Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the trustess answered this question in their report. At some point with current law and not that distance in the future benefits are estimated to be dropped to 70% of what they are now across the board.That includes everyone gettig benefits and its by law.
I sit around and type on a computer all day now, used to not but life has given me some good breaks.
But if you think you can understand how to engineer a lte network with all of its system information blocks, slot and frame synchronization and the other million things I have to know, feel free. Its not some lazy job where I get paid for nothing.
And even construction workers are living longer.
My husband will be 65 in February. He does the same type of work as you do. He no longer comes home and does a ton of yard/house work like he used to do. The added years at the end of one's life do not negate the fact that the body still ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDGeek
I'm just a few holiday seasons short of 40 (37) and I think the retirement age should be raised to at least 70.
My husband will be 65 in February. He does the same type of work as you do. He no longer comes home and does a ton of yard/house work like he used to do. The added years at the end of one's life do not negate the fact that the body still ages.
.
I get that, but I could do my job well into my 60's with ease. Yes, I will likely have to cut back on some things I do now, but I live an active life and try and stay in good shape. But life expectancy is getting better, and science of the body is improving, and hopefully, in 32 years, 65 won't have the same problems as they do now.
There is a massive logical fallacy at the heart of your argument. Had it ever occurred to you that those still active in their 80's (which do not represent the average or the normal, since general life expectancy is in the 70's) are just able to be more active due to their unusually good health, compared with those in nursing homes who are succumbing to the normal physical decline of old age?
You see ... the bar has to be set somewhere .... and since most people do not live to be in their 80's ... it's going to be quite difficult for them to run marathons.
There is going to be an earthquake today; I am agreeing with you for the second time!
I have worked with seniors many times during my career. The above is true. And the sad part is, a lot of these healthy 80 year olds, and their families, think it's because of something THEY have personally done that has given them this good health. You can take care of yourself, not smoke, etc, but YOU CAN'T PICK YOUR GENES!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
over a period of time, regardless of a stock market crash, you will always make money on your 401Ks. Sure, you may end up with a lot less than you thought, but the only time it really hurts is if you have to start using your money right at the time of the crash. SS still, is not supposed to be your entire retirement...i believe the term is diversify???
Yes, woe to the folks who've had to retire in the last few years! Hopefully in a few years, things will be better.
2. At age 62, you may collect benefits. You may collect REDUCED benefits IF you have no other income or income of less than $20,000 a year. If you have other income over $20,000 a year, your benefits at age 62 will be reduced dollar for dollar.
.
That's already the case, except for the $20,000.
If you earn more than your SS, you have to pay back half of the overage. That's only for the first year.
I do have a 401K and I still expect to get my full Social Security benefits at the age of 67.
It clearly states on our Social Security Statements each year that...
Social Security is for people of all ages... We're more than a retirement program. Social
Security also can provide benefits if you become
disabled and help support your family after you die.
Work to build a secure future... Social Security is the largest source of income for
most elderly Americans today, but Social Security
was never intended to be your only source of
income when you retire...
I do have a 401K and I still expect to get my full Social Security benefits at the age of 67.
It clearly states on our Social Security Statements each year that...
Social Security is for people of all ages... We're more than a retirement program. Social
Security also can provide benefits if you become
disabled and help support your family after you die.
Work to build a secure future... Social Security is the largest source of income for
most elderly Americans today, but Social Security
was never intended to be your only source of
income when you retire...
I do have a 401K and I still expect to get my full Social Security benefits at the age of 67.
It clearly states on our Social Security Statements each year that...
Social Security is for people of all ages... We're more than a retirement program. Social
Security also can provide benefits if you become
disabled and help support your family after you die.
Work to build a secure future... Social Security is the largest source of income for
most elderly Americans today, but Social Security
was never intended to be your only source of
income when you retire...
You won no point with me.
This works out well since I wasn't trying to "win points" since you only pointed out what I was saying and I agreed. Why is everything always a fight?
Yes, but "full benefits" does not and never meant that you were not expected to have saved for retirement through other means with SS being a smaller supplement to your retirement funds.
You were challenging me on how I expected to be able to retire with full benefits at 67 and that I should have been making other retirement arrangements.
You threw down the guauntlet, Sir. :-)
It is a common error to look at a single contract for usury (investment) without seeing the "big picture".
As the previous post showed, if ALL invested their money, the resulting sum would dwarf the sum total of money tokens. In other words, such long term usury is IMPOSSIBLE.
It is not news.
In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury: " If 5 English pennies... had been... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."
[Translation - impossible to pay 32 billion earth sized spheres of gold ]
That's why I repeat USURY is mathematically impossible to repay in a finite money token system. It's based on an exponential equation. You need an infinite money token system - which we all know what happens to the value of that kind of money token.
Future value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To further illustrate unsustainability of usury:
Future Worth (FV), based on Present Value (PV)
FV = PV x (1+ interest)^time
Let N = total sum of money tokens
Let PV = 0.1N = 10% of N, the amount invested at 6% per annum, compounded daily
How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
(N/0.1N) = (1 + .06/365)^ time units
Solving for time units
time units = log (N/0.1N) / log (1 + .06/365)
time units = log (1/0.1)/ log (1 + .06/365)
14008.54 days
38.37 years
After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.
In other words, if all the people invested 10% of their money, they’d go bust in 38.37 years, owing (or being owed) all the money that exists. Any further investment past that period cannot be repaid. That is the scam of usury.
In the short term, a portion of debtors will default simply because enough money never existed for them to repay. They will lose their pledged collateral, blaming themselves or their bad luck not realizing that usury was the reason.
That is also why “privatizing” Socialist InSecurity would not be viable. Any widespread “investment” at usury could not be sustained, since the money token supply is finite.
Yes, it's a BIG CON. Always was. Always will be.
That's all very impressive, but you've lost the majority ... assuming that they might actually want to learn something ... and that is a remote possibility.
So, let's simplify this ....... the moment ONE DOLLAR is created, with interest attached ... you already have debt you cannot pay. If the interest is 5% ... that's $1.05 owed ... but only 1 Dollar exists. Where does that extra 5 cents come from? The answer is ... that nickel doesn't and never did exist, so that .05 cannot be physically repaid. Multiply that by Trillions, decade after decade ... and that is a lot of nickels owed that can't possibly be repaid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
