Raising the Social Security age for full benefits to 70

[Crazy Dave]

Isn't that a bunch of shit?

Of course we'll be told that we all need to make sacrifices so our grandkids won't suffer and so that America came remain great and powerful, yadda, yadda....

All I want to know is how the fuck someone who has a physically rough and/or dangerous career supposed to last that long in order to collect their full benefit?

Then by the time we're 69 they'll raise it to 75 :grr:

[truedelphi]

1. In our parents' generation, any politican that suggested this

Would be packing their bags.

And on the train home. To be met with tar and feathers' crowd.

But with so few understanding that Social Security is a fund that we have paid into, by enforcement of their laws. It has been called an "entitlement" for so long that many younger people don't realize that it was a mandated tax on our incomes.


I really don't care what they do with it, as long as they give each of us who has paid into it our refunded monies, going back to Day One as Workers. With the 9.9 interest most credit card companies would charge us.

[DURHAM D]

6. Amen.

I want a lump sum pay out for my share. I would settle for 3% for my 50 years of paying in. Hell, I would settle for 1%.

I would also be happy with a Medicare buy out. You pay in - you pay in - then you reach 65 and you have to pay each month for what I have been paying in for for 44 years. The coverage sucks and costs too much so then you have to take out private insurance to cover the poor benefit plan.

Now my parents on the other hand - they had a great ride. But they deserved it somehow because after all they won WWII. My generation - bad. We lost in the jungle - bad. But wait - the WWII generation started that stupid optional war.

[T Wolf]

2. As with EVERYTHING in our society - there is ENOUGH money. What is lacking is the

will to spend what "we" have on what is worthwhile.

But, as long as this is a nation "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich (and from the working)" - we will be forced into false-choices ala social security.

[bluethruandthru]

3. Exactly right....

There's always enough money to kill people (war) but never enough to care for them (social security, health care).

[Crazy Dave]

5. I don't know the exact numbers or where I read it first...

But I think excluding Russia and China our military budget dollar-wise is larger than all the other nations in the world combined. Something like that.

[sabbat hunter]

4. not entirely

last time they raised the retirement age, they exempted those that were close to retirement so that that they were unaffected. I suspect that the same thing will happen again. So that if they raise the age to 70 now, those 55 and up will be unaffected but those under will be.

[Crazy Dave]

8. Obviously I was exaggerating on that part

But if they get desperate enough you never know.

[zipplewrath]

7. We're going to need a new employment model

Our life expectency is going up. We are about at an inversion point where retiring at 65 will mean that we spend almost as much time "retired" as we did working. Conversely, as you suggest, although we'll be in a lot better shape in our 60's, anyone who qualifies as "manual labor" and that actually includes any job requiring physical "skill" from surgery an nursing to delivering beer kegs, will be having a hard time continuing to work into their 60s. Pilots right now "age out" in their early to mid '60s.

We're going to need an employment model (and that means there have to be actual JOBS to be had) where we don't "retire" in the classic sense at 60 or 65. We'll shift into secondary employment that doesn't require 40 hours a week, nor the full pay we have. We'll begin to access retirement funds (pensions, 401K's, etc) and also be drawing a salary that is roughly "beer money", i.e. around subsistence level income. Of course, this should be for about 15 - 20 hours of work a week. That level of employment then will take us into our 70's, when we'll begin to fully retire.

Benefits will have to be worked out for this level of activity, single payer would solve alot of this. But we can't expect people to continue to have to produce well into their 70s just to keep living. Conversely, we can't expect that we can work for 30 years, and be retired for 40.

[Crazy Dave]

9. Unemployment will be much higher if people are forced to work longer

We're never going to have large job growth in this country ever again. This is the new normal for decades to come and with more people delaying retirement, working 5 - 10 years longer than they would have there will be less entry level positions for people getting out of college. Mainly and largely the better paying white collar jobs that keep people healthy enough to work more years.

Grab your shovels kids because for now it appears there will be at least one less design/drafting job until I'm 70.

[zipplewrath]

11. Nice thought

But we're going through a layoff period here, and it ain't the youngin's that are going out the door. We're top heavy and they are making room for new blood at the bottom.

[Crazy Dave]

16. I've only seen one exception

Where my wife used to work. Parts delivery drivers, low pay, work weekends, etc. They have two guys now in their late 50s who put the other two younger drivers to shame. Old timers never applied for those positions before until they started getting let go for being "top heavy" elsewhere.

They both show up on time, grab parts and go instead of BS'ing around the store, they don't drive and text their girlfriends and even show up on the weekends like they're supposed to.

Her ex boss and her are still good friends and he said the customers are happy because they're getting their parts faster so they're sending him more orders, word is getting around town so they're getting more customers, he's loving it. When my wife worked there she was on her own and all the slack from the other three drivers was always tossed on her.

[Kolesar]

13. Grow your own food

Seriously, one could grow a quarter to half of the food you need with a modest amount of effort. You will just have to get to like eating potatoes and other root crops that you put up. I harvested spinach and other greens until December of last year.

[lob1]

10. Has anyone ever worked for a company that would

keep you until you're 70? I haven't.

[Still Blue in PDX]

12. Yes, but there is one cranky old woman that I so wish would retire!

She makes my life hell.

:grr:

[Paper Roses]

14. Geeze Louise, who is going to keep these old bodies in one piece?

They can propose to raise the age to whatever they want but the reality is, we've all worked for years. The body tends to wear out. Who the heck would want some of us old timers who can hardly walk or who have developed medical problems that make working impossible?

During the time I was looking for a job(I gave up, there was no interest in me. Why? Age, I'm sure. With age comes the natural 'left behind' in terms of technological developments. I cannot compete with some young person just out of college student who is up to date on all that is needed in today's workplace.

I would take a buy-out on Social Security in a flash. All the years my husband and I worked. He collected for 2 years before he died. I now get his benefit but it is not much more than mine would be. Who gets mine? The government. Want to get rid of me on the SS rolls, Uncle Sam? Pay me what I paid in. That will solve one problem for you.

Both my late husband and I paid into Medicare since it's beginning. He never used his benefits. He was healthy and one day died of a stroke. No sickness, nothing. Just a stroke of massive proportions. Gone. His Medicare payments went into Uncle Sam's pocket. Who knows what I might need in the future? I'd gamble on a buy out there too.

[dhpgetsit]

15. It increases the size of the workforce, driving down wages.

No wonder the corporatists like it.

[Nite Owl]

19. Good point. n/t

[newtothegame]

17. Why did they choose age 65 in the first place? Was it based on life expectancy in 1935?

If so, why is it unreasonable, 75 years later, to raise it proportionately to reflect the increase in life expectancy? Government agencies adjust EVERY YEAR for changes in demographics; why can't Social Security do it every 75?

I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but just saying the rationale seems reasonable.

[Crazy Dave]

20. I don't know why I'm even bothering but...

Sure people live longer but if your occupation is a physical one you cannot work the same at 65 as you could when you were 25. Does the "rationale" still seem "reasonable" if a 67 year old landscaper finally breaks his back after wearing it out for 47 years? Sure it is, he's still alive isn't he? :sarcasm:

[dtexdem]

18. Yes. People age at different rates.

Even 65 is too high for some, or even 62 for partial benefits. Others of us can wait longer to retire. But each increase puts more people at risk.

[Crazy Dave]

21. Kudos!

To you and the other poster who asked which company keeps people to they're 70.

[Alameda]

22. they already raised it from 65....to 66

I was amazed when I saw that. Anyone born between 1943 and 1953 can not get their full benefits until they are 66. I think it goes up after that too.