Would you support raising the retirement age?

The retirement age should be 65, or even 60. Why make people work longer? The longer the work, the less time you have to enjoy your retirement.

 

So you would pay higher taxes so your economy could afford that?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) no. But at the same time, I don't want our oldies working until they have one foot in the grave. They should be able to retire early.

 

Someone has to pay for that.

But then you now have carbon and mining taxes, so maybe you would not have to further tax incomes.

 

SSI is NOT a pension. If me and my boss are not forced by the government to pay that stupid taxes, of course I could use that money for many useful way. SSI is a ponzi scheme, it transfers wealth from one generation to another, it's a broken system, the end game is near, to think otherwise is delusional.

 

More rich envy bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

In liberal world, it's all about rich vs. poor.

Yawn.

 

Lie much? Why not just tell everyone there is a troll under the SS bridge?

 

Changes of this kind should not be introduced suddenly. This would interfere with what people counted on. But I have nothing again increasing the limit by one year in each decade,
.

 

That's good Kowaskil. I propose a 100-year plan to increase the age for Social Security from 65 to 75. I further propose that people get only what they paid in plus 20% interest, and that they have the option to take it in one lump sum or annual payments for 15 years. I propose that nothing be given to widows beginning at a point in the near future. Those already collecting would be exempt from this adjustment, of course.

 

I support raising the retirement age AND raising the caps. Basically applying SS taxes to ALL income.

All would pay and you could then lower the rates for everyone.

 

In 1935 a person was on eight years of "borrowed time" just to collect SS.

That being the case, SS was easy to support.

I had a conversation with my doctor yesterday. Barring an accident, I apparently have an excellent chance of collecting full SS benefits for twenty years. My father collected for three years and my grandfather for less than a year.

At my age, less than a third of my contemporaries are dead. At the same age over half my father's contemporaries were pushing up daisies.

The Boomers will bury SS as we know it.

 

Sounds like the OP needs to brush up on SS rules. Retirement age to draw full SS has been raised by SS thru the years and most people now have to work until they're 66, 67 or 68 before drawing the full amount of money they've earned thru SS.

Not only that, the trend is for people to stay in the workforce longer... rather than retire early. Many now work well into their 70's.

Most people also pay in much more than they'll ever draw out. Take my cousin, for instance. A registered nurse who paid into SS her entire life and died from a heart attack during surgery at age 64. Happens all the time, meaning SS would be solvent if the sticky-fingered politicians would leave it alone.

 

So you are saying your cousin paid into a superannuation scheme and someone she elected in her will didn't get the benefits?

 

I certainly have no claim as expert on the subject, but to me it seems simple enough, if someone wishes to look at it honestly.

All the talk of raising this and raising that may sound good intended, but until something is done to stop the raiding of funds, it will continue on the path to being completely broke.

What good does it do to have everyone pay more into it, only to have it raided for every pet project an administration can dream up? It does zero good.

Everyone that pays into it currently, is getting screwed. Rich, poor and in between, it doesn't matter. All Washington is doing is paying lip service, to continue the same old game. The only time any politician gives a sh*t about what you pay into SS/Medicare fund, is when he/she is trying to secure your vote.

The voters should demand that some type of law/regulation be passed insuring that the funds be used solely for the intended purpose, and nothing else.

*sigh* ...off soapbox. lol

 

That's what I'm saying alright. Wills don't determine survivor benefits. Since her husband is 5 years older, he's only eligible to draw the larger of the two... his benefits or hers. His are larger, therefore her's go back into the pot to be divied up among other recipients.

Happens everyday.

 

Wow,, America really needs to brush up on its superannuation laws.

My wife and I both have employer contributed superannuation into which we have also contributed. In our wills, upon death, all assets including superannuation plus interest earned is passed onto the surviving party upon retirement.

 

Ours might as well be buried with the one who paid into it all their life. Only in the case of a person dying young do their survivors receive benefits from their years of working.

For example, my dad died at 57 (I was 15) and I was able to draw benefits from his SS until age 18 (longer if in college).

The system definitely needs some redefining; but it's not nearly as one-sided as the OP claims (people drawing more than they put in). For every case where that happens, there are 50 where people paid in more than they'll ever get back.

 

Sorry, it's only wages that get taxed for FICA. So, Senator Kerry would pay SS on his "wages" but the return on the $1,000,000,000 invested in tax-emempt government bonds would not be taxed for FICA.

 

Sorry, Claude. but there is no SS bridge. It's a Ponzi scheme. The most loved liberal tax is the most regressive tax we have. I know it hurts but pretending it's not true doesn't work any longer.

 

I'm not eligible for Social Security because I didn't pay into it. My money went into a 401k instead. Had I died, most of my 401k would have gone to my adult children. My sister will draw Social Security. If she dies, her adult child gets nothing from SS.

I retired at an age I chose and am living on income from my 401k, well, and a 485g.

I sorry more of you didn't have the choice I had.

Of course, liberals hate being responsible. A friend of mine went to a commune in the sixties and had a lovely ten years of smoking dope and free love and not working and drawing government benefits. Now she whines endlessly because I retired and she can't. I pointed out she had part of her retirement from 19 to 29 and she says, "That's different." Hell, yes, it's different.

 

Considering that it wasn't those 'greedy boomers' that spent the money, regardless of how much they 'un-voluntarily' contributed, they have the right to moan. If you, Daggdag were 64 and had the joy of seeing your hard earned wages pilfered by the government and were told by that same government that; "it's OK, you'll get it back...this is for your own welfare when you get old" And then you did 'get old', and then the government told you "Oops, sorry, we spent your money..we're broke and you're screwed", don't you feel that you'd have earned the right to "moan"? (I don't expect you to give an honest answer).
That, topped with all of you conservative 'individualists' pointing your accusatory fingers at an entire generation that worked, paid their dues and helped build this nation, calling them; 'takers, deadbeats, greedy, waiting for their place on the government's tit, and the myriad of other derogatory names. Why do YOU feel that boomers have sit by and take your crap?

 

Nobody has given a valid reason for not eliminating the cap on FICA taxes; it's a cap that supports the rich. That would eliminate much of this problem.

 

Out of touch with reality much?

Most people start "feeling" their age at about 60. Pieces and parts start failing on the body and health expenses rise. Potential employers would prefer that older employees leave the company at about 60 because the employees skills start to deteriorate.

So, raise the age to 75, and all that you would accomplish is to impoverish they elderly more than what they are now.

The projected life span does not mean anything. People may be living longer, but their quality of life in later years are not necessarily improving. Maybe increase the retirement age to 67, but that is as high as I would raise it.

 

I support nothing less than gradually pushing federal government bureaucrats completely out of the retirement business.

 

I know. Rich's greedy is bad, poor's greedy is good.