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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
