Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. To Raise Retirement Age to 70?

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
People cant/wont/dont retire anymore anyway. Unfortunately, retirement is a remnant of a bygone era.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by geocom
 



man you dont know how badly i wish i could be doing this right now,

if i were single and had no kids i would be living in a 1999 ford econoline conversion van. i even have it planned out

since the backseats of the van fold down to turn into a queen size bed i would sleep in the van, then on the top shelf i would bolt on a 20" flat screen. then i would by a portable wifi hot spot. and spend my days online and watching netflix. sometimes i would park by the beach and go fishing or just enjoy the view.

thats the true american spirit, being free and adventurous and not being tied down, and taking some risks. unfortunately i got kids and a wife who doesn't see it my way, iim tied down to the system until it collapses and then we have no choice but to do it my way.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
This is insane, with the amount of sugars, starches, and prescription drugs kids are on these days, anyone under the age of 30 will be incapable of functioning by the time they are 70.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


There should be no retirement age. Everyone should rely on themselves and not Government. Therefore, each person should work/or not work whenever they choose. The family unit had been the "retirement" and caregiver of the old and infirm, the younger generation was always looked to for the security of the older, just as it was cared for by them when they were children. The destruction of the natural family leads to insecurity and dependence on Government. If you depend on the Government then you can expect to work as long as they say. You can also expect to work at what they choose for you and for how much they choose to give you. It's not far off for the majority of people now.

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. (Revelation 6:6 KJV)

This penny refered to was a denarius. It was the equivalent of a days pay. The measurements of food mentioned equal an amount sufficient to sustain a man for a day. Sound familiar? It's basically paraphrased by what communism believes to be Utopian. It is the reason the world government is collapsing the economies around the globe. If you have nothing left, you will gladly work all day for them doing, whatever, for your daily pittance of food.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Social Security (in the USA) does not contribute to the deficit. Social Security is well funded. Social Security taxes were massively raised by Reagan to fund the baby boomer retirement. Social Security has $2.7 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds, that are just as valid and legal as any other US Treasury bonds, to fund baby boomer retirement. Finally, US life expectancy increase has stalled. For white women with less than a high school education, life expectancy has dropped five years, similar to what happened when the Soviet Union dissolved. The dream of the rich is to loot Social Security, so they can fund more tax cuts for themselves. They do not propose decreasing your payroll taxes, only your benefits.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
US CEOs are probably the most vile life form that can be found. The average salary of a Fortune 500 CEO is $13 million per year. They practice rampant age discrimination. These scumbags insist retirement benefits that have been paid for must be cut, and people must work until they are 70. However, they do everything they can to rid themselves of older employees.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matt1951
US CEOs are probably the most vile life form that can be found. The average salary of a Fortune 500 CEO is $13 million per year. They practice rampant age discrimination. These scumbags insist retirement benefits that have been paid for must be cut, and people must work until they are 70. However, they do everything they can to rid themselves of older employees.


Your two post contradict each other in sentiment. On one hand you claim SSA is wonderfully funded and holds trillions in bonds (which are a horrible investment, but hey that's the gov!). Then you say how it's the CEO's that don't want to pay these benefits?

Their companies already kicked in their 6.2% for SSA and another couple percent for Medicare . . . that money now resides with the gov for future dispersement. The CEO's aren't the ones trying to keep "your money" it's the gov. CEO's don't want you working until you are 70. What the hell am I, as a CEO, going to do with a company full of 70yr olds? Again, that's the gov.

Also, you don't seem to be conscious of the fact that all budget lines, like SSA, have a continuous ebb and flow. The money you or I see taken out of our check doesn't go to D.C. c/o us and put in a box with our name on it. Every day so much comes in and so much goes out . . . while there is a surplus, boomers are still approaching retirement and there will be some big montly hits on the horizon. It is impossible to sustain and will collapse, in the near future, without reform. And our gov has shifted money before from SSA, due to the "ever coming stream of SSA payroll credits".

If you want to complain that this is just a tax/wealth grab scheme or even that the gov just doesn't want to give back any of it (or can't) . . . I'm there with you. But, when you go off on some progressive "eat the rich" rant because you are either jealous or I don't know what . . . sorry. Unfortunately, your second post cements your position of propaganda thrower. It's not the poor, it's not the rich, it's not corporations, or religious sects, not foreigners . . . it's the gov and while they are backed by the MIC, it isn't the CEO's that sit around planning world takeovers.
edit on 1/21/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
CEOs currently are leading the charge to raise the retirement age to 70, and to use the chained CPI to cut benefits. I could Google search for you, but these are current events you can readily find.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senduko
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Hush you fool, do you think those fat politicians will work till 65?
Tell your statement to a metal worker or a woodworker...


Yes, actually, they do. Look at the number of politicians who are still working well past retirement age. Many are past 80. It doesn't matter if you like what they do. They get up early. They go to the office. They come home late, and there are usually nightime meetings. It's not the kind of life I would enjoy.

Now, about the age 65 as "retirement" age. Why did that happen? Because the Kaiser in Germany was up against labor unrest and invoked a pension for workers at age 65. Why 65? Because that was the life expectancy. The idea was that if you just happened to live longer than expected, the pension was designed to provide a bit of money to help with your upkeep, with the family expected to provide shelter for you. The pension at age 65 was intended as "death insurance" in case you lived too long.

Nowdays we get completely upset if the government doesn't agree to provide you with a middle class lifestyle at retirement ages that are earlier than 65. Social security, as an example, was NEVER intended to provide your ENTIRE income at retirement.

Now, here's a fun exercise. If you took all the money you have PAID INTO social security during your working life, including both your personall contribution of 7.X% and your employer's contribution of the same anount, and stuck that money in a typical long-term CD which protects the principle entirely, and has historically paid slightly greater than inflation (over 10% during the Carter years, zilch today), then you would have had enough money to live until your life expectancy.

All by yourself. All on your own. Nobody else helping. If you planned on living greater than your life expectancy, well, then, perhaps you needed to save more than that 15%. But th egovernment decided they needed to save us from ourselves again, and now we face the result.

In the Kaiser's day you were expected to pay your own way until you were dead. There was no expectation of a few leisurely years of retirement when you didn't have to do anything. Indeed, the entire structure of government payments would have been unthinkable in the 19th century.

Unemployment compensation? What???? You get paid for NOT working????
Welfare? You've got to be kidding me!
Social Security? A complete joke!
A pension? If you were in the right place, you might get a little bit.
Retirement? For the successful people who saved for it. Not for spendthrifts.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
It stands to reason that if you raise the age of retirement ? There will be fewer recipients left to collect and for lesser time.
edit on 21-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matt1951
The dream of the rich is to loot Social Security, so they can fund more tax cuts for themselves. They do not propose decreasing your payroll taxes, only your benefits.


While the American citizenry fought against one another in culture wars, corporations and the legislatures beholden to them formed the American economy around a financial industry. The fringe, extremist, reactionary John Birch Society would become mainstream thought, helping the privateers get rid of that, in their ideology, Communist system.

Citizens would be scared/talked into how bad the system is, pleasing the Birchers and leave the financial industry salivating to get their accounts on all that money.


According to the study, the financial services industry would reap a $940 billion windfall in fees and other administrative charges for managing private accounts, while expenses could take 20 percent of the typical beneficiary's account.

source

Hell, I've got a bil who's complained since the 1960s that, if only the govt would give him his money to invest himself, he'ld be rich by now. Well, he's now 70, relying totally on Social Security, because his own savings were lost in his "investments". Oh, and he had to stop working his part-time job a couple years ago, because his other shoulder gave out.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The Buffet Rule - which Democrats in the Senate rejected - simply states that the total tax rate the wealthy pay should be at least the total tax rate the middle class pay. Hell, it should be twice as great. Mitt Romney paying 14%, the greedy have never had it so good. So they want to steal what is left. One the thing CEOs are missing is a heart, which no amount of money can buy



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Next time it will be 100! Got cut spending some how. Congress President take a pay cut? l.o.l yeah right.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
The alarming thing about peoples view on this issue is that there are this many people who think they're going to be able to retire at all.


I agree most will work until the day they die....like it was for the last 2 million years give or take 75 years...

The whole SS thing to me is stupid. If SS is your retirement plan you are in trouble, even if it pays in full to you, you are in trouble and will need to keep working. SS to me will be beer money if it is there so I care little since I'll retire when I'm ready and SS has zero to do with it. BTW I'm still having kids in my 50s so smoke that in your pipe...hehe



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I don't see why not. Let's look at Greece... Recently:

Greece Agrees To Raise Retirement Age



Greek Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras has reportedly agreed with officials from the so-called "troika" of international lenders to raise the retirement age in Greece by two years to 67.


It would be completely messed up to be affected by this, but it is not beyond governments to do such things to pay back their debts to the banks.

Besides, if the US does change the retirement age to 70, based on the lack of any form of meaningful resistance to anything the government does, this would pass... Or I guess people could just not work to protest this



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 




Look at the number of politicians who are still working well past retirement age. Many are past 80. It doesn't matter if you like what they do. They get up early. They go to the office. They come home late, and there are usually nightime meetings. It's not the kind of life I would enjoy.


This is called feeding off the tax payer. Early morning breakfasts, afternoon golf and evening dinners...sounds like retirement to me. And we pay for it while working in factories, fields and slaughterhouses to support them.

Get real.

Peace



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


well im sure alot of high paying execs would "like" to stay working, then being "forced" out due to retirement, sure for the rest of us scabs seems like a crap deal, if you make 500 thousand dollars a year and someone forcing you out, id want to change the laws as well, thats another couple mill you can rake in before you retire.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join