Make 70 the new 65 new age to retire

it happened to FRANCE and all over Europe .... what do you think about it happening to the USA???

Make 70 the new 65
By Michelle Malkin • April 13, 2011 08:52 AM

michellemalkin.com...


snippett

"It’s time for a 21st-century retirement age
If 40 is the new 20 and 50 is the new 30, why shouldn’t 70 be the new 65? The last time Washington politicians tinkered ever-so-gingerly with the government-sanctioned retirement age, Ronald Reagan was in office and Generation X-ers were all in diapers. Since then, American life expectancy has increased by half a decade and continues to rise – while the “traditional” retirement age (established eight decades ago) has only recently begun phasing up to 67 and the official “early” retirement age (established four decades ago) remains stuck at 62."""





REALLY??!!


read her story.....


and then tell me what you think??

I'm here all evening....

Retire at 70? No thank you. Who wants to retire when you start falling apart? 60 is an okay retirement range for me. I live for the weekends already so why would I want to wait and retire when I'll already have one foot in the ground?

move it to 70 and see if America
doesn't have riots bigger than in Europe.
Go ahead I dare ya !!!

The fact that people think that social security was built as a long term pension fund is ridiculous. YOU should be responsible for your own retirement. Plan for YOUR future because social security is not meant for that.

Secondly people are living longer and doing more with that time. When social security was created no one expected beneficiaries to live more than 4 or 5 years after reaching eligibility age. These days people reach that age and continue to live for 10-15 years more all the while collecting those benefits. This causes problems with long term solvency of the SS program and without adjustment the program will go broke.

We can all whine about reality or accept it. Those are your choices.

Work people to the bone until they just can't anymore huh? Yeah okay, that dog won't hunt monsignor.

The longer you work the more money you make for TPTB....Why work till your so old you have to take a vacation in a wheel chair.....Not for me....Just another way for them to steal more of your money...

I could only see this being a good thing in an ideal world, as in the wages were appropriate to your experience, inflation, cost of living ect. Minimum wages being enough to one day own a home maybe....


Hard to think its anything other than what others have already said ...just another way to soak the general public of every last cent.

When you break down all the various taxes and retaxes in this area the amount is close to 48% of what comes in, this seems rediculous to me...yet what to do about it.


Peace.

reply to post by projectvxn

In the UK, social security was always our retirement plan and we paid a large chunk of money each week out or our wages to pay for it. We have worked all our lives to pay out for retirment pensions of the previous generation and also all of the other benefits that was required in society. Child allowance, unemployment benefits, disability pensions etc. We felt it was our social contract to do so.

Now after a lifetime of working and paying out it is due to us. It is the otherside of the social contract for our government to cough up.

The issue is that our governments have squandered our payments on God only knows what and they want to renage on the deal. Private pensions have only been around for the past 20 yrs or so and what little we had accrued has been filched by financial advisors and fund managers and for me at least 50% was wiped out by the financial crisis.

Please forgive me for sounding a little p!$$ed off by your statement.

I started working when i was 14..

I am now 50..

so for 36 years i have paid my dues..

at 65 i will have worked for 51 years...

I think that's enough..

reply to post by kennyb72


You can be pissed off if you wanna. This isn't the UK.

Where are the younger folks coming out of college, with families to support, going to work, if the older workers don't retire?

People won't be leaving the work force, but remaining in the higher paying positions. Seventy year olds can't do hard labor and construction, so the one's who stay will be in the higher paying professional positions. Something a young man or woman with a family could certainly use........ And they can pay into social security, as the older person has been doing for probably 5 decades.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
Work people to the bone until they just can't anymore huh? Yeah okay, that dog won't hunt monsignor.

Yeah, actually it will hunt and was the original reason 65 was chosen as a retirement age. Bismarck of Germany faced social unrest, so he agreed to establish a pension fund for people who managed to live past their life expectancy of 65. People WERE expected to work until they died and most did. The pension was there just in case you beat the odds not so much for you, but so you did not become as much of a burden to yiur family, which was still expected to help you out. This was just a way to ease their burden a bit.

Now, of course, many of us believe a government funded retirement is our "right." It's a fanciful notion.

reply to post by kennyb72


I agree completely. The money they took was mismanaged, spent on who knows what (wars), and now they want to cry and whine because they don't have the money.

Who's retiring at 65? Not me. I can't afford it. My goal is to try to keep finding interesting jobs that are less and less physically demanding, and just keep working until I drop dead. I recognized a long time ago that I'm not going to be like one of those active retirees you seen in all the insurance ads, riding bikes and playing tennis. That's just a myth being sold to you by people who want your money.

The way life works is that you live, you work, you get old, you die unpleasantly. Welcome to reality.

How dare old people live longer! It's not constitutional and they should not be allowed to live past 70, drinking the hard earned blood money from hard working young people who just got out of high school.

Imagine the gall of these old farts who paid a portion of their lifetime earnings into the social security system and living long enough to get out more than they paid in. That's not cricket!!!

What's the answer?

Oh... btw, I turn 65 in October and applied for my Canada Pension allotment just yesterday AND I hope I live to be 200 because I put in enough over 45 years of working to get the maximum. Yay!

Sue me.

reply to post by angeldoll


That is part of the problem right there. Some time in the 70's to very early 80's businesses decided that they needed people with college degrees to fill the most mundane of supervisory and middle management roles. Now that was a remotely good idea for a short time as it placed larger paychecks in younger hands which would spend them on the most ridiculous of items...like time share condos. Because paying full price for something you can only use a few weeks out of the year, has to be shared with who knows how many other couples just screams intelligent purchase. Let alone the division of it should the marriage end up in divorce, which had a high percentage chance.

Now I said this was a somewhat good idea, here is the downside. The older workers never advanced into those jobs over time. They stayed right where they were which left less openings for high school graduates to enter the work force. Add in the outsourcing and switching from a manufacturing economy to a service economy in the 90's as well as housing loans to anyone with a pulse with deferred balloon payments and eventually something had to give.

Back in 1989 as a senior paper, I wrote what conditions would need to be met in order to have another large scale war that instituted a draft. My number one condition was large unemployment of youth with no end in sight. Yes, my paper spelled out a draft to be used for population control. But there was more to it, like our current deficit coupled with longer lifespan by medical breakthroughs.

As for Social Security, there is a huge problem. My future retirement payments are not comparable to even widow's benefits paid today to worker that made far less pay than what I do today. In fact, I would be hard pressed to make it today on what those payments will be. Add another 27-30 years inflation without adjusting those payments and guess what? Retirement will mean death by poverty and old age. That is assuming of course that I stay in good health over the years. I guess they can prop me up at the front door of Wal-Mart and stuff food stamps in my pocket until I eventually drop dead.

And yes, being born in 1970 makes me a Generation X member. Generation Y is already started graduating High School and began to enter the workforce. Their children (and some are starting already) have no hope for a job unless there is a radical change in the way things are done. Of course my Social Security statement is slightly different than my father's. My paragraph two mentions don't count on this to be here when you retire at 67 with full benefits. But if it is, this is what it will be.

So the question is, where does my deduction go? I pay for the grandparents of my generation as well as my parents. Who will pay for mine when the time comes? The children of Generation Y. The same ones that have no hope of finding work that I mentioned above until I retire. Of course they will have children of their own long before then. In other words, the house of cards, the robbing Peter to pay Paul will end on the shoulders of Generation X. The ones with no chair when the music stops. Not that we have much of a chair today. As far as savings go...I was laid off right after the inauguration, took a low paying job to have a job that has ended as state and local budgets have dried up from losing tax revenues of all the people that were laid off.

My investments for retirement include guns and ammo. The question is will retirement come significantly earlier than expected as to when they will be put to use?

reply to post by Ahabstar


Well said my man...

Well said!!!

No. Lifetime of servitude or nothing. I want a life sentence to be imposed on all at the time of birth.

What will it take for people to wake up and realize that we are living beings and not machine operators. The old ways are on their last legs but I expect the old guard to go out with a roar. I imagine there is not much time left for them, a new and better age of mankind will come to be. TPTB know this and are rushing to take all of the freedoms and powers away from the people to protect the old ways as they are comfortable.

It's all just banks, monopolies, control freaks in suits and uniform. They know not what they do but only how to feed their thirst for power, like a sick fetish people work to ENSLAVE THEMSELVES. All for a failed idea, concept passed down by another man...Another man who realized a truth so simple it was too late for him to turn back time and enjoy the time he could have had with his family...

You get the idea.

-Regards

does it say something bad about system that were so messed up we need people to retire at age 70 now?

whats there left to do at 70?

And I agree with some of the above posters, SS wasnt meant to be the end all retirement plan and people need to realize that.

reply to post by VonDoomen


Very much to do at the age of 70...Nurse the aches and pains of a lifetime of servitude and medicate the health conditions brought upon by the fruits of your labors. Remember how your friend worked for a company such as Monsanto or BP or Tepco and look around you at people falling ill along with you at the Legion.

It brings new meaning to the term or phrase: Contributing member of society

-Regards