If Social Security was a private company, then it would have been shut down for fraud.
I agree with that. I am only pointing out that when Germany began retirement plans they chose 65 because they knew few people would actually live long enough to collect full benefits.
Although the retirement age was raised to 67 that is realistically not enough to offset longer living and the strain on the SS & Medicare systems.
I totally agree that what is needed is a well thought out private system with out the Government where the income is 3 to 5 thousand a month and healthcare can be made more affordable with greater choice and competition.
Isn't that great? These are the same politicians who are now resisting President Bush's call to allow Americans to take a part of their Social Security taxes to put into private retirement accounts. If they'd go to bat for those 5 million workers to remain out of Social Security, to avoid the adverse impact of lower rates of return and lost flexibility, why would they fight to deny tens of millions of workers a right to use a portion of their taxes to do the same?
Walter E. Williams
I say raise the retirement age for collecting SS and if you want to retire earlier use your own savings.
Workers collecting payments today are getting out more than they put in. Workers under 30 will get less than they put in. They will get even less if you raise the retirement age. Someone could start working at 18 and contribute every year until 69, 51 years, drop dead and never collect a penny. It is no wonder that those under 30 support personal accounts by a 2 to 1 margin and just the opposite is the case for those above 55.
Sorry but you are wrong and AARP has the votes to stop you.
SSRI is a safety net, pure and simple. That meanss it is insured by the Federal government, not some Wall St. huckster.
If you want your own private plan there are more than enough options. SSRI is still the third rail and your opposition shows a lack of respect for your elders (not uncommon for narcissists).
BUMP
Actually there are only about 2 workers and I am well aware of the demographics and problems.
Raising the retirement age is a stop gap at best.
In retrospect the retirement age probably should be 80. That should take care of most of the problems as most folks will not make it to retirement.
Bottom line is that there are not a lot of solutions that will be be acceptable.
Exactly right - Putting into place private accounts for those paying Soc Sec is the single most important legislation GWB will pass in his entire Presidency -
The loss of wealth (or wealth being stolen) from the working class and working poor in this Country via the Soc Sec system is simple criminal.
Good comedy there - Surly you jest -
What are elders have done is they simply voted in a type of economic slavery on future generations -
It would be like today if we voted all those under 15 years of age....that they would have to be society's slave once they turned 18 (to say age 25).....Does anyone seriously think intellectually that these yet to be 18 years would are indebted to be society's slaves once they do turn of age (18) -
Obviously no one would agree with this -
Yet, that is exactly what Soc Sec is - A form of economic slavery on those who never voted for Soc Sec to begin with.
Let FDR's socialist boondoggle collapse at the hands of the do-nothing Democrats. The irony would be perfect.
On Rush today, Walter Williams was filling in and read the original proposal for SS. The lying government pushers of this scheme said that no one would ever be taxed more than 3% on the first $3000 of income. We ought to sue the Feds for their fraud in selling a false product, just the way the SEC would go if a pension company tried this.
Raising the retirement age "moves the carrot" further beyond where all workers are - both the younger and the older - and NO ONE likes it. Poor, ill-conceived suggestion coming from the Republicans. If they're smart, they'll soft-pedal this one quickly.
As a few posters have already pointed out - raising the retirement age results in the spectacle of older workers (many of whom already "struggle" towards the end of their careers) no longer able to physically perform the tasks of their careers, at an age where it is all but too late for them to learn to do anything else.
Who would want a 70-year-old pilot at the controls of their airliner? (yes, I _know_ the retirement age for pilots, and why do you think there _is_ one?)
Who would want to drive on an interstate filled with aging truck drivers trying to beat the clock at age 69?
Would you want a 70-year-old woman running the Acela Express train you were riding on at 150mph? (yes, there are women who run them)
The fact that people are living longer does not guarantee that they remain physically capable of _working_ longer in the chosen career paths of their youth.
No one knows how long they will live, nor can they state with bold assurance the physical condition they'll be in at age 70. Life can deal one some nasty twists and turns. I agree with previous posters who sensed that those who so blithely cry, "raise the retirement age to 70!" are themselves younger, too young to understand the ravages of the years. They have no idea "where they will be as they turn 66, 67, 68 - yet they feel comfortable telling everyone _else_ that _they_ must work beyond that point in their lives.
Right now, Mr. Bush's plan is all but dead in the water. I don't see Social Security getting "fixed" any time soon. It's going to take an imminent, and undeniable, crisis to muster the collective will of Congress to take steps to save the program - and the steps they take when that time comes will [of necessity] be drastic. Still, I don't think raising the retirement age will be one of them.
Not sure if private accounts can make their way into any final scheme, either, unless the Democrats see the light and drop their opposition. Just not going to happen.
Cheers!
- John
"Actually the lucky ones are those who can keep working at jobs they love until they die. Look at Allan Greenspan, at Clint Eastwood, at Senator Byrd, etc."
You had better hope you are one of the lucky ones. The way you talk leads me to believe that you think most people in the U.S. have decent paying jobs with benefits. That is not the actuality. I just heard recently that only 20% of the U.S. population makes over $50,000/yr. That means obviously, that 80% make under 50k a year. Many of that 80% fall into lower middle class to poor. Granting that X amount of those people will be screw-offs, the vast majority of them, due to a variety of factors including intelligence level (blame a lot on our increasingly lousy public school system), physicical abilities or the lack thereof, bad luck, poor health, rural areas w/few available jobs, etc. etc. don't get great jobs with benefits. Think housekeepers and maids, janitors (unless union), fast food chains, Avon ladies, cleaning services, etc. Now, these people may get ok but not much money, most likely no pension plan at all, ,most probably no 401k to feed into, and will probably retire with SS as their main income. Ok, such is life. But I don't think one needs to further exacerbate the situation by raising the retirement age to 70+.
By the way, the first two points of mine that you responded to, have you heard of the word facetious, such as in "being facetious" to make a point. Never said SS should be eliminated. Just the opposite. Am advocating that the retirement age not be raised from what it is now, and some other method of reform be sought.
What have I said that makes you think that? Reread my posts and you'll come to the opposite conclusion. Nonetheless I think raising the retirement age is the best solution to our problems. It makes the program solvent without raising taxes and actually will allow more enterprising workers to invest privately without taking anything from Social Security.
That many poor will suffer - as you say - is valid but one has to be practical. In today's political climate I think that's the best we can do.
Hey, thanks, fooman. Glad to have the company.
I still think the best way to solve SS would be to make it completely voluntary, or in other words, allowing anyone who wants to to completely opt out of the system. Folks who opt out wouldn't be able to collect, but more importantly they also wouldn't be forced to contribute.
That is why Europe has a euthanasia problem. The young decide that the old are too much trouble due to the high taxes that have to be imposed to keep up the welfare state.
Fully funded pensions elminate the presuure to kill off the old. Walter Williams made a passing allusion to this during today's show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.