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.
Who wants to work until they are 75? The reality is Fortune 500 ain't gonna let anyone work till 75 and blue collar workers might wear out their body before then.
Yup. Companies already force out older workers, for many reasons. One of those reasons is to make room for their younger up-and-comers at higher levels.
Retirement is good for the economy, including younger workers. Retired people who have sufficient retirement income buy stuff and donate many hours of service to non-profit and community organizations.
Now I'd like it better if all workers could earn enough during their working years to at least in theory support their own retirements. But that's not the world we live in.
I would support it if the change was immediate. Trump voters should not get to throw future generations off of Social Security while reaping the benefits themselves. Tell them Paul Ryan has changed the age and they can come back in ten years. Let's see how they like that one.
Rather than increasing the pay out age, why not give Americans more choice?
Chile allows its citizens to invest a portion of their contributions into certain approved funds, which includes stocks.
Adjusting for inflation, many do not even see a positive return on their money and it is typical to have a real rate of return of 1.23%. This is crap.
Give people the option to invest a portion of their funds into the S&P 500 index, Total US Stock Index, and Total World Stock Index.
A typical couple making median wages will pay in about $320,000 over their lifetime and receive about $450,000 in Social Security payments. That is a crappy system that does not experience the wonders of compounding growth.
If this same couple were allowed to put their money into a conservative fund of 50% US Treasuries and 50% S&P 500 they would have paid in $320,000 and accumulated $975,000 - more than double their expected social security output.
We put into social security an amount equivalent to 12.4% of our salary (6.2% plus employer match). That is a large amount of our work to be invested poorly.
What if Social Security gave us the following option:
-individual accounts
-you have the option of investing in certain indices like the S&P 500 index fund
-the most you can invest is half of your money, which would then reduce your social security payment in half, but leaving you your investment gains
-Social Security would then charge a 1% "management fee" on the index funds that would then go back into the social security trust fund.
Who wants to work until they are 75? The reality is Fortune 500 ain't gonna let anyone work till 75 and blue collar workers might wear out their body before then.
.
who said anything about, that raising the SOCIAL SECURITY AGE meant you had to work to that point
I will be retiring for good, in less than 3 years by the age 57/58...my retirement(choosing to stop full time work) has zero to do with SS
many people work well into their 80's... my uncle was 88 and still climbing a ladder
It's 100% true that most people over 55 can't get a job for decent wages and benefits....after all, they are competing (in many cases) against 22-30 year olds. Sure, there are exceptions but even in the "knowledge economy", those over a certain age face brain deterioration (there are reasons why Einstein and others never came up with good stuff after 30)....
So now - on top of all the low wages, no benefits and no secure employment....people want that portion of the population (55-70+) to sit around and watch TV while they go broke?
Maybe in the old days when real pensions existed....but we've run out of how dry we can drain our "regular joe and jane" workers.
The solution is not, IMHO, raising the cap greatly. It could be adjusting the years of work needed for the top benefits and/or the amount needed. It could be in a sliding scale where billionaires and multi-millionaires wouldn't get (or only get 1/2 of) their SS....
The system is not that far out of balance. A couple tweaks are all that is needed.
Note - when the average life span was lower, much of that had to do with childhood death and infant mortality - dragging things down. Someone who made it to 50 or 60 had the odds on their side to live many more years.
We put into social security an amount equivalent to 12.4% of our salary (6.2% plus employer match). That is a large amount of our work to be invested poorly.
What if Social Security gave us the following option:
-individual accounts
-you have the option of investing in certain indices like the S&P 500 index fund
-the most you can invest is half of your money, which would then reduce your social security payment in half, but leaving you your investment gains
-Social Security would then charge a 1% "management fee" on the index funds that would then go back into the social security trust fund.
The US Stock Market is a gambling Casino. After causing the Great Recession and Madoff and all the other schemes...and, most importantly, supercomputers and math geniuses who can make certain that the average investor is scared into selling...while they buy up the bargains???
This is a recipe for disaster. It is another version of the tens of millions of people who buy lottery tickets every day hoping to fund their retirements.
People are free to invest their IRA's. Many were ruined during the Great Recession and had to re-plan their entire lives and retirements.
Why can't people understand that our system is designed to shake the "little guys" off the tree....to the favor of the big corporations? Forcing people into gambling for a return does not seem like great policy.
Note - Japan...which actually makes a LOT of great things and has a decent economy - had their Stock Market sit close to the same level for 20-25 years (maybe longer). For much of that period it was down to 1/ the highs. Not exactly the Rock of Gibraltar.
Raise it to 75 and you will have millions upon millions more on disability. We may be living longer but we are not retaining our fitness or ability to work at physically demanding jobs into those years. Most people of that age are dealing with chronic conditions that, with medical treatment, keep them alive but not productive.
Retired at 62, two years ago. Waiting till 66 to begin collecting. Who wants to work into their seventies?
It wouldn't be by choice and would be so depressing. Basically working until a few years before you die! Not a plan.
Originally SS was a pool that got invested for you by the government. That would be YOUR money in there just like at your bank.
Then the criminals in DC decided to use your money to pay for highways instead of keeping it in a lockbox. Remember SS was intended as SUPPLEMENT only.
We get the government we elect.
Best that the current SS system be phased out to private savings where we could make money on our own, and we are responsible for our own retirement.
Many can retire before 75, but delay collecting until then, but that would assume bridge funds to live on while you get old.
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.
