U.S. To Raise Retirement Age to 70?

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So how would it feel to be working at 69 yrs of age because you have to and not because you want to? Paying taxes all those years and knowing that this is the REAL reason your back and soul are destroyed?



Maybe I'm wrong here but is this just a ploy to keep people paying taxes and to not enjoy their hard earned pensions? Let Govt. hold those funds for another decade?

money.ca.msn.com... - An influential group of business executives is pushing a plan to increase the full retirement age to 70 for both Social Security and Medicare and to partially privatize the health insurance program for older Americans.

The Business Roundtable's plan would protect those 55 and older from cuts but younger workers would face significant changes. The plan unveiled Wednesday would result in smaller annual benefit increases for Social Security recipients. Initial benefits for wealthy retirees would also be smaller.

And the other question I have is what sway does a bunch of CEO's have with Washington and what gives them the right to even attempt this?

Of course they want their employees to continue the slave labor for them while not having to pay out any retirement.

www.digitaljournal.com...

"The Business Roundtable has been identified by advocates for shareholder democracy and owners' rights as a primary inhibitor of progress in corporate governance......The critics of the Business Roundtable contend that, rather than fighting on behalf of stockholders in companies, it has focused purely on increasing executive power and compensation, thereby diminishing return to the owners (shareholders) of these firms." Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...


Hard times ahead?

Peace

edit on 20-1-2013 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



+2 more 
posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Bad idea. Already a ton of inexperienced college kids that cannot find jobs. If they make the elderly who are usualy higly disciplined, wise and very experienced compete for jobs they will get them. We will just have to dole out more food stamps and unemployment to the young instead of paying soscial security to the old. I prefer to just pay the old folks to move on to retirement and enjoy what is left of their lives and let the young do the work.

Our highly advanced manufacturing society just dont need all the people to work to keep it sustained. We gota come to grips with that and figure out how we are going to go forward when less of us are needed to work to sustain humanity.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Xeven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
I prefer to just pay the old folks to move on to retirement and let the young do the work.


As it should be.


Forcing people to keep working until 70 is about the same as working the mule until it drops in the field IMO.

Peace



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Well at least I won't have to worry about waiting until I'm 70. I'm almost 40 now ...so let's see... 30 more years of up, down and general fiscal horror? Assuming there is a Social Sec in any form in 3 decades (or 3 years for that matter) I'm sure it'll be 75 or 80yrs old by then. Maybe they'll figure only Centurions deserve it by that time.

It's like putting a rat on a treadmill with the cheese at the head. Just raise the speed a little at a time and no matter how strong the rat becomes to run faster, it'll never be enough.


I think that sums up the overall Gov't approach quite nicely, eh?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

It's like putting a rat on a treadmill with the cheese at the head. Just raise the speed a little at a time and no matter how strong the rat becomes to run faster, it'll never be enough.


I think that sums up the overall Gov't approach quite nicely, eh?

Don't forget the constant draining of the rat's blood as it runs. That blood can then be sold for even more profit.


Peace



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The Harper gov't recently upped full retirement on a gov't pension from 65 to 67. It's because of the mismanagement, and shortsightedness of the federal pension fund that this is becoming the norm. Fortunately I have my own retirement fund. Everyone should these days.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Why because we are Slaves to the elite . This just helps shows the fact that we are . Then a 50 + year old CEO of general motors making 300 million a year for how ever many years while many families struggle just to pay off a car and house .

Also with the decline of health of the population of the working class many will not even make to to see 70 .

We are only free to live how our dictators tell us to live our lives .



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
That would be awful.

It's not surprising CEO's, who make most of their money off the fruit of OTHERS labor, would be calling for such a thing. Capitalist scum.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
The Harper gov't recently upped full retirement on a gov't pension from 65 to 67. It's because of the mismanagement, and shortsightedness of the federal pension fund that this is becoming the norm. Fortunately I have my own retirement fund. Everyone should these days.


Anything to hold off on having to pay out to the baby boomers .



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Sad thing is they've somehow managed to brainwash their non-rich right wing capitalist minions to go along with their agenda of financial rape. Money over humanity agenda.

edit on 20-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by intrepid
The Harper gov't recently upped full retirement on a gov't pension from 65 to 67. It's because of the mismanagement, and shortsightedness of the federal pension fund that this is becoming the norm. Fortunately I have my own retirement fund. Everyone should these days.


Anything to hold off on having to pay out to the baby boomers .


Actually at 50 my generation is the last of the BB's. I think Gen X is up next.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
My 'National Insurance' retirement pension will not kick in until my 68th birthday here in the UK.
I expect this age to be increased again before I reach that age though.
I do have a government/civil service small pension and lump sum which will start paying out when I'm 60, so if I haven't sorted out any better plans in the next couple of decades I should at least be able to reduce my hours with that.

...who knows, I could just end up working until I die



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Aw come on guys, it is only three more years for those born after 1959 in order to receive full benefits.

What you thought it was 65? Apparently you didn't hear about the 1983 Amendments. Here is the SSA's age calculator.


And you wonder why they want to ban guns? I'd say self-preservation is the key component. Especially when the day comes that they have to explain why you have to continue paying but will never receive any benefits. Which shouldn't be too much longer they way they are running things.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I am 34 and I highly doubt that CCP will be around when I am 67 . It all has been collapsing with companies not being able to afford pensions and taking them away or at a reduction on pay out . Governments are the same funds just are not there they keep giving themselves raises and better pension packages after 6 years of office .Only thing they can do is raise taxes and that is already over 30 % of my income any more and people will start revolting .



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


in the not so distant future most of Americans will be living in RV's or conversion vans. the american dream is dead and gone



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
And you wonder why they want to ban guns? I'd say self-preservation is the key component. Especially when the day comes that they have to explain why you have to continue paying but will never receive any benefits. Which shouldn't be too much longer they way they are running things.


And there it is.


Sooner or later the masses will figure it all out and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Peace



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with "capitalist scum", as a "capitalist" would not agree to have taxes imposed at all. This is a progressive idealogical tactic . . . but the progressives love to dress it up as the fault of those that have, not as them (gov) taking from their populace. And don't assume I'm talking in red and blue terms when speaking about progressives, as they are on both sides.

The real reason for the raise is nothing more than more taxes. Yes, the gov has mismanaged SS and the bb's are starting to deplete those remaining funds very quickly. The gov for years has been raiding the SS coffers thinking they would have no problem making up later, but that isn't going to happen.

The tax angle doesn't just effect those with true pension or collecting SS, it will require those that saved themselves (through IRAs) to continue to have to pay the early withdrawl penalty on everything taken out (extra 10% over normal tax rate).

As someone who deals with these issues on daily basis, for my clients, make no mistake that this is coming from the government. Pensions and such are subsidised, insured, or combination of both by the gov. Moreover, the gov has wanted to raise on SS and Gov CSRS and FERS accts, but cannot as that puts them above age of private sector accts.

Also, if you look at the gov website on benefits, you cannot claim full SS benefits until 70 now. That was changed a few years back. While you are still eligible to "retire" at 60, SSA will reduce you benes by as much as 30%. Right now, if you are secure for the future . . . the gov has already decided they will slash you SS benefits before 70 and they want to be able to collect tax penalties on early withdrawl of personal accts. Also, SSA has already moved "official retirement age" to 67 (not 65 ). Tax, Tax, Tax and delay having to pay out.


Starting to receive benefits after normal retirement age may result in larger benefits. With delayed retirement credits, a person can receive his or her largest benefit by retiring at age 70.


I find it funny that people are getting their "eat the rich" info from the a multinational corporate-media conglomorate . . . Yes, I'm sure Comcast/GE/NBCUniversal and every other holding they control really wants America to understand the evil of corporate CEO's.


If the gov was really looking out for peoples best interest . . . they would tell you to start putting $50/mo into a moderate growth fund (non-qualified account!!!) starting at age 18/20 and gradually increase the amount of funds to deposit each month (based on salary, etc). However, you contribution should never go above 10% of gross for retirement (anything else to save goes into emergency fund or fun money account). That way, it's all your money, taxed only on gain at 15%, and no penalties or withdrawl plans. Take it all out at once if you like. Our gov/media would never tell people that though, as there would be far too many retired millionaires to account for and there goes their power structure.

Just another example (retirement accts) of the general public being too lazy to take control of their own life and too stupid to understand the rules, so the ask gov to provide for them. Well . . . don't complain when you don't like the rules that you have to follow to get you money back!!!
edit on 1/20/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/20/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/20/13 by solomons path because: spelling/add



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
In Canada, they raised it from 65 to 67 and not so long ago it was 60. At this rate, I don't plan on ever retiring.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well, I hope to be gone before I have to retire.
Work till ya drop!

I'm 26 now, I don't even expect social security and all those nice perks to exist in our draconian Mad Max future, much less make it to an age they deem eligible for retirement.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Okay guys - time to interject some reason into this thread.

Back in 1950, average lifespan in America was about 68 yrs. So, if you retired at 65, you were expected to get paid social security benefits for an average of 3 years. Now, the average lifespan is around 78 yrs, so if you retire at 65, you would need social security benefits for 13 years! In 2028, the expected lifespan will be 81. That's a lot more money. Now that the baby boomers have started retiring, there are less people paying into the system and more people getting paid by the system. There is less money in the system to be paying for all these extra years of life, so it makes sense to increase the age of social security benefits. It's not a conspiracy.

www.data360.org...





top topics
 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join