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.
It would depend on the terms of the proposal. Boomers and seniors would be much more likely to vote and there are a heckuva lot more of them than in the younger generations. I also know a lot of children and grandchildren who would, in fact, vote to protect Grandma's meager social security check.
Good point. It would, of course, depend on the specific terms of any given proposal. One thing that has surprised me over the past year or so of reading posts on CD is the vehemence of the intergenerational resentment expressed by the younger generations, particularly against the boomers. I agree that some younger people would vote to protect the perceived interests of aging grandparents. Although I am receiving Social Security retirement benefits (in the amount of $23 net after the Medicare Part B premium is deducted), I would vote for any reasonable proposal to keep the system solvent. In other words, my vote would be essentially to protect those receiving the "meager" checks, except that I wouldn't care if I had to forego my own benefit, which is so small as to be meaningless and which I don't need, except to the extent that it qualifies me for Medicare.
As boomer start to retire I imagine you will see a shift in what is supported from now.Mnay of the old seniors now are from a genration who react to the "take your scoial security away" with any suggest to save it. Over the years more and more are not falling for the fear tactics like previous generations. The reason Obama said what he did about not guarnteeeing SS payments ratehr tha other that are inmore danger ;is this efect on a group who vote i large numbers and don't have to be pushed to the polls .Time they are achanging as the saying goes.
Good point. It would, of course, depend on the specific terms of any given proposal. One thing that has surprised me over the past year or so of reading posts on CD is the vehemence of the intergenerational resentment expressed by the younger generations, particularly against the boomers. I agree that some younger people would vote to protect the perceived interests of aging grandparents. Although I am receiving Social Security retirement benefits (in the amount of $23 net after the Medicare Part B premium is deducted), I would vote for any reasonable proposal to keep the system solvent. In other words, my vote would be essentially to protect those receiving the "meager" checks, except that I wouldn't care if I had to forego my own benefit, which is so small as to be meaningless and which I don't need, except to the extent that it qualifies me for Medicare.
Are you talking about those generations whose members already know everything worth knowing, are going to live forever and every member of which is going to be wealthy and not care if Social Security and Medicare survive because they won't need them? Are those the generations you mean?
Better hang onto those $23. The premium will rise.
Are you talking about those generations whose members already know everything worth knowing, are going to live forever and every member of which is going to be wealthy and not care if Social Security and Medicare survive because they won't need them? Are those the generations you mean?
Better hang onto those $23. The premium will rise.
In my post I was not intending to take sides in the generational conflict; I was merely pointing out its intensity, which your comment confirms. Sure, the Medicare premium will rise, but I won't need my Soc. Sec. benefit to pay it. (They bill you.)
Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it! And if you get it, you won't be at all happy with the results. Do actually think that people who "subsist on Social Security" are in the majority in this country? No way. The young people who resent paying for us older people would not vote against their own narrowly defined best interests and those who "subsist on Social Security" would be royally screwed. Don't be so naive.
The young workers of today do not face the kinds of security (massive property owning, secure investments, secure jobs) that the Boomers and the post-WWII generation have had. They, most likely, will be in just as great a need of their Social Security as many are today, and as many of our parents' generation have been (our parents' generation relied on SS even more than Boomers). Previous to SS, the vast majority of older people had to rely on family and good old savings. The only reason the young people resent our SS today is the enormous size of the Boomer wave. I, and all of my generation, did not even think about, much less "resent," paying into a system that would benefit our own parents in their old age. Seems there's a real bias against any senior today relying on SS. So interesting.
1. Reduce benefits for higher income earners
2. Increase retirement age to reflect gains in life expectancy
3. Improve calculation of COLA's
4. Adjust the spousal benefit calculation
Low-wage workers lag behind the rest of us in longevity, so increasing retirement age is regressive.
Social Security is a redistributive scheme taking from those who die early and giving it to those who die late.
"Increase retirement age to reflect gains in life expectancy"
What gains in life expectancy? That is a very unfortunate myth. Life expectancy has barely increased for middle-aged Americans (the average has increased because of a decrease in infant mortality). And older Americans are probably sicker now than ever. And even if they were healthy, age discrimination is rampant, so how the heck are we supposed to find and keep jobs when we're old?
Increasing SS retirement age is a stupid idea and will create misery for millions. Not that you can live on SS anyway, but they took our money and we are counting on getting it back.
You're simply mistaken here. There have been life expectancy gains across the spectrum. Infant mortality is down. The deaths of people in middle ages (40-60) are down also because of medicines that lower high blood pressure and cholesterol. The reduction in deaths from heart attacks and strokes is extraordinary. Every one of these people who survives past age 66 or thereabouts will be collecting social security as will premature infants who survive into adulthood.
Older people are surviving significantly longer as well. I'll give some examples that prove my point. My maternal grandfather died at age 73. My maternal grandmother died at age 82. My mother is still alive at age 92. My paternal grandfather died at age 72. My paternal grandmother died at age 83. My father died at age 84. You're looking at the same gene pool here. If certain pharmaceuticals and medical treatments were not available today there is no reason my parents wouldn't have died at the same ages that their parents died at.
More importantly, regardless of the actual age an elderly person dies at if there are X more millions of elderly people who survive to age 66 and become eligible for social security benefits these benefits have to be paid for in some way. All the whining and groaning in the world doesn't change that fact.
Tom Coburn is far from my favorite person. He is about as anti-choice on the issue of abortion as one can be. I think he probably has recorded more "no" votes against the President and his legislative proposal than about anyone else in Congress. Nevertheless, I think Coburn is fairly accurate when it comes to proposals for raising social security. In essence, he says we need to increase retirement ages and social security taxes if the program is to remain solvent over the long haul. This probably will result in some hardship to some elderly persons who want/need to leave the labor force early. Nevertheless, all reforms involve some groups experiencing pain and discomfort they didn't previously. Its a better alternative than simply taking care of this generation and than allowing the program to run out of money.
The main problem with raising retirement age are JOBS, JOBS and JOBS. With so many older americans have so little saved and there are no jobs so how would one expect them to survive if they are out of work in their 50s and 60s? Especially when the health insurance is so expensive? Not everyone works for the goverment or megacorp that offers early retire health insurance benefit. The majority of americans work for small businesses that provide no pension and retired health insurance.
If this happen, we will see a large increase in number of older americans relying on medicaid and food stamps to survive after they've spent their little life savings on medical care since this is the age one most likely have medical issues.
You're simply mistaken here. There have been life expectancy gains across the spectrum. Infant mortality is down. The deaths of people in middle ages (40-60) are down also because of medicines that lower high blood pressure and cholesterol. The reduction in deaths from heart attacks and strokes is extraordinary.
You are absolutely wrong. Yes infant mortality is down, as I said, and that dramatically raises the average lifespan. The "medicines" that lower blood pressure and cholesterol are NOT responsible for increased lifespan! You cannot show any evidence for that, you are merely echoing drug company propaganda. The reduction in deaths from heart attacks and strokes is mostly because of a big decrease in cigarette smoking.
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.
