Retire at age 70?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

No my 4 year old and 15 month old daughters can not take care of them selves.

neither can the majority of the elderly. ever hear of a nursing home? this is why SS is so important. it is important to have some sort of quality of life and a way to make ends meet and pay for your life sustaining medication and care after working for 50 years.

Sorry my 4 year old and my 15 month old are not able to work.... I know your not trying to compare 70 year olds who have had their entire life to save and prepare for when they are not working to a 4 year old, are you??? Do you know how I have quality of life and ensure that I will when i retire... I save my money, I have mulitple retirement plans. I have heard of nursing homes, and that has nothing to do with SS, usually people in nursing homes are not able to take care of their house/yard/errands.

inmytree wrote:

sweet fn jesus, what's so bad about a society wanting to take care of the elderly...?

christ, some people are so fuckin selfish, all they care about is me and mine...fuck everyone else...

waaaaaa...I don't want to pay for others...waaaaaa...my hard-earned money...waaaaa....screw that 80 year old lady..what did she do for me...waaaaaa....

Here's the thing. People do want to take care of other people. BUT....there are a lot better and more efficient ways to do it than force feeding that black hole that is the current system.

he still stands wrote:

To take a more abstract view on this whole subject, let's consider how the elderly have been treated over the centuries in different civilizations.

The most basic and primitive tribes treated their elderly with respect and valued their wisdom. The tribe took care of their elderly, provided food and water and shelter, and the elderly had the most decision-making power for the tribes. Once you couldn't hunt any longer/take care of children/cook/etc... you were taken care of by the younger tribesmen and women.

Today, our elderly are working into their 60s/70s and sometimes longer, they are neglected, they are put into old person asylums and never visited, and they rot away in a bed with noone who cares for them except a nurse tech who changes their bed pan and feeds them a meal.

This disgusting situation is obviously regressive. We have lost our way as a society if we can put chunks of metal into space every day but forget to take care of our elderly and provide for them as a "tribe."

You're making a massive over-generalization about how we treat our elderly. Yes, some people end up in terrible situations, but the vast majority of people who I know do take care of their older relatives the best they can.

I guess that brings up another issue with our society though... many people just can't do it. If both a husband and wife work full time, how can they properly care for one of their elderly parents? Sure, maybe financially, but health-wise, it's often harder to take care of an elderly person than a child..

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think a lot of people have answered that, let people invest in their own retirement. It is far more efficient than having a GIANT government program that spends more money than it takes in year after year

why did this plan go over like a lead balloon when bush suggested it? why not just bet those billions of dollars on the kentucky derby next year? it is the same crap shoot all you conservatives keep asking for....lets bet all of that money for social security and medicare on papa's mustache next derby.......

Its far more efficent to put it into educational programs (money management) or give it back when you file for taxes, Its something they could easily track. Don't get mad because you want to retire and want to live the same lifestyle on other peoples money. Try saving and accomplishing something on your own not relying on other people.

he still stands wrote:

Well yeah it is a generalization because i'm not citing any sources... care to share some stats that disprove what I'm saying? Number of elderly living in a "nursing" home because noone is willing or can take care of them?

The 2nd point illustrates my point PERFECTLY. Our civilization is so fucked up that it takes two incomes to live so there is no time left for family, including our parents when they aren't able to take care of themselves.

Care to share any stats your self???
Are you an adult??? It does take two incomes to live, why does that make our civilization fucked up?
Have you ever raised kids. That is more than a full time job. I would love to take care of my parents when they get older, But sometimes they need professional supervision on a timely basis and that is something that is hard for a family with children.
You are just making stuff up because your emotional.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think a lot of people have answered that, let people invest in their own retirement. It is far more efficient than having a GIANT government program that spends more money than it takes in year after year

why did this plan go over like a lead balloon when bush suggested it? why not just bet those billions of dollars on the kentucky derby next year? it is the same crap shoot all you conservatives keep asking for....lets bet all of that money for social security and medicare on papa's mustache next derby.......

First of all, if you aren't david cross please quote him, and second of all I didn't say bet the money on anything. What I said was, instead of taking the money out of my checks to go into a program that won't exist when I get there (social security), allow me to put that money into whatever I want.

The reason these plans go over like lead balloons is that PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES. I wish everyday I could opt out of social security and put that money into my own plans. But medicare is something completely different. They aren't the same and do not come from the same pool of money. Your employer must pay those things separately. I think medicare is something like 1.2 percent and social security is something like 6 percent. They are different. If people don't want to be responsible for themselves and their retirements than they shouldn't be surprised when the government tells them when they can retire.

HeidiJam wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I disagree, lots of folks could care less about the elderly...just read this thread...

as for your other statement...do tell....share with us the "better and more efficient ways"...

Have your read this thread at all, plenty of people have suggested better and more efficent ways, and its starts with responsibility with your money. And why is it that you don't think I care for the elderly??? because I don't want to give them my hardearned money. why are you only valuing money, there are plenty of way to help elderly with out money, I guess you didn't know that.

yeah, I read the thread, thus my response...

It's funny that you get all snotty when called out...you said yourself you don't want the precious money to go to old folks...you seem be the only one focusing on money...

as for folks taking responsibility, I agree...I'm guessing you've been out to lunch over the past year...you know, as the stock market fell and fell and fell...you and I had to bail them out with our tax dollars...I bet you forgot about that...

and tell me about this "helping the elderly with out money" thing...are you proposing bartering medical care for chickens...?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you busted me on that one. david cross is the man..

so with everyone losing half of their retirement when the market crashed you still think it is a good idea to invest in your own plan? i don't, unless you know what you are doing. most people don't have a clue in what to invest in and a lot of them don't have money other than what goes into their 401k to invest in other things on their own. people got laid off and companies cut pensions and 401ks tanked. it is easy for you in hindsight to say yeah invest in your own plan when the employer that the people worked for for 30 years tells them that their pension will be there and the 401k is the best way to invest, etc. when it wasn't going to be there and the 401k is not the best investment choice.
still the government should not be able to dictate to people when something they have paid into their whole lives would have to be denied for another 5 years when it had been available at age 65 for generations.

I saw him in minneapolis a few months back, the guys is hilarious. Wasn't trying to bust you, just wondering if you were a fan... check out his doc on netflix watch it now about his 2003 tour, it is funny as hell, and was awesome to see that what you see is what you get with him. That his comedy isn't a character
On topic, for me it always goes back to being in charge of your life. If you don't know how to invest in a retirement, learn about it. No one will ever stop you from going to the public library(one of the most important social investments in the world and highly underrated) and learning about how to do it properly. Ignorance is no excuse...it may sound harsh but wouldn't we all be better off if people just took more responsiblity in their lives.

I completely agree on phasing out the program though. Everyone who has paid in should get out what they put in, they just shouldn't take anymore out from people who are under the age of 18. Those of us who have put in should get to choose whether or not to continue or at what rate we want to continue. But as long as the gvnerment is in control of the program they can pretty much do whatever they want. whether that is make the retirement age 100 or say no one gets anything. If it is yours they cannot say a god damn thing.