Actually, it was set at 70 at the time of Germany's enactment. It was lowered to 65 in 1916. As to whether very few people lived that long, that could be true and I'm curious as to how affordable the program was (likely very) with that in mind.
The closest I am to figuring it out is the contributions were paid in equal parts by the worker and employer, ranging from 4 to 10 "pfennigs" per week, 47 weeks out of the year, variably based on earnings with high earners paying more. But calculating for inflation more than a century is difficult, and calculating for a dead currency is more difficult.
Also, there was a disability component allowing getting on the program early, although there was a 12 month minimum period of disability required, and the earnings level was 1/6 average wages (I did the math and that is remarkably similar to SGA, albeit slightly lower). Oddly similar to our program.
A pfennig is equivalent to a cent. With that in mind, there is also the possibility that the language I see is referring to "per cent," not a flat amount. If that's the case, 4-10% contributions by both the employee and employer is similar to the US' 6.2%.
Q6: Is is true that the age of 65 was chosen as the retirement age for Social Security because the Germans used 65 in their system, and the Germans used age 65 because their Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, was 65 at the time they developed their system?
A: No, it is not true. Generally, age 65 was chosen to conform to contemporary practice during the 1930s. (See more detailed explanation.)
He chose the age of 65, because at the time very few people lived that long.
ReplyDelete@156 life expectancy was lower then because so many babies and young children died. Quite a few people lived past 65 if they made it to adulthood.
ReplyDeleteWe're trying our best in America to get that life expectancy back down.
ReplyDelete@1:56
ReplyDeleteActually, it was set at 70 at the time of Germany's enactment. It was lowered to 65 in 1916. As to whether very few people lived that long, that could be true and I'm curious as to how affordable the program was (likely very) with that in mind.
The closest I am to figuring it out is the contributions were paid in equal parts by the worker and employer, ranging from 4 to 10 "pfennigs" per week, 47 weeks out of the year, variably based on earnings with high earners paying more. But calculating for inflation more than a century is difficult, and calculating for a dead currency is more difficult.
Also, there was a disability component allowing getting on the program early, although there was a 12 month minimum period of disability required, and the earnings level was 1/6 average wages (I did the math and that is remarkably similar to SGA, albeit slightly lower). Oddly similar to our program.
A pfennig is equivalent to a cent. With that in mind, there is also the possibility that the language I see is referring to "per cent," not a flat amount. If that's the case, 4-10% contributions by both the employee and employer is similar to the US' 6.2%.
ReplyDeleteQ6: Is is true that the age of 65 was chosen as the retirement age for Social Security because the Germans used 65 in their system, and the Germans used age 65 because their Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, was 65 at the time they developed their system?
A: No, it is not true. Generally, age 65 was chosen to conform to contemporary practice during the 1930s. (See more detailed explanation.)
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html