Should Social Security be raised 70 years old?

Should Social Security be raised 70 years old?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • No

    Votes: 9 52.9%

  • Total voters
    17

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
I think it should. These Baby boomers are set to retire in about 10 years but their children will bankrupt the system.I say raise the Socal Security retirement age to 70.This will only affect people who are born after 1962.If youre born before 1962 this will have no affect you still collect it at 62 years old.
 
Werbung:

JavaBlack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
95
Location
Michigan, US
...

I agree.
People are living longer and SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It's for when you are disabled or too old to work.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
My numbers might be a little bit off, but when SS was implemented for when people turn 65, the life expectancy was 63. Even the Socialist-hero FDR himself would find it unbelievable that everyone over 65 receives SS when our life expectancy is 78.
 

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
Social Security should be for the Disabled or for poor seniors.If you have over $100,000 of property or bank account you dont quilify for social security.Your work penson is for retirement.Your Stocks is for your retirement. So i say raise the ss age to 70.
 

JavaBlack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
95
Location
Michigan, US
...

Social Security should be for the Disabled or for poor seniors.If you have over $100,000 of property or bank account you dont quilify for social security.Your work penson is for retirement.Your Stocks is for your retirement. So i say raise the ss age to 70.
In a way I agree... but because of the way SS is designed, this would discourage saving for some middle-class income people.
I think SS should pay out a flat amount indexed to inflation, that is basically the minimum for survival. I think more people would save if they knew how little they'd be getting... so little that they'd lose their homes and have to move to a cheap apartment if they did not save.
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Out of touch

I think it should. These Baby boomers are set to retire in about 10 years but their children will bankrupt the system.I say raise the Socal Security retirement age to 70.This will only affect people who are born after 1962.If youre born before 1962 this will have no affect you still collect it at 62 years old.
Where have you been? I was born in 1943 and I would have had to wait until age 66 to collect full benefits. The age for full benefits has changed to a sliding scale several years ago.
Despite living longer, people are not healthier. Most jobs are to strenuous for 70 year olds. Do you think a 70 year old should be in the sun on a hot roof putting a roof on?
The problem with social security is that the Republicans are too greedy to finance it out of the general fund. We can spend billions each week in Iraq, but want to nickle and dime our seniors.
 

bokile

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
200
Location
Florida
I think it should. These Baby boomers are set to retire in about 10 years but their children will bankrupt the system.I say raise the Socal Security retirement age to 70.This will only affect people who are born after 1962.If youre born before 1962 this will have no affect you still collect it at 62 years old.

This is a very stupid idea. It is obvious that you never traveled outside your village:eek: :eek: :D
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Social Security should be for the Disabled or for poor seniors.If you have over $100,000 of property or bank account you dont quilify for social security.Your work penson is for retirement.Your Stocks is for your retirement. So i say raise the ss age to 70.

Well steve we have some common ground here. Your idea has merit. I don't think we should go as far as you're willing to go but your idea could certainly fairly be implemented in some ways.

First I don't know if you have to go to 70. You could probably bump it up to maybe something like 68. And the $100,000 in property limit wouldn't be fair. Your home is your home. But losing the S.S. benefit on people with say any other assets outside of their primary residence of more than $400,000 wouldn't hurt them at all. They could well afford to invest some of their savings and have a "better" return than S.S.

You'd be surprised what just tweaking the system a little like this would do as far as overall savings for the fund.

One other thing. I think the asset amount to bump you out of the system could be implemented immediately. But I think the retirement age increase probably should go in effect with a certain age now for the future. Say if you're under 55 now your retirement age will be 68. Major changes like this take some time to prepare for.

Like I said I wouldn't go as far as you... but good thought process on this my friend! It shows there are ways to compromise for the better without throwing out the system many people truly do need.
 

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
Yes, the retirement age should be raised (though I don't know what age it ought to be raised to). 65 was not handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. USMC is right about the age statistics -- when SS was first established it was simply unreasonable to expect most elderly folks to live long enough to collect retirement benefits. Now it is unreasonable to expect them not to.

There is simply no way to talk seriously about "saving" Social Security (the danger to which, I should add, is massively overstated) without talking about raising the retirement age. It works because it not only reduces the number of people collecting benefits, it also, of necessity, increases the number of people paying into the system.

If this means people have to start stuffing money into their sock drawer to save up for retirement, good. This nation's rate of savings are too low, anyway.

Despite living longer, people are not healthier. Most jobs are to strenuous for 70 year olds. Do you think a 70 year old should be in the sun on a hot roof putting a roof on?

I'm always being told "Americans won't do those jobs" which is why we need to throw open the floodgates to tens of millions of otherwise-unemployable surplus Third World hand laborers.

But at any rate, most jobs don't involve backbreaking physical labor. There's no tragedy in being a teacher or a computer programmer at age 70.
 

DrWho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
141
Location
Tardis
Social Security should be for the Disabled or for poor seniors.If you have over $100,000 of property or bank account you dont quilify for social security.Your work penson is for retirement.Your Stocks is for your retirement. So i say raise the ss age to 70.


It was supposed to be a plan that once you paid into it you were entitled to withdraw from because it was your money. Adding restrictions on how you can get your own money is crazy. The best thing to do would be to lower the age to collect to 16 so that everyone who is working can get their own money back. That or raise the age to 120 so that everyone can see what a stupid program it is and we can finally get rid of it.
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
It was supposed to be a plan that once you paid into it you were entitled to withdraw from because it was your money. Adding restrictions on how you can get your own money is crazy. The best thing to do would be to lower the age to collect to 16 so that everyone who is working can get their own money back. That or raise the age to 120 so that everyone can see what a stupid program it is and we can finally get rid of it.

Well come on now it's not a stupid program at all.

If the fund hadn't been raided several times over the years all that money invested would have been enough to cover everyone at baby boomer time.

The politicians took it out there's no reason why they shouldn't shore it up now.

I do agree with you that it's "your money". And I do see some unfairness in forcing anyone to pay in but not take it back out... but I think if the mindset were that it was a required safety net just like mandatory car insurance people would probably become use to it. You hate to pay into car insurance if you never get into a wreck... but you still have to just in case.

A slight age increase of 2 or 3 years might also at some point be reasonable do to better health at slightly older ages. There are many small adjustments and a little shoring up that can keep the plan there for our elderly forever.

If we can spend $6 hundred billion and counting Nation Building in Iraq we can certainly take care of our seniors! ;)
 
Werbung:

bokile

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
200
Location
Florida
yes

It was supposed to be a plan that once you paid into it you were entitled to withdraw from because it was your money. Adding restrictions on how you can get your own money is crazy. The best thing to do would be to lower the age to collect to 16 so that everyone who is working can get their own money back. That or raise the age to 120 so that everyone can see what a stupid program it is and we can finally get rid of it.

I agree;)
 
Top