The implication to me is that the increase in Social Security's full retirement age to 67 that is already under way makes no sense. An increase to 69 would preposterous. People think they'll work a lot longer than they actually do. They do not fully appreciate the effects of the aging process until they feel them. They also overestimate what medicine can do to counteract the effects of the aging process.
10 comments:
Your logic might be a little flawed here. I think you assume the same people who are asked, "When do you expect to retire?" are the same as the people who did retire. I suspect the Gallup poll included people much younger than those who actually retired. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from looking at these two graphs. Using your same logic, people worked longer than they expected in 1996.
I agree with 8:48. As of 2010 the actual retirement age for men was pushing 65 and women will be there soon. At the same time, expectations of retirement in 2010 were around 65. If anything, the expectations of not-yet-retired workers are short of what the trends are indicating.
I'm retiring at age 55 and moving to an island nation. So long, suckers!
@10:35 Thank you for enriching the discussion. With rising sea levels, so long indeed.
"The implication to me is that the increase in Social Security's full retirement age to 67 that is already under way makes no sense. An increase to 69 would preposterous."
From a financial standpoint, the increase makes perfect sense and is in no way preposterous. As a society, we need to decide how to spend our money. Giving "retirement" money to people at age 65 no longer makes sense. Time for people to start taking responsibility for retirement instead of just expecting the government to give them money.
Yes, certainly "time" for people to take "responsibility" instead of expecting the government to give them money. Duh, people that have worked for a lifetime and have "invested" in SSA have taken responsibility and only "expect" the government to live up up their end of the deal. When I started paying in 1965, I was "told" that my SSA would be available to em at age 65. After my investing for many years, the government said, oh, by the way, we have changed our end of the deal, now you must wait until age 66. Yes, Virginia, the government should be used as an example of responsibility, trustworthiness, and fairness in all things.. Since when can a contract be unilaterally modified without "all" parties agreeing to it?? Oh, I forgot, you want to give my fair share that I have contributed to someone that has never paid into the system in the first place. My bad, I didn't understand I was dealing with idiots..
BTW...SS is not a contract. Laws are passed democratically that dictate how monies are distributed. Don't like the laws/rules, vote for new representation. Short answer, changes need to be made to ensure that the program works for society. Does it mean some people won't get what they expected? Of course, but it's a better system overall as a result. That's what living in a society entails...decisions are based on the good of the WHOLE, not the individual.
anon at 12:49...it's called "social" security, no "individual" security.
If you want personal security, start planning ahead. People shouldn't feign surprise when benefits promised by the government are less than advertised.
As someone mentioned above, they are subject to the whims of politicians, not written in stone. In this era of belt-tightening, expect more reductions as more people become entitled to benefits and fewer people are paying in. That's reality.
Anon 12:49.
What is your address? We can have the Treasury send you a check for $125,000 -- that should probably cover what you have personally contributed in social security taxes -- and you and the government can call it square. Hope you have a nice nest egg saved up as $125K will not last long.
You see, you don't have a society when you have workers bees and sit on their but bees that expect to share the wealth of the worker bees. You have what some have called communism. Is that truly better for the whole? It will truly be itneresting to find out as the worker bees quit working and there is no one contributing for re-distribution to the sit on their butt have not bees. What so ever shall happen to them?? I am sure you have the answer, but try finding an answer that doesn't involve using the worker bee money to finance it. Good luck.. And as far as laws being democratic, ask POTUS about his executive powers..
Post a Comment