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.
In theory, they say, certain workers, depending on their type of job, can not work to age 65, 67, 70. Example construction workers, or miners and other heavy physical labor.
Other workers can work longer.
Some of their arguments are based on medical issues being a basis for not being able to work longer. Ex: someone who has deteriorating vision due to their job. (I had emergency laser eye surgery three years ago for a detached retina, and the cause was heavy lifting putting a strain on my eyes = end of that type work for me)
Two professionals discussing the pros and cons.
One says "the practical" view is how do you determine, what type of job:
a. lets you get full retirement benefits at an earlier age than others.
b. what about the people who have several different jobs over their work life.
c. should the ones able to retire earlier due to the physical nature of their job, have to "pay in more" as they go along, to justify their full benefits at an earlier age?
I quote Mr. Cox: retirement ages, and benefit changes are "inevitable".....
( old news Mr. Cox)
The other guy says "all" possible solutions should be considered, even the ones based on type job you had, and whether you should be able to get full benefits at a lower age, than someone else.
Mr. Cox counters that in theory, such changes are feasible, but not practical. And it would be a political hot potato,
and guess what? Some NEW "government" agency would have to be created to run it.
Do I hear everyone jumping for joy?
Maybe get that ball rolling by letting the members of Congress, who don't exactly work up a sweat unless they are at the podium and filibustering, or walking up the tall Capital steps, get to retire with full benefits at age 80.
Interesting conversation between two professionals, and rather unique approaches to the social security problem, that go beyond full retirement ages just being raised.
Ah, the CNBC poll results just came in:
41% said construction workers should be able to retire earlier than office workers.
59% said NO.
Silly argument... the answer is 'it depends'. Too much variation in people and jobs. The only realistic solution is to have one retirement age and let individuals adjust as needed.
Sometimes I think they just run out of things to talk about.....so they create what-if scenarios and complicate the issue. When a person retires, it should be based on their health and financial means to do so....regardless of their job description. Both the office worker and the contractor can both be suffering from advanced diabetes or whatever.
and it's not always a matter of what type of job one has, it is a matter of what company will want to keep you in your late 60's? Most companies try to get rid of people now in their 50's so how is one suppose to work until they are 70, it is a rarity...this is yet another scheme being forced on the American people.
I think the rules should be the same for everyone, no matter what job they do, otherwise we are opening up another can of worms....just like SS disability.
That is going to be a pretty mott point as healthcare laws is implemneted. Most comoaniues are getting ready to adopt new reitremnt nenefit provisions that will basically not provide any contribtuion if a person retires before medicare age. They will aloow you in their pool as required but the cost is fully the retiree. Many are also doing what they call uncoupling.Basically this is seprating present retirees;those working now and new hires. The new hires are the ones getting no nelp before medicare. thsoe working how will either get it based on years worked on a sliding scale or the same has present retirees.Where i worked and other I have talked to are separating contribtuion on present employees who retire before medicare at 20;25 and 30 or more years.That and the changing terms makes it much more expensive also.Some are doing it how because their is a grandfther clause in the bill while other who do want to be grandfathered will wait to meet the mandates in the bill.I am sure we will be seeing decoupling like we did in the ages last time on retiremnt dates for Social secutiy and possibly medicare also by birth date with those within ten years not effected.
In theory, they say, certain workers, depending on their type of job, can not work to age 65, 67, 70. Example construction workers, or miners and other heavy physical labor.
Other workers can work longer.
Some of their arguments are based on medical issues being a basis for not being able to work longer. Ex: someone who has deteriorating vision due to their job. (I had emergency laser eye surgery three years ago for a detached retina, and the cause was heavy lifting putting a strain on my eyes = end of that type work for me)
Two professionals discussing the pros and cons.
One says "the practical" view is how do you determine, what type of job:
a. lets you get full retirement benefits at an earlier age than others.
b. what about the people who have several different jobs over their work life.
c. should the ones able to retire earlier due to the physical nature of their job, have to "pay in more" as they go along, to justify their full benefits at an earlier age?
I quote Mr. Cox: retirement ages, and benefit changes are "inevitable".....
( old news Mr. Cox)
The other guy says "all" possible solutions should be considered, even the ones based on type job you had, and whether you should be able to get full benefits at a lower age, than someone else.
Mr. Cox counters that in theory, such changes are feasible, but not practical. And it would be a political hot potato,
and guess what? Some NEW "government" agency would have to be created to run it.
Do I hear everyone jumping for joy?
Maybe get that ball rolling by letting the members of Congress, who don't exactly work up a sweat unless they are at the podium and filibustering, or walking up the tall Capital steps, get to retire with full benefits at age 80.
Interesting conversation between two professionals, and rather unique approaches to the social security problem, that go beyond full retirement ages just being raised.
Ah, the CNBC poll results just came in:
41% said construction workers should be able to retire earlier than office workers.
59% said NO.
I watched it and they both agreed that the practical implementation of was somewhere between very difficult and impossible. One of the realities is people would try to game the system by becoming construction workers later in life. The proponent of felt some sort of master computerized tracking and computation system could be implemented. Oh yeah another reason to grow and fund the federal government!
That is going to be a pretty mott point as healthcare laws is implemneted. Most comoaniues are getting ready to adopt new reitremnt nenefit provisions that will basically not provide any contribtuion if a person retires before medicare age. They will aloow you in their pool as required but the cost is fully the retiree. Many are also doing what they call uncoupling.Basically this is seprating present retirees;those working now and new hires. The new hires are the ones getting no nelp before medicare. thsoe working how will either get it based on years worked on a sliding scale or the same has present retirees.Where i worked and other I have talked to are separating contribtuion on present employees who retire before medicare at 20;25 and 30 or more years.That and the changing terms makes it much more expensive also.Some are doing it how because their is a grandfther clause in the bill while other who do want to be grandfathered will wait to meet the mandates in the bill.I am sure we will be seeing decoupling like we did in the ages last time on retiremnt dates for Social secutiy and possibly medicare also by birth date with those within ten years not effected.
This is a good time to be at least 61/born before 1950.
Some professions were geared decades ago to provide a 20-year pension [law enforcement, fire fighters and military].
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.
old news Mr. Cox)
