Home
Should the state retirement age be raised? I say NO! It is wrong that people should spend the entirety of their active healthy lives working, they should be able to retire with a period of time to enjoy the benefits of better healthcare and relaxation.
+4
Shale
Alan Smithee
Supernova
Jason B.
8 posters
Raising Retirement Age
Jason B.- …is a Power Member.
Join date : 2010-02-11
Posts : 2967
Rep : 70
Supernova- The Book Chamber
Join date : 2010-06-22
Posts : 11954
Rep : 182
On one hand, most people who DO retire either come out of it quickly or they, suddenly met without the obligation of doing the same job every day, slowly wither away for not knowing what to do with themselves and all their free time. But on the other hand, I agree, you shouldn't have to work your WHOLE life away just to be able to make ends meet when you're old.
Alan Smithee- ...is a 20G Chamber DIETY.
Join date : 2010-09-03
Location : 40º44’18.33”N 73º58’31.82”W
Posts : 25792
Rep : 381
By "state" retirement age do you mean the age to collect social security? It may be a moot point because S.S. probably won't be around by the time someone Supernova's age is eligible unless they fix it now. One of those fixes will likely have to be to raise the age for eligibility. There’s a good chance that I’m the second oldest member here. Is it “fair” that I’ll have to work past the traditional age of 65? I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s just the way it is. I should have planned better for my retirement because I always knew that there was no way I would be able to “retire with a period of time to enjoy the benefits of better healthcare and relaxation“ on S.S alone. You young whippersnappers should start getting your 401Ks, IRAs, etc. in order now.
Shale- ...is a Chamber Royal.
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Miami Beach
Posts : 9699
Rep : 219
They already moved full retirement age from 65 to 66 (Last year when I turned 65 - sorta like a carot on a stick that I was chasing) I can't afford to retire but make little enuf at work to draw benefits while still going in 4 days a week.
The original age of 65 was set when most workers died at that age anyhow. It was just for those who were too old for the physical labor jobs most did. So, yes it probably should be raised to accommodate the longer life spans we have now. But on a personal note, some of us get tired of going in to the same old grind day after day when you reach my age.
If the economy hadn't tanked I would be out getting another job that I enjoy and work there until they found me not moving for a couple days.
The original age of 65 was set when most workers died at that age anyhow. It was just for those who were too old for the physical labor jobs most did. So, yes it probably should be raised to accommodate the longer life spans we have now. But on a personal note, some of us get tired of going in to the same old grind day after day when you reach my age.
If the economy hadn't tanked I would be out getting another job that I enjoy and work there until they found me not moving for a couple days.
Tony Marino- …is a Global Moderator.
Join date : 2010-01-31
Location : New York
Posts : 26786
Rep : 607
I think the retirement age should be about 50 years old if you have worked at least 25 years of your life. People should be able to enjoy their life after working so many years. If you want to or need to continue work that is your privilege but I think people should get full retirement benefits at 50.
Shale- ...is a Chamber Royal.
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Miami Beach
Posts : 9699
Rep : 219
It's a good thot, but basically the way SS is funded now, it is a Ponzi scheme. All the working ppl right now are paying the pensions of all the retirees now.Tony Marino wrote:I think the retirement age should be about 50 years old if you have worked at least 25 years of your life. People should be able to enjoy their life after working so many years. If you want to or need to continue work that is your privilege but I think people should get full retirement benefits at 50.
In a couple years when all those Baby Boomers hit retirement age, the working population will not be putting in enuf money to support all the money going out. The money has to come from someplace so they are thinking of deferring the cost by upping the age.
Like I said, the original sociail security was not intended to be a retirement plan but was supposed to alleviate all those destitute starving old ppl who could no longer work. 65 was the age most men died in those days so it was viable for the few survivors.
If benefits were paid at 50, the person would be drawing on the system for over a quarter century at todays life-span. It can't be done.
Alan Smithee- ...is a 20G Chamber DIETY.
Join date : 2010-09-03
Location : 40º44’18.33”N 73º58’31.82”W
Posts : 25792
Rep : 381
Maybe they'll come up with a Logan's Run deal. I ain't going without a fight :biggrin:
Nystyle709- ...is a 20G Chamber DIETY.
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : New York
Posts : 27030
Rep : 339
They should lower it.
Marc™- …is a Chamber DEITY.
Join date : 2010-01-30
Location : Michigan
Posts : 12006
Rep : 212
They should definitely lower it. I think retirement age should fall between 55 and 65 (approx. 60)
Shale- ...is a Chamber Royal.
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Miami Beach
Posts : 9699
Rep : 219
Did anyone read my posts?
Social Security is going broke because people live beyond the life expectancy when benefits started at age 65. Social Security is not going to be able to provide for all the old ppl living into their 80s and 90s as it is now.
Here's a question.
WHERE DO WE GET THE MONEY TO KEEP SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT IF WE LOWER THE AGE?
I think here is where we put the common statement: "Do the math."
Social Security is going broke because people live beyond the life expectancy when benefits started at age 65. Social Security is not going to be able to provide for all the old ppl living into their 80s and 90s as it is now.
Here's a question.
WHERE DO WE GET THE MONEY TO KEEP SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT IF WE LOWER THE AGE?
I think here is where we put the common statement: "Do the math."
Chris- Chamber Admin.
Join date : 2010-01-30
Location : Oak Park, Michigan
Posts : 23201
Rep : 330
Shale wrote:They already moved full retirement age from 65 to 66 (Last year when I turned 65 - sorta like a carot on a stick that I was chasing) I can't afford to retire but make little enuf at work to draw benefits while still going in 4 days a week.
The original age of 65 was set when most workers died at that age anyhow. It was just for those who were too old for the physical labor jobs most did. So, yes it probably should be raised to accommodate the longer life spans we have now. But on a personal note, some of us get tired of going in to the same old grind day after day when you reach my age.
If the economy hadn't tanked I would be out getting another job that I enjoy and work there until they found me not moving for a couple days.
True. Since kids being born today are projected to live to be 100, I wouldn't be surprised if retirement age is one day moved up to 75+.
Nystyle709- ...is a 20G Chamber DIETY.
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : New York
Posts : 27030
Rep : 339
Shale wrote:Did anyone read my posts?
Social Security is going broke because people live beyond the life expectancy when benefits started at age 65. Social Security is not going to be able to provide for all the old ppl living into their 80s and 90s as it is now.
Here's a question.
WHERE DO WE GET THE MONEY TO KEEP SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT IF WE LOWER THE AGE?
I think here is where we put the common statement: "Do the math."
And? SS is OUR money that we've put into the pot while we were working. The government ain't giving it you. So it's dumb to say that the age shouldn't be lowered because the government doesn't have the money. What the hell wants to work like a dog until they're 75? What kind of quality of life is someone going to enjoy retiring at 80? That's ridiculous. First off, if the age is lowered, then that's obviously less money that has been put into the pot for SS so that's less money that the government has to pay back out on a monthly basis. Secondly, the workforce wouldn't be losing anything if the age is lowered because the younger generations will be working and picking up the work load. The only reason SS is going bankrupt is because these grimy politicians are using the money for other things that it was intended for. People today already ain't getting shit from SS anyway, it doesn't compete with the cost of living and old people who are on it are still poor. They need to (and they damn sure can) find a way to keep SS solvent.
» NEW ADDRESS: http://conversationchamber.ipbhost.com/
» New project
» st pattys day
» White smoke signals cardinals have selected a new pope
» Red?
» Do You Look Like a Celebrity?
» Canned Foods
» English Muffins or Toast?