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 09-03-2011, 02:36 PM
 
9,188 posts, read 9,267,265 times
Reputation: 28769

Advertisements

This article by Robert Samuelson, an economist who writes often for Newsweek Magazine, emphasizes just how much demographics have changed since the 1930's when Social Security was put in place. The average senior was 65 years of age in 1930 could expect to live an additional 12.2 years. In 2006, the average senior 65 years of age could expect to live 18.5 years. This is a one third increase in the number of years of retirement for seniors. The extra money to pay for all those months of retirement and healthcare have to come from somewhere. The retirement age needs to be raised to about 69. Increasing it by 4 years (from 65) is not unreasonable considering the six additional years of longevity.

The gist of the article is that while many elderly people are not affluent there are many who are. Calling on them to pay something more for Medicare and Social Security is not unreasonable.

The solution to the woes with Medicare and Social Security is not to "privatize" them and put them at the mercy of corporate America. The solution is to do the responsible thing and raise taxes. I would suggest the affluent should pay more, but everyone should pay something.

Reduce entitlement spending? Start with the affluent elderly - Commentary - Ohio

Last edited by markg91359; 09-03-2011 at 02:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2011, 02:44 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,349,542 times
Reputation: 22356
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This article by Robert Samuelson, an economist who writes often for Newsweek Magazine, emphasizes just how much demographics have changed since the 1930's when Social Security was put in place. The average senior was 65 years of age in 1930 could expect to live an additional 12.2 years. In 2006, the average senior 65 years of age could expect to live 18.5 years. This is a one third increase in the number of years of retirement for seniors. The extra money to pay for all those months of retirement and healthcare have to come from somewhere.

The gist of the article is that while many elderly people are not affluent there are many who are. Calling on them to pay something more for Medicare and Social Security is not unreasonable.

The solution to the woes with Medicare and Social Security is not to "privatize" them and put them at the mercy of corporate America. The solution is to do the responsible thing and raise taxes. I would suggest the affluent should pay more, but everyone should pay something.

Reduce entitlement spending? Start with the affluent elderly - Commentary - Ohio
Why should people be penalized for being successful or frugal, and having money? Just because they were harder working they should be penalized? That's stupid.

If the government had NOT "borrowed" money from social security, but instead cared for it properly, we wouldn't have this problem. But unfortunately, our government doesn't know how to balance their checkbook.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Prospect, KY
5,288 posts, read 17,953,712 times
Reputation: 6544
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This article by Robert Samuelson, an economist who writes often for Newsweek Magazine, emphasizes just how much demographics have changed since the 1930's when Social Security was put in place. The average senior was 65 years of age in 1930 could expect to live an additional 12.2 years. In 2006, the average senior 65 years of age could expect to live 18.5 years. This is a one third increase in the number of years of retirement for seniors. The extra money to pay for all those months of retirement and healthcare have to come from somewhere. The retirement age needs to be raised to about 69. Increasing it by 4 years (from 65) is not unreasonable considering the six additional years of longevity.

The gist of the article is that while many elderly people are not affluent there are many who are. Calling on them to pay something more for Medicare and Social Security is not unreasonable.

The solution to the woes with Medicare and Social Security is not to "privatize" them and put them at the mercy of corporate America. The solution is to do the responsible thing and raise taxes. I would suggest the affluent should pay more, but everyone should pay something.

Reduce entitlement spending? Start with the affluent elderly - Commentary - Ohio
I disagree with you and the article on so many levels. Give more money to a government that wastes and mishandles money like water going down the drain - no thank you. I do not agree that those who have saved and worked very hard for their money should have to be penalized. I absoluely detest this liberal, socialistic way to thinking.

Last edited by Cattknap; 09-03-2011 at 03:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,133 posts, read 20,817,345 times
Reputation: 8293
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This article by Robert Samuelson, an economist who writes often for Newsweek Magazine, emphasizes just how much demographics have changed since the 1930's when Social Security was put in place. The average senior was 65 years of age in 1930 could expect to live an additional 12.2 years. In 2006, the average senior 65 years of age could expect to live 18.5 years. This is a one third increase in the number of years of retirement for seniors. The extra money to pay for all those months of retirement and healthcare have to come from somewhere. The retirement age needs to be raised to about 69. Increasing it by 4 years (from 65) is not unreasonable considering the six additional years of longevity.

The gist of the article is that while many elderly people are not affluent there are many who are. Calling on them to pay something more for Medicare and Social Security is not unreasonable.

The solution to the woes with Medicare and Social Security is not to "privatize" them and put them at the mercy of corporate America. The solution is to do the responsible thing and raise taxes. I would suggest the affluent should pay more, but everyone should pay something.

Reduce entitlement spending? Start with the affluent elderly - Commentary - Ohio
How's this, remove the cap from the wage tax so they can pay in at the same rate as the rest of us. Then they can be entitled
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 02:55 PM
 
Location: SoCal desert
8,093 posts, read 13,227,512 times
Reputation: 14870
It raised my hackles immediately just with the title, so I'm not even going to look at it.

It is not an entitlement.

I've paid into SS for over 45 years. It's mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Bar Harbor, ME
1,922 posts, read 3,778,428 times
Reputation: 1292
Entitlement? I don't have a problem with calling it an entitlement.

Heck, I AM ENTITLED to the check I get every fourth wednesday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Bar Harbor, ME
1,922 posts, read 3,778,428 times
Reputation: 1292
Just for the record.... who are the affluent elderly, anyways?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 03:19 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
19,830 posts, read 18,839,234 times
Reputation: 33729
I think the entitled elderly must mostly live here in MA. There are condos being built all over the place for them--$600,000, $800,000. Nothing at all is being built for low income elderly and will there ever be a shortage in a few years! BTW, you can work really hard all your life and still end up as low income due to divorce, disability, or just the fact that you had a job like social worker which is low paying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 03:20 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,901,398 times
Reputation: 18049
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
This article by Robert Samuelson, an economist who writes often for Newsweek Magazine, emphasizes just how much demographics have changed since the 1930's when Social Security was put in place. The average senior was 65 years of age in 1930 could expect to live an additional 12.2 years. In 2006, the average senior 65 years of age could expect to live 18.5 years. This is a one third increase in the number of years of retirement for seniors. The extra money to pay for all those months of retirement and healthcare have to come from somewhere. The retirement age needs to be raised to about 69. Increasing it by 4 years (from 65) is not unreasonable considering the six additional years of longevity.

The gist of the article is that while many elderly people are not affluent there are many who are. Calling on them to pay something more for Medicare and Social Security is not unreasonable.

The solution to the woes with Medicare and Social Security is not to "privatize" them and put them at the mercy of corporate America. The solution is to do the responsible thing and raise taxes. I would suggest the affluent should pay more, but everyone should pay something.

Reduce entitlement spending? Start with the affluent elderly - Commentary - Ohio
Not going to happen as we saw with past SS solutions.Some see every soltuion has taxing the wealthy more. On medicare its already been cut 500 billion by the heatlthcare bill.The trustees reported on SS and medicare just recertly. On medicare they reported that in 2012 it will drop rembursement to 30% of what private insurance pays on average.The reality of what is happening is much different than rehoric of the adminsitration for sure.Without increased funding from payroll increases and raising the age in 2027 payments will be reduced the SS trustees estimate to 77% across the board. Raise tax limit and you have to pay them higher amounts when they retire by law.

Last edited by texdav; 09-03-2011 at 03:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2011, 03:20 PM
 
6,226 posts, read 6,841,813 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu View Post
Entitlement? I don't have a problem with calling it an entitlement.

Heck, I AM ENTITLED to the check I get every fourth wednesday.
That is where I'm a little confused, what exactly is an entitlement? Is it FICA taxes one payed for over a period of many years. Or is an entitlement foodstamps and or welfare in which moneys derived from the general fund? If I retired now I'd receive SS or if disabled SSDI, I paid into the system for nearly 40. But welfare I am absolutely not qualified, so, what is an entitlement?
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