The Goat Pen

true, but the flip side of my plan is that even if he/she was a greeter at McDonalds he/she would be above the poverty level, and while I have no idea how much they get in social security, it can't be much more than $22K a year if that much. I'd allow them to start withdrawing 401K retirement money at 65 penalty free - its their money and they supposedly setup a savings plan based on receiving it at that age anyways.


so the point is, if you were planning on getting out of the work force at 65, then not having that 100K job between 65 and 72 isn't that big of a deal anyways. Society would adjust over time as people stop seeing 65 as retirement and looking at 72. By the standards of 1960, someone that is 65 now is probably more active and healthy than a 53 year old then.


As for the 65 now - there is no distinction against men/women - just pick a number that makes sense for both of them and go with it.

I know it sounds crazy but I'm talking about the difference between a soft landing and crashing into the mountain.

I know WalMark is a big company, but there's a limit on how many greeters even they can hire...

It is foolish to think that paying for 15+ years (on average) of retirement and health benefits is sustainable. You have to raise the retirement age to 75 for people currently 55 and under.

and remember that Social Security was meant to be a supplemental income.

People should be allowed to work and make as much money as they can and STILL draw social security (it is their money in a sense). The idea is they are supposed to slow down in the golden years, give up that stressful or physically demanding job and assuming they had retirement income to make it, either stop working or find something more in line with their productivity level.

The problem we have now is people at 65 look to social security as their only income, are healthy, active and look to live another 20 years on it. - all the while needing cars, housing, etc

I do think Medicare should be means tested since that is seperate from the FICA program.

I think another issue in our society that indirectly relates to retirees is the strength of families. What did we do before Social Security? Children took care of their parents. It was expected. My mother is now 84 years old. She partly lives off of social security and my dad's retirement savings. Well, in a few years the retirement savings will run out and my mom's only source of income will be Social Security, probably not enough for quality of life. My 3 siblings and I will make sure her quality of life will not take a hit because we love her and owe our lives to her.

sardis wrote:It is foolish to think that paying for 15+ years (on average) of retirement and health benefits is sustainable. You have to raise the retirement age to 75 for people currently 55 and under.

Seniors will go ape-shit over that as well. Plus, for people 55, their current job plan is much less (from the employer point of view). I have no problem raising it, but it will need to be over time. Raising for people anticipating retirement in 10 years will be very difficult. Telling a 20 year old that his retirement will not be until 75 is a lot different from telling a 55 year old, especially since currently, 76 is the average age that people tend to get very sick.

sardis wrote:I do think Medicare should be means tested since that is seperate from the FICA program.

I think another issue in our society that indirectly relates to retirees is the strength of families. What did we do before Social Security? Children took care of their parents. It was expected. My mother is now 84 years old. She partly lives off of social security and my dad's retirement savings. Well, in a few years the retirement savings will run out and my mom's only source of income will be Social Security, probably not enough for quality of life. My 3 siblings and I will make sure her quality of life will not take a hit because we love her and owe our lives to her.

actually many states still have laws about children being obligated to provide care for parents (or funding for their care). Not sure how often it is enforced. All I'm really talking about is changing the demographics and the dynamic that is making social security unsustainable in the not so long away future. And tying it to a moving number based on the health of a nation instead of locking in a number will protect us long term as its seems virtually impossible to move the number off 65 which is locked in and is a political landmine.

Same with poverty - A system is severely broken if we mandate only a high school education (hell, we don't even mandate that) and all a high school education will get you is a job below the poverty line. We are graduating wards of the state who work for minimum and tax supported income supplements. That is not a revenue neutral approach, much less growing your tax base.

one last thing - I am in favor of doing away with so many deductions and well as revamping the income investment tax to put a larger % on the wealthy - but at the same time those taxes need to drop and we need to drop all this married/head of household nonsense. If you start off with a dollar and at the end of the year you have more than a dollar you pay taxes on the difference. It really should be that simple. But at a smaller rate than what a payroll earner is paying now.

Owlman wrote:

sardis wrote:It is foolish to think that paying for 15+ years (on average) of retirement and health benefits is sustainable. You have to raise the retirement age to 75 for people currently 55 and under.

Seniors will go ape-shit over that as well. Plus, for people 55, their current job plan is much less (from the employer point of view). I have no problem raising it, but it will need to be over time. Raising for people anticipating retirement in 10 years will be very difficult. Telling a 20 year old that his retirement will not be until 75 is a lot different from telling a 55 year old, especially since currently, 76 is the average age that people tend to get very sick.

thats why you have to offer incentives, like holding off SS until 75 but allowing them to access 401Ks at 65.

I mean the whole point of Social Security when it was provided was to keep the people who at an age in their life they could no longer work protected - and 65 by todays standards is clearly still in the wheelhouse of productive member of society. You said it, 75 or whatever is more age appropriate to the time when people just can't keep up the pace (admittedly I think that is too old but I can see 72, maybe even 70)

You know my plan:
Born in
1956 to 1960, retirement benefits at 66.
1961 to 1965, retirement benefits at 67.
1966 to 1970, retirement benefits at 68.
1971 to 1975, retirement benefits at 69.
1976 to 1980, retirement benefits at 70.
1981 to 1985, retirement benefits at 71.
1986 to 1990, retirement benefits at 72.

That's a better plan, to have a tiered structure.

eCat wrote:and remember that Social Security was meant to be a supplemental income.

Yeah, to DB Plans (Pensions) and personal savings. Pensions are going away, elevating a burden from corporations. People are horrible in their retirement savings overall, including their 401(k). So, you can take Social Security away, but it will still lead to government assistance. You're only changing the name of the program paying money to seniors.

Sardis is onto something, but culturally we're not going back to the "kids help the parents" model. 40 year old kids are moving back into their parents' house...let alone the people who don't have kids (who are probably better off financially, actually).

Millionaires and their government unemployment checks...

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-million ... tment.html

Obama's Syrian Issue...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-0 ... empty.html

Looks like I finally have a chance to clear out my dvr tonight.

So that's what you're calling your colon now, your "dvr"? Interesting. In a disgusting sort of way...

Man, your posts get lamer every day. Even attention whores are starting to laugh at you.

So you're saying I made you laugh? Glad to be of service...

So sad.

I'm surprised at how well Romney is doing.

The man has done his homework.

I'm not watching, but I'm guessing that he'll probably do better than the shitshow McCain put on which is what Im guessing most expectations of these debates are based on. He still has no prayer of winning the election though.

Yeah., Romney's doing well, but it's too little too late.