Retire at age 70?

Options
gimmesometruth27
gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,033
edited July 2010 in A Moving Train
John Boehner recently said we should raise the retirement age to 70, meaning that workers will not be eligible for social security until age 70. so instead of raising payroll taxes to pay for it we should make everyone work an extra 5 years before being eligible to receive benefits?? IMO this will lead to a whole host of problems.

1. most 70 year olds are not physically capable to work labor and difficult jobs. deskwork and jobs where they use their minds, yes, but how many 65 year old laborers do you see? it is proven fact that your body starts to break down and things like decreased strength and osteoarthritis begin to take their toll on the body. i see 70 year old patients every day and i just think to myself "there is no way this guy can continue to work".

2. with the younger generations of workers not able to find work, why make those age 65 continue to work and take up those jobs?

3. life expectancy is about 75 years old, so the longer that people work the less time they are on social security. if this is the rationale for extending retirement age, i completely disagree with it. we all pay into SS so that we can benefit from it.

i have a few other thoughts on this but lack the time to type them right now.

what are your thoughts on extending the retirement age?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • Shawshank
    Shawshank Posts: 1,018
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    what are your thoughts on extending the retirement age?

    At the rate we're going, they may as well make it 115. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but that is the reality of the situation in which we are quickly finding ourselves.
  • Atomicskiier23
    Atomicskiier23 Posts: 2
    We cant afford to start paying out Social Security at regular retirement ages anymore. People could still retire whenever they wanted to, they just wouldn't be able to live on the government dime. US Life expectancy is 78-79 years.

    Having people in the workforce longer would allow more income tax revenue to be taken in by the government allowing us to (assuming we cut spending as well) decrease our deficit.

    As the market recovers (and it is recovering) more jobs will appear and any worry about old people taking up young peoples jobs will disappear.

    In my opinion we should do away with social security altogether and just let people do what they want with their money. Whether they want to put some away for retirement or not is, I believe, their decision.
  • sensi
    sensi Posts: 73
    My parents are 69 and 68 and both retired 10 years ago...they have small pensions each and SSP (State Retirement Pension)...they have no mortgage and just the bills to pay (they receive £200 a year heating allowance in the Winter to help with fuel costs) that is the same for a lot of pensioners in England...my uncle (dad's brother) was made redundant just before his 60th birthday and now qualifies for Pension Credit (state benefit)...he has his rent paid and his council tax.

    If people prepare for their old age in this country they pay for it further down the line...making people work until they are 70 isn't right...would you feel safe on seeing a 70 year old fireman arriving at the window of your burning house to carry you down his ladder?
    It makes much more sense to live in the present tense
  • namecid
    namecid Posts: 24
    I don't think I will live to see retirement. Not trying to be a downer but just being real. If you look at why SS was formed and how we use it today, it is seriously being abused. Too much money going out and not enough coming in. I can see them raising the retirement age even higher than 72. Its not right but there are too many flaws in the system.
    Namecid
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,344
    retirement at 70 for FULL SS benefits. Still can retire at 62 for partial, but who can live on that? For that matter who can live on full SS. In my opinion those that are set financially , have been blessed with good higher paying jobs and good sound investments should be ineligible to to receive these benefits. Whole host of things wrong with Gov sponsered or paid retirements.
    My brother, for example, retired from the Air Force at 20 years, is now working for The DoD (Fire Chief at an AF base) collects 50% of ending pay from AF(could be more as its a scale based payout depending on length of service) for retirement and earns his regular pay as a Fire Chief(civilian). This double dipping is rampant throught many fields.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,344
    sensi wrote:
    My parents are 69 and 68 and both retired 10 years ago...they have small pensions each and SSP (State Retirement Pension)...they have no mortgage and just the bills to pay (they receive £200 a year heating allowance in the Winter to help with fuel costs) that is the same for a lot of pensioners in England...my uncle (dad's brother) was made redundant just before his 60th birthday and now qualifies for Pension Credit (state benefit)...he has his rent paid and his council tax.

    If people prepare for their old age in this country they pay for it further down the line...making people work until they are 70 isn't right...would you feel safe on seeing a 70 year old fireman arriving at the window of your burning house to carry you down his ladder?
    your example of the firefighter is false. Most civil service jobs have mandatory retirement ages for fields such as this.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    John Boehner recently said we should raise the retirement age to 70, meaning that workers will not be eligible for social security until age 70. so instead of raising payroll taxes to pay for it we should make everyone work an extra 5 years before being eligible to receive benefits?? IMO this will lead to a whole host of problems.

    1. most 70 year olds are not physically capable to work labor and difficult jobs. deskwork and jobs where they use their minds, yes, but how many 65 year old laborers do you see? it is proven fact that your body starts to break down and things like decreased strength and osteoarthritis begin to take their toll on the body. i see 70 year old patients every day and i just think to myself "there is no way this guy can continue to work".

    2. with the younger generations of workers not able to find work, why make those age 65 continue to work and take up those jobs?

    3. life expectancy is about 75 years old, so the longer that people work the less time they are on social security. if this is the rationale for extending retirement age, i completely disagree with it. we all pay into SS so that we can benefit from it.

    i have a few other thoughts on this but lack the time to type them right now.

    what are your thoughts on extending the retirement age?

    people are going to continue to live longer. If we want to keep social security as an option we will need to up the age among other things. Paying more into it will not solve the problem only delay it.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    edited July 2010
    mickeyrat wrote:
    retirement at 70 for FULL SS benefits. Still can retire at 62 for partial, but who can live on that? For that matter who can live on full SS. In my opinion those that are set financially , have been blessed with good higher paying jobs and good sound investments should be ineligible to to receive these benefits.

    people who are smart with their money have paid just as much into social security as anyone else and should be entitled to their benefits. By the way, Blessed is a bad word choice. people with good jobs for the most part have worked hard to get there. Why should they be punished because they were smart with their money? They may not "need" it in your eyes, but it is their money, they paid it in, so they should get it out
    Post edited by mikepegg44 on
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I'm 50 and have been paying into SS since I was 16 and paper rout before that, I have paid my fair share into SS like everybody else...well most everybody else :roll: ,then the government wants to change the rules and make me work another 5+ years and then spend my money on bullshit like these illegal immigrants that want drivers lic. welfare etc...and some people wonder why so many other people are pissed off over crap like this retirement age deal and the way our money is spent. :x :x

    Godfather.
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    here is a perfect example of wasted money.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... y-tuesday/

    Godfather.
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,344
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    mickeyrat wrote:
    retirement at 70 for FULL SS benefits. Still can retire at 62 for partial, but who can live on that? For that matter who can live on full SS. In my opinion those that are set financially , have been blessed with good higher paying jobs and good sound investments should be ineligible to to receive these benefits.


    people who are smart with their money have paid just as much into social security as anyone else and should be entitled to their benefits. By the way, Blessed is a bad word choice. people with good jobs for the most part have worked hard to get there. Why should they be punished because they were smart with their money? They may not "need" it in your eyes, but it is their money, they paid it in, so they should get it out
    there in lies the problem. SS was intially set up as a need based thing.In fact most forms of gov handouts(for lack of a better term) are in fact need based. To apply for this when it's not needed to get by every month smacks of greed and selfishness.

    Personally I've thought for a long time(20+ years) now that I will never see this benefit. What I pay in now is going to my mother and before her my grandmother.So I've resigned myself to the fact that I will work til I croak.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • dasvidana
    dasvidana Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,356
    Isn't 70 the new 60?
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    What is "retirement age"? I don't understand the concept.

    I'm assuming it has something to do with social security, but if anyone on this board is counting on social security to fund their retirement, they are going to find themselves in a world of hurt.

    I'm saving for my own retirement and will retire when I think I can pull that off. It might be 50, 55, 60, 65.....who knows?

    The other thing is, I doubt I will ever stop working/being productive entirely. I like the idea of having a reason to get up in the morning and being beneficial to someone or something.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • unlost dogs
    unlost dogs Greater Boston Posts: 12,553
    mickeyrat wrote:
    sensi wrote:
    My parents are 69 and 68 and both retired 10 years ago...they have small pensions each and SSP (State Retirement Pension)...they have no mortgage and just the bills to pay (they receive £200 a year heating allowance in the Winter to help with fuel costs) that is the same for a lot of pensioners in England...my uncle (dad's brother) was made redundant just before his 60th birthday and now qualifies for Pension Credit (state benefit)...he has his rent paid and his council tax.

    If people prepare for their old age in this country they pay for it further down the line...making people work until they are 70 isn't right...would you feel safe on seeing a 70 year old fireman arriving at the window of your burning house to carry you down his ladder?
    your example of the firefighter is false. Most civil service jobs have mandatory retirement ages for fields such as this.

    That's true and I think it's determined by either state law or in the absence of that, municipal contract. My husband is a firefighter and will have to retire at 65. Same goes for police officers in my community. The mandatory retirement age for state troopers in Massachusetts was age 50 for a long time, I'm not sure if that changed after they merged with the Metropolitan District Commission police force several years ago.
    15 years of sharks 06/30/08 (MA), 05/17/10 (Boston), 09/03/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/04/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/30/12 (Missoula), 07/19/13 (Wrigley), 10/15/13 (Worcester), 10/16/13 (Worcester), 10/25/13 (Hartford), 12/4/13 (Vancouver), 12/6/13 (Seattle), 6/26/14 (Berlin), 6/28/14 (Stockholm), 10/16/14 (Detroit)
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    This thread is funny...it's amazing to me how many will argue against their own interest...

    I guess lots of folks want to work until they are 70...

    Personally, I think they should lower the retirement age to 60...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Atomicskiier23 wrote:
    We cant afford to start paying out Social Security at regular retirement ages anymore. People could still retire whenever they wanted to, they just wouldn't be able to live on the government dime. US Life expectancy is 78-79 years.

    Having people in the workforce longer would allow more income tax revenue to be taken in by the government allowing us to (assuming we cut spending as well) decrease our deficit.

    As the market recovers (and it is recovering) more jobs will appear and any worry about old people taking up young peoples jobs will disappear.

    In my opinion we should do away with social security altogether and just let people do what they want with their money. Whether they want to put some away for retirement or not is, I believe, their decision.

    Government Dime...?

    anyway...having folks in the workforce longer will mean there will be less jobs for those entering the workforce...

    anyway, yeah, let's do away with SS altogether...to hell with those who've paid into it...screw anyone over age 50...those f-ers should have been saving...
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    there's a guy who works a graveyard shift stocking shelves at the local 24 hour drug star...
    he couldnt be younger than 70-something.

    my heart always breaks for him........
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    mickeyrat wrote:
    people who are smart with their money have paid just as much into social security as anyone else and should be entitled to their benefits. By the way, Blessed is a bad word choice. people with good jobs for the most part have worked hard to get there. Why should they be punished because they were smart with their money? They may not "need" it in your eyes, but it is their money, they paid it in, so they should get it out
    [/quote]
    there in lies the problem. SS was intially set up as a need based thing.In fact most forms of gov handouts(for lack of a better term) are in fact need based. To apply for this when it's not needed to get by every month smacks of greed and selfishness.

    Personally I've thought for a long time(20+ years) now that I will never see this benefit. What I pay in now is going to my mother and before her my grandmother.So I've resigned myself to the fact that I will work til I croak.[/quote]

    how on earth is it greed? It is a program that all americans are entitled too based on age specifications and other issue, like mental and physical disabilities.
    I would much prefer that we don't pay any into social security anymore. Or if they are going to force it on us, we should only get out what we put in
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    people are going to continue to live longer. If we want to keep social security as an option we will need to up the age among other things. Paying more into it will not solve the problem only delay it.

    I am tempted to here insert the famous Keynes quote "In the long run we are all dead". :)
    "Delaying" isn't necessarily bad. You might say that everything we do just delay the inevitable... ;)

    In your case, I don't think the legal retirement age needs to go so much up. It's the real retirement age that matters, on other words, on average how old are people when they retire? I'm betting a lot lower than 65. So introducing incentives for 60+ people to stay working might be a way to go. That's what Norway is doing now, experimenting with having people being able to get their pension AND make money on the side. But we have a shortage of labour now that is only going to get worse in the future, so we really need everyone to stay in as long as possible, even if it looks costly on the budget. Socio-economically it may still be a gain in the big picture.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    edited July 2010
    inmytree wrote:
    This thread is funny...it's amazing to me how many will argue against their own interest...

    I guess lots of folks want to work until they are 70...

    Personally, I think they should lower the retirement age to 60...
    :thumbup: :clap::clap: :thumbup: 10 more years baby !!....that would be cool.

    Godfather.
    Post edited by Godfather. on

Categories