U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2011, 08:42 AM
ifa
 
294 posts, read 370,253 times
Reputation: 371

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
we are living longer and whats wrong with that statistic is the way its figured. the latest census in numbers actually just showed that over the age of 65 there was a 30% jump in the number of men living to 77.

while the age hasnt increased much the number of people making it that age is much greater. depending how you look at the weighting of averages that number can be downplayed because the age of 77 didnt go up.

the reality is we have more people alive at 77 then ever before and the number of people living to 100 is growing every year as well. statistics can be weighted to show anything but the raw numbers are just the facts.

i always bring up the time we saw a drunk driving commercial and they said 40% of accidents involve drinking or drunk drivers.

i said to my wife ,see its actually safer to drive drunk, 60% of the accidents are people who are straight.

Yes it depends on how you look at the numbers, and throwing numbers around is a really easy way to fool people. The dangerous myth says that modern medicine has delayed the onset of old age for the average person, and therefore we are capable of working longer.

But the increased number of men living to 77 could be explained mostly by the decrease in infant mortality that occurred since the mid 20th century.

Children are vulnerable to bacterial infections because their immune systems are still developing. Without antibiotic treatment, children whose immune systems are weaker are more likely to die. Individuals who reach adulthood are relatively strong.

Antibiotic treatments dramatically reduced infant mortality. Now almost every child survives to adulthood, whether their immune system is relatively strong or relatively weak.

This probably results in higher rates of illness in general, but that is not the point (and no, I don't advocate letting infants die, just stating the obvious).

Anyway, whenever infant mortality is ignored, longevity calculations are misleading. A 30% increase in men surviving to 77 sounds great. And of course the brainwashed American public assumes it's because of Crestor.

Americans are NOT living longer healthier lives. Infant mortality has been lowered to almost zero, contributing to population growth. So there are more old people, and more people in general. And baby boomers are getting old, adding to the increase.

Does the fact that there are more old people now justify raising the SS age? The problems of aging are just as bad now as they ever were, there has been no improvement in that whatsoever.

The dangerous myth says that people used to start collecting SS at 65 and then they usually died by 66. So the program was not expensive.

NOT TRUE. They included infant mortality in the average. In reality, people started SS at 65 and then continued to live almost the same as now. Except for smokers -- that is the big factor that increased average adult longevity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Location: northern Alabama
831 posts, read 876,908 times
Reputation: 2137
Default My social security benefit amount does tell the whole story

I plan on working part time after I retire at age 62. I have elderly parents to care for so I can't continue working full time.

Since I will be working, I will also be paying into social security. So, the amount of benefits I will take from the system is actually the amount of my social security check less what I pay in!

I wonder how much it would help social security to increase the amount that can be earned without reducing social security benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,775,806 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countrysue View Post
I plan on working part time after I retire at age 62. I have elderly parents to care for so I can't continue working full time.

Since I will be working, I will also be paying into social security. So, the amount of benefits I will take from the system is actually the amount of my social security check less what I pay in!

I wonder how much it would help social security to increase the amount that can be earned without reducing social security benefits.
Since you will be working part time, have you considered delaying applying for Soc. Sec. benefits? I'm sure you know the monthly amount will increase the longer you wait, up to age 70. By delaying, you will also avoid the problem of earning over the amount which triggers a reduction in benefits (and that amount is not very high - something like $13,000 per year). At any point after age 62 you can always change your mind and apply. And after full retirement age (66 for most of us posting here), the earnings limitation no longer applies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 04:50 PM
 
71,992 posts, read 72,020,102 times
Reputation: 49560
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifa View Post
Yes it depends on how you look at the numbers, and throwing numbers around is a really easy way to fool people. The dangerous myth says that modern medicine has delayed the onset of old age for the average person, and therefore we are capable of working longer.

But the increased number of men living to 77 could be explained mostly by the decrease in infant mortality that occurred since the mid 20th century.

Children are vulnerable to bacterial infections because their immune systems are still developing. Without antibiotic treatment, children whose immune systems are weaker are more likely to die. Individuals who reach adulthood are relatively strong.

Antibiotic treatments dramatically reduced infant mortality. Now almost every child survives to adulthood, whether their immune system is relatively strong or relatively weak.

This probably results in higher rates of illness in general, but that is not the point (and no, I don't advocate letting infants die, just stating the obvious).

Anyway, whenever infant mortality is ignored, longevity calculations are misleading. A 30% increase in men surviving to 77 sounds great. And of course the brainwashed American public assumes it's because of Crestor.

Americans are NOT living longer healthier lives. Infant mortality has been lowered to almost zero, contributing to population growth. So there are more old people, and more people in general. And baby boomers are getting old, adding to the increase.

Does the fact that there are more old people now justify raising the SS age? The problems of aging are just as bad now as they ever were, there has been no improvement in that whatsoever.

The dangerous myth says that people used to start collecting SS at 65 and then they usually died by 66. So the program was not expensive.

NOT TRUE. They included infant mortality in the average. In reality, people started SS at 65 and then continued to live almost the same as now. Except for smokers -- that is the big factor that increased average adult longevity.
the biggest age for death pre age 60 is the 50's. more people die in their 50's i remember reading than any other group below 60.

it may not be less infant mortality that is making more men live longer. it may be they are just making through their 50's better.

they say if you make it through your 50's odds are you are good to 70.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
27,798 posts, read 26,272,080 times
Reputation: 14611
I don't need social security and would accept not receiving it in return for 1)my contributions returned over time, or 2)a tax credit each year for the amount I should have received. I know a lot of people who don't need it, but take it anyway because they contributed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 05:48 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,538,376 times
Reputation: 29083
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the biggest age for death pre age 60 is the 50's. more people die in their 50's i remember reading than any other group below 60.

it may not be less infant mortality that is making more men live longer. it may be they are just making through their 50's better.

they say if you make it through your 50's odds are you are good to 70.
Having observed that personally through seven or eight workplace deaths over about a 10-year span, early-on I came to the conclusion that surviving your 50s was a great start on a long life. I think it may be because people are either at the top of their careers and it's stressful or they haven't achieved what they originally set out to accomplish in life which can result in a whole other type of stress along with disappointment and distress

I celebrated my 60th birthday in proper measure!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 06:07 PM
 
71,992 posts, read 72,020,102 times
Reputation: 49560
way to go.. i still have a year or so to 60..

i know so many to that passed away in their 50's...

im not sure what to attribute the fact to that there are so many more of us men still alive at 78 than ever before. i dont buy the smoking thing because women smoked just as much and are unchangred over the same time frame .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,552 posts, read 44,124,869 times
Reputation: 15171
Two female co-workers I knew who died in their 50s were very unhealthy, extremely overweight (making very bad food choices, which I observed daily) and had enormous family stress - much of it self-inflicted. One was a diabetic with cancer, the other had a stroke. In both those cases, no underage dependents, so SS kept all their contributions.

I also worked with a highly educated, intelligent, very fit man, who developed cancer in his spine and died at the age of 53. No underage dependents, here, either.

Also knew of a very young lawyer - mid 30s - who died at his desk, burning the midnight oil, fighting off a takeover attempt for his clients. Talked to him one day, he was gone the next. Left kids, so wife and kids had some help from SS.

Ya' never know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:07 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,327 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Two proposals that were recently released:

Heritage Foundation:
http://www.savingthedream.org/about-...vAmerDream.pdf

Senator Coburn
http://coburn.senate.gov/public//ind...0-79c43f33913a

The Heritage Foundation's proposal did not surprise me. Senator Coburn's plan was a bit of a shocker, given that he is a Congressman. Perhaps he does not intend to seek reelection ?
Let me put it as clear as I can- they had best LEAVE their Goddam hands OFF my benefits. I will tell you right now that if those sons of beetchs TOUCH it we need to march up there with torches and pitchforks and clean that place the hell out. Senator Reid is going to look pretty damn funny trying to walk around DC with my boot stuck in his ass. I have worked too long and paid too much into that system. As if I had any choice about it. I have worked since I was 15 years old. Never been unemployed for even ONE day for 40 years now. The bastards already robbed me of 2 years when they raised the age to 67. LEAVE IS ALONE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 08:12 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,627,327 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
You speculate that Sen. Coburn may "not intend to seek reelection". Did you mean this as a criticism or a compliment? I think we need more politicians who put rationality and the long-term interest of the nation ahead of their own re-election hopes. His proposal is long (26 pages) but very rational and very well thought out. He starts by pointing out what we all ought to admit right now - that we are between a rock and a hard place with regard to Social Security. Here are his proposals:

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

Now I can make counter-arguments against all four of the proposals. But I want to know what poster Lenora would propose as solutions, if, as she seems to be implying, she doesn't like the above four. Is she in favor of doing nothing and waiting for the train wreck? Let's face it: Nothing that can be done will fail to gore somebody's ox. Sen. Coburn's four suggestions are about as reasonable as any I have seen, and I follow this debate.

In addition, Sen. Coburn has some common-sense proposals for reforming the disability program. Why do you think disability awards have been increasing at an exponential rate? Isn't that in itself a gigantic red flag that something is wrong? Do you really think the human gene pool has changed so much in a few decades that we have scads more disabled people? Wouldn't it be worth doing something to cut the fraud and abuse in order to preserve disability payments for those who are truly disabled? Or would it be better to do nothing and wait for the train wreck? The disability train wreck is coming sooner than the Social Security retirement benefits train wreck, so the former is even more critical to address than the latter.
I have a better idea. Why doesn't Senator Coburn try paying for the 2 wars his party started and the not good for nothing President we have now keeps going? Pay for them and not with MY benefits! Maybe we can stop spending billions on bridges to nowhere, studying the mating habits of homosexual frogs and $257,000 outhouses in national parks (you know the private sector can provide a Port-O-San for about $400?). Maybe Senator Coburn should look at those things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top