Raising retirement age to 69 is cruel and stupid

[Freeper]

Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu Dec-02-10 10:05 AM
Original message
Raising retirement age to 69 is cruel and stupid   Updated at 11:51 AM
   
Edited on Thu Dec-02-10 10:13 AM by Bragi
Seriously, I'm 60 years old and I have the good fortune to be semi-retired now. I could retire completely, but choose not to because I enjoy working half-throttle in my professional area. (I write and do public policy consulting work.)

However, there is no way whatsoever that I can imagine working in my profession until I'm 69. I'm in good health, but I just don't have the energy levels needed to perform at anything close to a full-time level' let along"compete" with people 20 and 30 years younger.

I'm also (and here's a dark secret) not as good at what I do as I used to be. Sure, I can offer some wisdom and a lot of experience, but when it comes to doing gritty research and analytical thinking, and writing it all up, I'm nowhere near as proficient as I used to be.

How do I know that? I know because we recently downsized and I had to sift through and discard boxes and boxes of work material. What shocked me when I read my earlier work was how much sharper and more thorough I was 10-15 years ago than I am now.

I'm Canadian, but lots of people here think, like many Americans, that because older people are now in better health, (I'm glad for that) that people can therefore work clear through at full speed until they are 69, after which they will qualify for social security.

Well that won't happen. What will happen is that older people will just fade away before they get any SS benefits, which is really the idea behind these cuts.

Seriously, young people should not allow this cutback in SS to occur. This is something worth taking to the streets on. If you don't stop this cruel move, you will seriously regret it when you get older and have to drag your sorry ass into a workplace where you cannot function well, let alone compete with people 30 years younger, who should have the jobs anyway.

best regards to all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9672080

When you depend on the govt for your very existence then you are at the mercy of that govt.

Ginto (320 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu Dec-02-10 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. We really need to look at lowering it by at least a decade and a half.
   
It truly is ridiculous.

You think the govt is broke now? Lower the age to 55 for SS benefits and see just how broke our nation will go.

rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu Dec-02-10 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
23. It's also absolutely unecessary since SS can be made permanently solvent   Updated at 11:18 AM
   
by eliminating the salary cap.

:headbang:

And even better how about we force the evil rich to pay in and they don't get a dime back either since you guys are obviously more deserving of that money. 

guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu Dec-02-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. If they raise it to 69
   
I want my money back, all of it. That's not what I signed up for when I started paying FICA over 30 years ago. Give me all my damn money back and I'll decide how to invest it for my retirement! :grr:

You almost sound like a *gasp* freeper.

leftcoastie (80 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Dec-03-10 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
115. Serfing
   
We are nothing but serfs in the cogs of industry. And we are in plentiful supply, so when you or I die, there's many more to replace us. Life is meaningless to industry, only money matters.

I know, it's not like you could put away money in some kind of private retirement account and retire earlier or anything like that. SS is the only option in the world. 

[JohnnyReb]

The ponzi/pyramid scheme needs more suckers paying in....or it will collapse.

[Allentownjake]

Moot points, they are arguing about raising the retirement age in what 2022?

By that point, the entire "retirement" ponzi will be collapsing not just the Social Security one.

Pension funds, 401(k)s, Housing.

An asset is only worth what you can sell it to another person when you want to liquidate it.

The two generations below the baby boomers are going to have higher cost of living and lower pay and thus lower discretionary spending.  Not exactly the group of people you are going to be able to sell stocks and bonds to for retirement.

[USA4ME]

These fools never bother to look up and see what the average lifespan of American men and women were when SS set the age of receiving benefits at 65.  That number was picked for the specific reason to ensure that very little would ever be paid out.  To remain consistent with the intent of SS, the gov't should take what the average lifespan of men and women are now, add about 3 years to the highest number, and make that the new retirement age.

As it stands, I'm almost 50, and SS will be there when I retire, but it will be greatly diminished from what someone will receive if they're turning 65 today.  Medicare will be there too, but it will also be rationed more than it is now.  Over the years, both will continue to offer less and less.  This is the story of the social safety-net; compassionate concept, looks good on paper, but ultimately it costs more in order to receive less until at some point it's not worth proping up anymore.  It's economically unsustainable unless, like I pointed out, one makes it where the ability to collect becomes virtually unreachable.  But then doing that introduces a whole new set of problems.

.

[Allentownjake]

These fools never bother to look up and see what the average lifespan of American men and women were when SS set the age of receiving benefits at 65.  That number was picked for the specific reason to ensure that very little would ever be paid out.  To remain consistent with the intent of SS, the gov't should take what the average lifespan of men and women are now, add about 3 years to the highest number, and make that the new retirement age.

As it stands, I'm almost 50, and SS will be there when I retire, but it will be greatly diminished from what someone will receive if they're turning 65 today.  Medicare will be there too, but it will also be rationed more than it is now.  Over the years, both will continue to offer less and less.  This is the story of the social safety-net; compassionate concept, looks good on paper, but ultimately it costs more in order to receive less until at some point it's not worth proping up anymore.  It's economically unsustainable unless, like I pointed out, one makes it where the ability to collect becomes virtually unreachable.  But then doing that introduces a whole new set of problems.

.

My observation is the entire retirement schematics of people right now are about to face a harsh reality because the economy has been gutted and their is no economic resources to support the dreams of people either in Social Security or with their 401(k)s and Pensions.

[Wineslob]

I'm Canadian,

So STFU.

[Tucker]

guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu Dec-02-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. If they raise it to 69
   
I want my money back, all of it. That's not what I signed up for when I started paying FICA over 30 years ago. Give me all my damn money back and I'll decide how to invest it for my retirement! :grr:

This is the only viable option. President Bush proposed this very thing and the DUmp monkey's almost rioted in the streets.

[dandi]

This is why we wanted it privatized, DUmbasses.

Are you getting the picture now you ignorants shits?

[DumbAss Tanker]

You can retire whenever you can afford to, the only age under discussion is the age for Social Security benefits.

[thundley4]

This is why we wanted it privatized, DUmbasses.

Are you getting the picture now you ignorants shits?

Instead, the DemonRats in Congress want to take over private retirement accounts.

[true_blood]

Moot points, they are arguing about raising the retirement age in what 2022?
By that point, the entire "retirement" ponzi will be collapsing not just the Social Security one.

I agree. By the time they actually want to implement this idea, it will be far too late.

[Allentownjake]

I agree. By the time they actually want to implement this idea, it will be far too late.

The entire argument of Privatization vs. Government sponsored is moot when the economy has gutted to support neither.