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.
Just some questions about the proposed revision to SS that is before the House---
Does anyone think that the lives of people affected by that proposed retrenching in SS benefits will be IMPROVED if it is implemented and their future benefits might be cut as much as 20%?
Does anyone believe that raising the cap on taxable earnings as well as some reduction to future benefits would be a more balanced approach???
Does anyone think that not raising the cap limit benefits employers as much or more than the individual wage earner??? That this proposed plan is really about protecting/limiting companies' contributions even more than the pocketbooks of the high-income wage earner?
I hope Congress is willing to agree to something similar because I think that is the only equitable way to serve the needs of reform...but I also think that calling SS an "entitlement" when it is a program funded by workers/employers also shows there is bias on part of many legislators so am not hopeful of fair decision...
When you talk about moving FRA to 69--I agree that longevity is pushing the age envelope further away than people anticipated when SS was designed...but I also see many people who don't have office jobs but physical ones--the kinds that damage people's bodies and put them at risk for pronounced body damage...
Those people are going to find it even more difficult to stay employed and contributing to SS vs taking early retirement....
And face it----many people find themselves pushed out of employment by the employer as they age...
And getting rehired full-time at similar pay scale is very difficult...
so those workers usually see a decrease in taxable income in later years which lowers their potential SS benefit
There are millions of people who had that happen in 08 when the market crashed and companies availed themselves of the opportunity to cut their work forces of more senior workers with higher pay levels, nearing retirement....they purged their work forces basically because they knew they could get away with it in the chaos of the economic downturn w/o causing lot of lawsuits about age discrimination...
The stats are there to show a disproportionate number of older workers being let go from what I have read...
And many of those people were never able to return to full-time, similar-wage employment...
50 years ago longevity was about 65 years old and you were dust . today folks are active and fine well passed that age and quite a few still have no trouble working past 62.
as time goes on what we are able to do increases . i remember how old my parents were at my age . here i am going on 65 and running 5 miles every other day
60 is the new 40 . unfortunately 9pm has become the new midnight as well .
I hope Congress is willing to agree to something similar because I think that is the only equitable way to serve the needs of reform...but I also think that calling SS an "entitlement" when it is a program funded by workers/employers also shows there is bias on part of many legislators so am not hopeful of fair decision...
When you talk about moving FRA to 69--I agree that longevity is pushing the age envelope further away than people anticipated when SS was designed...but I also see many people who don't have office jobs but physical ones--the kinds that damage people's bodies and put them at risk for pronounced body damage...
Those people are going to find it even more difficult to stay employed and contributing to SS vs taking early retirement....
And face it----many people find themselves pushed out of employment by the employer as they age...
And getting rehired full-time at similar pay scale is very difficult...
so those workers usually see a decrease in taxable income in later years which lowers their potential SS benefit
There are millions of people who had that happen in 08 when the market crashed and companies availed themselves of the opportunity to cut their work forces of more senior workers with higher pay levels, nearing retirement....they purged their work forces basically because they knew they could get away with it in the chaos of the economic downturn w/o causing lot of lawsuits about age discrimination...
The stats are there to show a disproportionate number of older workers being let go from what I have read...
And many of those people were never able to return to full-time, similar-wage employment...
Agreed.
One thing to keep in mind is that while longevity keeps improving in wealthy, urban areas, life expectancy gains in the South, poor, or rural areas of the country have either stalled out or gone in reverse.
Where I am, life expectancies for a male born today is only about 70 years old. In some nearby counties in Virginia, it is below 70. Contrast that to prestigious areas around DC where life expectancies can be a full decade longer.
Pushing the retirement age up, while important, is going to exclude many in the poorest areas that could benefit the most.
50 years ago longevity was about 65 years old and you were dust . today folks are active and fine well passed that age and quite a few still have no trouble working past 62.
as time goes on what we are able to do increases . i remember how old my parents were at my age . here i am going on 65 and running 5 miles every other day
60 is the new 40 . unfortunately 9pm has become the new midnight as well .
Hard to say. For the first time (I believe ever) the average life expectancy in the United States actually went down. Could be leveling out. Who knows? But I do agree with your proposed changes regarding "fixing for now" Social Security.
Yes
It benefits people who have good health care, good diets, jobs that aren't physically destructive...
I just think about the ranch workers in "Of Muce and Men"
Steinbeck has given us some of the more memorable, sympathetic portraits of workers in our literature---admittedly because he was more left than right leaning.
While the characters in his books like "OMaM" or "Grapes of Wrath" might seem dated in this modern world of hook-up apps and ordering dinner via Alexa---there are millions in same situations of hopelessness...
While the rich have gotten richer since the Dust Bowl, and some sections of Americans have more wealth than their parents or grandparents---there are still vast numbers no bettet off than the Joads, Lenny, or George...
And life for them is not going to be better under this Administration from what I seen in the future Cabinet, or White House, or current Congress...
50 years ago longevity was about 65 years old and you were dust
Actually, the reason why the average age of death was 65 was that a lot of people died before age 5, which lowered the average. These days cars are safer, kids are less likely to be sitting on the seat of the car without a seatbelt, modern medical technology diagnoses their diseases more accurately, to save a lot of them from wrongly diagnosed diseases, modern food safety prevents a lot of food-borne illnesses that used to kill children, modern toys are more safety-minded, preventing a lot of accidents that often lead to lethal complications, fewer dogs have rabies, and many other modern improvements to make children safer which makes life expectancy longer, because it's an average, not a limit.
for calculating things pertaining to older ages they do not use life expectancy from birth , today it is around 78 . back in 1he 1930's for a male it was 58 and 62 for woman , retirement age was 65 . .
as you get older the odds of hitting older ages increase as the sick ,the weak and those accident prone are out of the mix .
the life expectancy for those 65 years of age today are higher than the statistics from birth by quite a bit .
interesting reading on the subject on the ss website .
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.
