Retirement age ....

Godfather.

so to collect your full SS you have to be 68 I believe ?  I was reading this story and wondered why a man in his 70's is still working ?

truth of the matter is most people can't afford to retire, it pisses me off that people work their whole lives and pay in to SS then collect

a very small part of that at an age when you need the money the most, for things like medical and so on, then on top of that you can only

collect at the age when your circling the drain so to speak.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/03/suv-plows-through-crowded-massachusetts-auto-action-several-injuries-reported.html

PJ_Soul

I don't think there should be a mandatory retirement age at all - many people have no desire to retire in their 60s and it has nothing to do with money. But I do think that 65 is a good age for when SS kicks in IF the person wants to retire. I also think that for those who choose not to retire until they are older, there should be some kind of compensation plan for them, to make up for the fact that they started collecting SS later, if right now someone who doesn't retire can't just start collecting it at a specific age. I think the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) just kicks in for Canadians when they turn 60, but they can wait to start collecting, and in that case the payments are higher. So if you decide to collect at 60 your payments are smaller than if you started collecting at 65, and if you wait until 70, your payments are higher than if you started at 65. But that is the pension plan. I am not quite sure how the Canadian social security payment works, but that kicks in at 65, and I don't think retirement is a requirement for this. All people 65 or older get that. So in the US, if you keep working, you just don't get SS until you retire?? That doesn't really seem fair.

cincybearcat

I don't care what the US Government says....I'm retiring at 55.  They don't help me much anyhow.

HesCalledDyer

Another bullshit regressive tax.

Go Beavers

HesCalledDyer said:

Another bullshit regressive tax.

I get tax money back after I retire?

brianlux

I have mixed feelings about how social security is handled because it's like any other legal/institutional/bureaucratic contrivance- no matter how carefully you read the small print, you'll never fully understand it.  Besides, the whole system is set to collapse under the weight of my boomer generation- there's a heck of a lot of us and a huge number at or reaching retirement age.

As for "retirement"- that's a strange concept to me.  I don't know when I'll retire because I have no idea how old I will be when I die or become too senile to know the difference.

Smellyman

Retired at 40 going on 3 years.  It's joyous.

No kids, decent wage and being smart goes a long way.

mcgruff10

From what I've heard you should always collect your ss at 62 because it'll take years to make up what you've missed.

HughFreakingDillon

Smellyman said:

Retired at 40 going on 3 years.  It's joyous.

No kids, decent wage and being smart goes a long way.

wow. hope you have a hobby! LOL

well done!

HesCalledDyer

Go Beavers said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Another bullshit regressive tax.

I get tax money back after I retire?

You also pay as much FICA tax as a billionaire does.  It's capped at $107,000 gross pay.

brianlux

mcgruff10 said:

From what I've heard you should always collect your ss at 62 because it'll take years to make up what you've missed.

Illustrates my point exactly.  I've heard arguments for both sides- take it at 62/ wait until you are at least 66- by people who are bright and seem very well versed in the subject.  How can you know for sure?  Well, f*ck it, I'll keep working. 

Smellyman

HughFreakingDillon said:

Smellyman said:

Retired at 40 going on 3 years.  It's joyous.

No kids, decent wage and being smart goes a long way.

wow. hope you have a hobby! LOL

well done!

Pearl Jam, Video Games, Beer,

But like the above pic, doing absolutely nothing is pretty great too.

mcgruff10

Smellyman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Smellyman said:

Retired at 40 going on 3 years.  It's joyous.

No kids, decent wage and being smart goes a long way.

wow. hope you have a hobby! LOL

well done!

Pearl Jam, Video Games, Beer,

But like the above pic, doing absolutely nothing is pretty great too.

congrats to you bud!  What field did you work in?

Gern Blansten

Godfather. said:

so to collect your full SS you have to be 68 I believe ?  I was reading this story and wondered why a man in his 70's is still working ?

truth of the matter is most people can't afford to retire, it pisses me off that people work their whole lives and pay in to SS then collect

a very small part of that at an age when you need the money the most, for things like medical and so on, then on top of that you can only

collect at the age when your circling the drain so to speak.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/03/suv-plows-through-crowded-massachusetts-auto-action-several-injuries-reported.html

So you are advocating that SS should be enough to completely support you in retirement?  

Smellyman

mcgruff10 said:

Smellyman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Smellyman said:

Retired at 40 going on 3 years.  It's joyous.

No kids, decent wage and being smart goes a long way.

wow. hope you have a hobby! LOL

well done!

Pearl Jam, Video Games, Beer,

But like the above pic, doing absolutely nothing is pretty great too.

congrats to you bud!  What field did you work in?

IT

PJ_Soul

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

so to collect your full SS you have to be 68 I believe ?  I was reading this story and wondered why a man in his 70's is still working ?

truth of the matter is most people can't afford to retire, it pisses me off that people work their whole lives and pay in to SS then collect

a very small part of that at an age when you need the money the most, for things like medical and so on, then on top of that you can only

collect at the age when your circling the drain so to speak.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/03/suv-plows-through-crowded-massachusetts-auto-action-several-injuries-reported.html

So you are advocating that SS should be enough to completely support you in retirement?  

Not that you were asking me, but I can think of scenarios where I believe it would be justifiable for someone to get total old age support from the government, be it just more SS or SS combined with some other actual regular government income. I'm thinking about people such as women who were homemakers their whole lives and whose husbands didn't prepare for them to be financially independent (plenty of those around in the baby boomer generation, and I don't think that situation can be "blamed" on the women given the role of women when they married and arranged their lives). And what about those who just met with hard times and ended up broke?? What if they had to spend every penny they ever had on HEALTHCARE because they or their spouse got sick? We just say "fuck 'em" and leave them to be old on the streets? Of course the majority of people can and should prepare for retirement (I think more should be done to help and encourage people to do so btw, starting in high school, and growing into better and more upfront incentives for people, given the current economy) .... but what if they don't, for whatever reason, good or bad? Sometimes empathy, sympathy, and generosity has to kick in for those whose lives didn't go as planned as as WE would hope.

mcgruff10

Do my northern friends have something equivalent to social security? Do most of you have pensions or 401k's?

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

Do my northern friends have something equivalent to social security? Do most of you have pensions or 401k's?

We don't have 401Ks (I am not even clear on wtf those are). We have a CPP (Canada Pension Plan), which everyone who is or has been legally employed pays into off of each pay cheque (like EI), so how much that is depends on how much we earned in our lives, just like all other pensions. On top of that we have Old Age Security Pension (OAS). While it's called a pension too, we do not pay into that directly, and everyone 65 or older collects it. Then there are other benefits connected to the OAS, which depend on varying factors and circumstances. I.e., there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is an additional non-taxable benefit given to low-income earners (i.e. those who don't also have an employer pension or collect relatively little from the CPP, etc).
I personally have a decent pension through my job, and it's 100% employer paid (for now), with the option of adding to it personally. I will still receive the CPP and the OAS on top of my employer paid pension, so I don't expect to be completely destitute in my old age, thank god. Because without retirement savings and/or an employer pension, the CPP and OAS alone still leaves seniors under the poverty line where I live, because of the insanely high cost of living. which the CPP and OAS, and all the other social assistance programs out there don't even come close to keeping pace with.

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Do my northern friends have something equivalent to social security? Do most of you have pensions or 401k's?

We don't have 401Ks (I am not even clear on wtf those are). We have a CPP (Canada Pension Plan), which everyone who is or has been legally employed pays into off of each pay cheque (like EI), so how much that is depends on how much we earned in our lives, just like all other pensions. On top of that we have Old Age Security Pension (OAS). While it's called a pension too, we do not pay into that directly, and everyone 65 or older collects it. Then there are other benefits connected to the OAS, which depend on varying factors and circumstances. I.e., there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is an additional non-taxable benefit given to low-income earners (i.e. those who don't also have an employer pension or collect relatively little from the CPP, etc).
I personally have a decent pension through my job, and it's 100% employer paid (for now), with the option of adding to it personally. I will still receive the CPP and the OAS on top of my employer paid pension, so I don't expect to be completely destitute in my old age, thank god. Because without retirement savings and/or an employer pension, the CPP and OAS alone still leaves seniors under the poverty line where I live, because of the insanely high cost of living. which the CPP and OAS, and all the other social assistance programs out there don't even come close to keeping pace with.

Nor should it though, you have a big country, there's room to spread out lol

unsung

HesCalledDyer said:

Go Beavers said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Another bullshit regressive tax.

I get tax money back after I retire?

You also pay as much FICA tax as a billionaire does.  It's capped at $107,000 gross pay.

It is $127k in today's world.

unsung

cincybearcat said:

I don't care what the US Government says....I'm retiring at 55.  They don't help me much anyhow.

Same.

Full medical and out.  Getting income is easy.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Do my northern friends have something equivalent to social security? Do most of you have pensions or 401k's?

We don't have 401Ks (I am not even clear on wtf those are). We have a CPP (Canada Pension Plan), which everyone who is or has been legally employed pays into off of each pay cheque (like EI), so how much that is depends on how much we earned in our lives, just like all other pensions. On top of that we have Old Age Security Pension (OAS). While it's called a pension too, we do not pay into that directly, and everyone 65 or older collects it. Then there are other benefits connected to the OAS, which depend on varying factors and circumstances. I.e., there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is an additional non-taxable benefit given to low-income earners (i.e. those who don't also have an employer pension or collect relatively little from the CPP, etc).
I personally have a decent pension through my job, and it's 100% employer paid (for now), with the option of adding to it personally. I will still receive the CPP and the OAS on top of my employer paid pension, so I don't expect to be completely destitute in my old age, thank god. Because without retirement savings and/or an employer pension, the CPP and OAS alone still leaves seniors under the poverty line where I live, because of the insanely high cost of living. which the CPP and OAS, and all the other social assistance programs out there don't even come close to keeping pace with.

Nor should it though, you have a big country, there's room to spread out lol

Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying. You don't think that social assistance should go up with inflation at all? Are you suggesting that the people who are most in need, have the least money and require the most support should all just up and move to the middle of nowhere? Using what resources? To find what connections to what community? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to suggest. Or were you just kidding?

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Do my northern friends have something equivalent to social security? Do most of you have pensions or 401k's?

We don't have 401Ks (I am not even clear on wtf those are). We have a CPP (Canada Pension Plan), which everyone who is or has been legally employed pays into off of each pay cheque (like EI), so how much that is depends on how much we earned in our lives, just like all other pensions. On top of that we have Old Age Security Pension (OAS). While it's called a pension too, we do not pay into that directly, and everyone 65 or older collects it. Then there are other benefits connected to the OAS, which depend on varying factors and circumstances. I.e., there is the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is an additional non-taxable benefit given to low-income earners (i.e. those who don't also have an employer pension or collect relatively little from the CPP, etc).
I personally have a decent pension through my job, and it's 100% employer paid (for now), with the option of adding to it personally. I will still receive the CPP and the OAS on top of my employer paid pension, so I don't expect to be completely destitute in my old age, thank god. Because without retirement savings and/or an employer pension, the CPP and OAS alone still leaves seniors under the poverty line where I live, because of the insanely high cost of living. which the CPP and OAS, and all the other social assistance programs out there don't even come close to keeping pace with.

Nor should it though, you have a big country, there's room to spread out lol

Huh? I'm not sure what you're saying. You don't think that social assistance should go up with inflation at all? Are you suggesting that the people who are most in need, have the least money and require the most support should all just up and move to the middle of nowhere? Using what resources? To find what connections to what community? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to suggest. Or were you just kidding?

I was kidding but I guess I meant it as well. 
I don't think that using the most expensive places to live is a good metric for, well...anything really.
Keep up with inflation, sure, but is it really fair for someone who lives in Saskatchewan to pay into a system that keeps up with the standard of living in Vancouver, one of the coolest and most popular cities in the world?? (I assume Saskatchewan is pretty rural, but Americans aren't taught ANYTHING about our neighbours to the north lol) 
And how does that even work?  Does the Saskatchewanian get assistance rated with rent at 2,000$ a month?  They will be rich Saskatchewanians with all that dough.  Do people get assistance according to where they live?  That doesn't seem equitable.
I dunno, I guess I'm a bit of a cantankerous country curmudgeon and I get annoyed that the people who live in the biggest cities tend to think their experiences are universal and that they can dictate what is and what is to be.  That's nothing personal against you, of course, but it's pretty ubiquitous among people in the larger cities.

PJ_Soul

But most people don't "use" the most expensive places to live because they chose to live in those places. Most of them are people who were born and raised in those areas or have lived there for many many years and have planted roots. Their friends are there, everything they know is there, their job is there. Picking up and moving away is not an option for most of them. Hell, even I don't feel able to pick up and leave because of the tight finances, and I'm not even a vulnerable person like the people I'm talking about. Getting out of Vancouver is simply not an option for these folks precisely because of how expensive it is for them to live here. They are broke. But besides that, seniors who have spent their entire lives here should not just be ejected from their homes - where their heart is, likely where their loved ones are buried - because the government has failed to stop foreign buyers from gobbling up all our real estate for insane amounts of money that they don't even blink at. Vancouver isn't completely out of control because it is awesome. It is out of control because it is the money laundering capital of North American and because foreign money has been allowed to buy everything and inflate markets, with absolutely no benefit coming back to the city. They also use every single one of the many tax loopholes that they can (meanwhile, the new foreign buyers tax is useless, because 15% means nothing to these people, and isn't slowing down the condo market whatsoever - actually, it has heated it up).

I think the idea that people should just leave if they can't afford to fight that tide is completely unjust, and also why Vancouver is not awesome anymore (but still my home, where i was born, and where 4 generations before me were born, where my friends and family are, and my family grave plot, where my great grandparents and grandmother is buried, where my parents will be buried, and where I will be buried, is right in the middle of the city). A river of dirty and/or foreign money is now running through it, and eating away at its soul. Plus it has a real nice view. While the richest people and the corrupt people benefit hand over fist from it, everyone who actually keeps the city running and gives it its personality are being driven to places unknown for the rich poeple's benefit (until they realize that there is nobody left to sell them stuff or clean up after them). It is BULLSHIT, and it really upsets me that people think I should just pick up and leave the home that my family has lived in for over 100 years as though it doesn't matter now that it's an expensive city, or that the most vulnerable people should lose their home too, on top of everything else. BTW, Vancouver is also packed full of homeless people because it is the only place in the whole country that has weather that is liveable for people living on the streets, not because it's awesome. So the homeless from all across Canada come to Vancouver so they don't freeze to death in the winter. The support for these people is completely inadequate (understatement of the year).

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

But most people don't "use" the most expensive places to live because they chose to live in those places. Most of them are people who were born and raised in those areas or have lived there for many many years and have planted roots. Their friends are there, everything they know is there, their job is there. Picking up and moving away is not an option for most of them. Hell, even I don't feel able to pick up and leave because of the tight finances, and I'm not even a vulnerable person like the people I'm talking about. Getting out of Vancouver is simply not an option for these folks precisely because of how expensive it is for them to live here. They are broke. But besides that, seniors who have spent their entire lives here should not just be ejected from their homes - where their heart is, likely where their loved ones are buried - because the government has failed to stop foreign buyers from gobbling up all our real estate for insane amounts of money that they don't even blink at. Vancouver isn't completely out of control because it is awesome. It is out of control because it is the money laundering capital of North American and because foreign money has been allowed to buy everything and inflate markets, with absolutely no benefit coming back to the city. They also use every single one of the many tax loopholes that they can (meanwhile, the new foreign buyers tax is useless, because 15% means nothing to these people, and isn't slowing down the condo market whatsoever - actually, it has heated it up).

I think the idea that people should just leave if they can't afford to fight that tide is completely unjust, and also why Vancouver is not awesome anymore (but still my home, where i was born, and where 4 generations before me were born, where my friends and family are, and my family grave plot, where my great grandparents and grandmother is buried, where my parents will be buried, and where I will be buried, is right in the middle of the city). A river of dirty and/or foreign money is now running through it, and eating away at its soul. Plus it has a real nice view. While the richest people and the corrupt people benefit hand over fist from it, everyone who actually keeps the city running and gives it its personality are being driven to places unknown for the rich poeple's benefit (until they realize that there is nobody left to sell them stuff or clean up after them). It is BULLSHIT, and it really upsets me that people think I should just pick up and leave the home that my family has lived in for over 100 years as though it doesn't matter now that it's an expensive city, or that the most vulnerable people should lose their home too, on top of everything else. BTW, Vancouver is also packed full of homeless people because it is the only place in the whole country that has weather that is liveable for people living on the streets, not because it's awesome. So the homeless from all across Canada come to Vancouver so they don't freeze to death in the winter. The support for these people is completely inadequate (understatement of the year).

I understand those frustrations, and the dynamics in that city sound pretty fucked up.  Typical fuckery, rich fucks fuck.  Fuckers.

But what's your solution?  Meet cost of living standards that aren't appropriate for everyone or distribute according to location?  Or something I haven't thought of?
I don't callously think people should be forced to just move, but I think the government (yours and ours too) could come up with a modern homesteading provision that would provide incentives for de-urbanization that would mitigate the cost of living problems facing large cities.

HesCalledDyer

unsung said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Go Beavers said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Another bullshit regressive tax.

I get tax money back after I retire?

You also pay as much FICA tax as a billionaire does.  It's capped at $107,000 gross pay.

It is $127k in today's world.

Thanks. Not that it makes any difference in the grand scheme of things.