Working until your time is only spent at various Dr appointments or too frail to really get out and enjoy the life you have worked so hard for. I don’t think we are meant to work ourselves until we are almost dead. I have seen it with to many people. They retire and spend the remaining “golden years” in and out of the medical world. Procedures, test, specialist and it’s never ending. We should be able to travel and experience the world while we can “really” enjoy it.
Yes, although it might add to the bottom line of our present unfunded liabilities, we also have to consider that those who should be able to retire at 60 have ALREADY slaved away for several decades, putting their blood and sweat into the system.
The notion that we had to move from “Retiring at 55 with a gold watch” to now having to work until 65 simply because social statistics show that we live a few years longer than back in the 1950s, is simply an attempt at logic that really doesnt hold water. The real scientific, logical, mathematical, non-political measures for determining retirement age is this: (Is a person [at 64.5 years of age] capable of performing the demanding non-stop hourly work that is oftentimes sought by a company, when the employee is ‘on the clock’)? The answer is clearly NO.
Just because most people live longer these days (most of them sitting in a chair beside their medicine bottles and watching television doesnt equate to: “Oh, since you are still breathing normally, you need to run out there and move those piles of bricks from point A to point B for the remainder of the day.” The entire notion is foolish. Although many seniors can still get around somewhat at 60, mow a lawn in spirts, clean dishes before resting at the kitchen chair for half an hour afterwards; this doesnt mean that the retirement age for seniors should be moved to 65 or more so that these people can go out and mow lawns all day, or clean fast food dishes at McDonalds all day.
The reason govt moves retirement ages later and later is simple. It is not because we live longer these days. It is because they are moving the goal posts on the most vulnerable in our community so that they dont have to pay BACK the money that they gladly took from them when they were once actively mowing lawns and washing dishes all day for a living. Let us help our elderly, who have already put in their best years for America, and finally end this slyly-conceived government scheme of ‘elderly theft’, and allow our seniors a few decent and remaining years to comfortably work at their own pace at home, and pursue their own limited versions of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Setting retirement age back to 60 will allow for that. Amen.
I understand the sentiment, and retiring at 60 to enjoy life sounds ideal. However, this idea lacks a practical explanation of how we fund such a system sustainably. Social Security is already strained, and earlier retirements would require significant reforms or higher taxes. Great ideas need actionable plans
Chris, are you saying that since Regina has not composed a comprehensive plan to fund future Social Security, that her policy post should not be considered at this time? I think you are operating in reverse and could possibly be missing the objective of the forum: which is the introduction of suggested public policy which might be favorable to most Americans.
The next step, is to see if said policy might be popular in the forum, by collecting metrics on the topic in order to rank these forum interactions. The next step is NOT, to dismiss the policy suggestion because Regina did not provide you with additional information of how it would be figured out by government officials. You are not a government official and this proposal has only recently been created today – we don’t even know how popular it is with the people yet, and you are already suggesting that it is unworkable because “you don’t know how it would be fiscally supported”. It is not your place to know those things…this forum is merely a brainstorming and metrics recording environment. So give your two cents on how to make something work, or why it would be a bad idea for America. Saying that something currently can’t be achieved because of some current conditions, is simply noise.
You could have replied with something like, “Hey, good idea but I am not sure how we can pay for it. Perhaps we might round up all of the government officials who made billions in criminal activities and confiscate their wealth to help pay for it…And maybe we might pull in more citizens on work visas, and somehow let them assist with funding this added expense”. But you didn’t say anything like that. You simply pretended that the national buck stopped with you and you made a final decision to dismiss the idea as workable because you couldn’t see a way to pay for it.
This is completely illogical and destructive to any legitimate process of turning brainstorming ideas into political action – its backward and unproductive. I see that in a lot of posts on P4P – others thinking that it is their supreme duty to allow or deny the policy suggestions of others based on how this policy might be handled at the government level. This forum has absolutely nothing to do with how government will make something happen or not, and shooting down policy suggestions simply because their success cannot be imagined, comes across as arrogant and myopic. If you don’t think a policy is good enough to work, then offer positive contributions on how government might MAKE it work. You are not expected to know how governments make things work or not – only provide your two cents on how said policy might help or harm society, and possible suggestions how to bring it about, or conversely, even suggestions on alternative approaches that might solve the condition that caused the policy suggestion in the first place.
Simply saying a suggestion is merely a ‘unicorn fantasy’ because you personally can’t brainstorm alternatives, really offers nothing to the forum, I think. That is my two cents on your reply to Regina’s policy suggestion. Her post doesn’t “lack” anything. I didnt find it “lacking” when I replied to her post – instead, I built on it. Perhaps it is your own expectation of this forum that might be lacking in some way. Thanks.
This is when we need to have set standards on Medicare taxes and Medicaid taxes. No one, regardless of income when working should be allwowed to pay zero into Medicare and or Medicaid. Income tax brackets need to be set up in percentages. Whatever bracket you fall under, thats what you pay. The only people who would be exempt are the retired and the disabled.
So the issue isn’t how early people retire it’s how long they have in retirement? We should strive to help people live longer and healthier lives instead of forcing people to give more money to the government only for them to spend it irresponsibly and end up not being solvent in the future.
The social security administration is set to run out of money in the 2030’s if we increase the amount coming out we will see them run out before 2030, not to mention revenues for fica taxes would go down.
As a member of generation Z I really wish social security was 100% optional, even if I didn’t get any of the money I already paid in back it would be worth it for me to get that income back and save for retirement myself.
When I was 20, I might have agreed with you. And I certainly dont want you to “pay my way”. Matter of fact, I already “paid my way” hundreds of thousands of dollars already – I simply want it back. And yes, I do realize it is a ponzi scheme, but that doesnt change the fact that the govt needs to fix what it broke, replace the money that “it is running out of”, and find ways to replace that revenue stream. It wasnt called “Social Security” because it was an optional security. The problem is not that “Social Security will be bankrupt”, or that its a ponzi scheme…the problem is that wealth has been drained from its coffers and needs to be replaced, however that might happen.
And the arguement for retiring at 60 is not because “seniors want to live longer in their retirement years”. It is because their productive working years are over at 60…period. I really provided a lenghy post with very detailed examples of why this is. I am surprised that it hasn’t resonated with you.
I agree that funding early retirement us an issue. More people need to save harder for retirement on their own. We drive used cars, live without a mortgage & didn’t take costly vacations. We lived well below our means to accomplish this. We did that part right, but now the obstacle is health insurance. Too expensive for most folks to retire early–especially if there are health conditions. The ACA has a provision called ERRP to subsidize employers so that employees can retire after 55, but only about 10% of companies participate. Don’t know if this will go the way of the dodo bird under President Trump. If you google you will find this. Unfortunately neither of our employers participate.
Actually, I am of the position that the ACTUAL AGE of retirement be moved from 65 to 60, instead of introducing any concept of “early retirement”, while keeping the current retirement age at 65 in place.
My arguement here is that most people at 60 years of age cannot be equally productive to employers in a nonstop 8-hour work day, as people who are half their age. It is not fair to the empolyer to have to take on this burden, and it is not fair to the senior, who cannot pay his/her bills because he/she is being rejected or laid off because of age disabilities at 60.
Your arguement is the same as mine. I put back and can live comfortably; however, I can certainly use the tens of thousands of dollars that the govt gladly took out of my paychecks for decades, to cover the ridiculous cost of routine medical bills. For others in this situation, if they are 60 and cannot hold down a normal job because of age-related conditions, they need to wait 5 years, living like a pauper, before they can even begin to start getting back any money that they spent decades putting into the system.
We need to fix that long 5 year stretch of “pauper years” for seniors and move the retirement age back to 60, where the funds are needed. (And for anyone using the arguement “We cant do that because we cant socially afford it”, that is lazy talk for “I cant brainstorm a solution because I dont know how to imagine moving national resources around”. I could compile a list of 100 gigantic things right now that could be done, starting with Ukraine, Israel, global military bases, corrupt stolen wealth confiscations, Congressional money laundering confiscations, and on and on and on.) This proposal can EASILY be done with just an ounce of critical thinking and fortitude. Move the retirement date back five years; move the resources in place to cover the added expense; mission accomplished. OK, stepping off my soap box now.
I agree that this is a huge aspect of retirement that needs to be addressed, even people who save for their own retirement end up having to pay much more than expected to actually live on retirement
What if social security was restructured as 1. Requiring all employers provide a 401k with a match of 50% of contributions up to 10% of your income.
2. The government matches what your employer puts in
3. All 401k plans need to offer a low cost total us market index fund, a low cost total us market bond fund and a high yield u.s. government bond fund
4. Employees should be given a short course on 401k’s to explain how they work and how to use them, as well as examples on how this saving scheme works
5. Decrease the earliest date you can withdrawal money from your 401k penalty free from 60 to 55
That way the money stays in your hands, young people will not have to save an additional extra dollar since 20% of their income will be put away and people closer to retirement are doubling their savings. This would also be good for people like me who don’t think the forced 6.5% tax that has a very low return and an even lower chance of being able to pay me out in full by the time I retire. Companies also save since the match would be 5% rather than 6.5% of your income.
What it seems that you are suggesting, is that, instead of a steady fixed withdrawal of a percentage of one’s paycheck to fund Social Security, we revamp the SS income stream to operate like an enhanced 401k plan.
Not sure if the govt would be keen on matching funds tied to market indexes and bond funds, although they certainly wouldn’t mind it going back into a govt bond fund. You mention 401k training, which is probably needed for any proposed financial plan, but how much leeway are you giving employees to make changes to this social security investment vehicle, besides exposing them to various mixes of low, medium and high risk index/bond funds? Are there only 3 investment options, or more like most 401ks where one might construct and update a portfolio of funds? And if so, why would we want to run the risk of these employees guessing the market wrongly and causing a huge shortfall in Social Security, which could easily be done in this scenario.
For instance, our current market conditions are catastrophic – we are currently undergoing what is called a market melt-up, which historically leads to a hyper-inflationary blow-off top (you can google the condition). I have been watching it unfold since 2008…we are reaching a critical level now. That said, what if we had this Social Security 401k investment vehicle in place right now and everyone was in the us stock and bond index fund? Know what would eventually happen? The market would collapse (as it is supposed to, soon enough) and immediately, we would experience hundreds of billions in Social Security shortfalls. It would be devastating to our bottom line regarding national unfunded liabilities. I think your system might work AFTER the market massively corrects and all of the market distortions are naturally flushed out of the system (ie: massive derivatives implosions).
Anyway, I am for the simple approach of moving the retirement age back from 65 to 60, and finding gigantic wasted national resources (easy to do - I could list 100 right now, in my sleep) to plug the hole. It seems to be the safest approach.
If we go down the route you are suggesting I want the ability to opt out, I have no interest in recieving social security income and if I’m able to save 6.5% of my income and my employer can do the same I would much rather do that
I think you should have that right…matter of fact, it should be encouraged and the entire system eventually phased out (but not immediately dropped so that those at the tail end of this program who paid in all their life get none of their money back for all of their hard labor.
I’m fine with that idea, I don’t mind them keeping everything they’ve collected from me at this point I just don’t want any more taken if the program stays set up the same way
Point 2: government can’t afford this. Currently they contribute nothing. How would this be paid for?
Point 3: this causes an artificial effect on the stock market. Given the amount of $ that this would pour into a selected few funds, their values would be artificially inflated.
Point 4: no matter how much we try to idiot proof things @ work, along comes a better idiot. I think the same is true here. If people choose wrong or too conservatively & fall shor @ retirement I don’t want to subsidize them.
The government pays 1.4 trillion for social security each year, you would completely cut this and additional income would come from capital gains taxes after that money is pulled from the account.
That is absolutely true, I’d argue we already have seen this issue come up with how much money is pumped into those funds today. I’ll admit that that is an issue and I wouldn’t know how to deal with it but I’d also say it’s probably less of an issue than it might seem since 401k’s would continue to put money into these companies over time
I’d argue a lot of people fall short now because of social security, they believe it’ll be enough to live on and done practice discipline or saving and end up behind
Amen.
