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 01-05-2017, 01:39 PM
 
4,315 posts, read 2,537,061 times
Reputation: 7687

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdogmom13 View Post
Not all, no, but many, and sometimes ones you wouldn't think are.

I chose a healthcare career. I'm on my feet for 12-13 hours with few breaks (we're lucky to get an uninterrupted 30 minute lunch break), I'm dragging a heavy, balky computer-on-wheels around the whole hospital while I see my patients so I can do mandated charting at bedside, I'm helping reposition patients, moving them from beds to CT scan/MRI/xray tables, helping drag stubborn supposedly self-driving beds down long hallways, reaching up/down/over/around patients to plug in oxygen tubing or electrical cords in poorly designed rooms. My job doesn't always APPEAR to be physically demanding; if you met me in the emergency room, you'd probably wonder how difficult it could be to give nebulizer treatments. I've been doing this for 25 years, I love what I do, but yeah, my body has taken a beating. I'm 62 now and there's no way I could do this full time until I'm 70 or longer.
..........."I'm on my feet for 12-13 hours with few breaks "......


In my younger days I had a physically demanding well paying union job.
10,12,13 hour days.


I later had a union physical job 8 hours.


My last job was easier than the first 2, but was 12 hour night shifts.
You are correct !


Those long shifts really were rough and I worked those between 55-59 years old.
I could never have continued until 70.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2017, 02:21 PM
 
2,635 posts, read 3,383,309 times
Reputation: 6976
My mother was already dead long before 69 and my Dad was severely disabled. There is such a variation in health/lifespan these days. There are some people who at 70 appear as vibrant as a 50 year old and keep working by choice, and more others that do not make it to 70. Many (like my parents) never enjoyed a "retirement" despite having worked for over 40-45 years, and taking care of their health.

You can never account for bad luck, and bad genes.

When I was younger (20's) and less world-wise, I totally supported the higher retirement age. But now as I have seen the repercussions on family/friends, I realize it is a much more complicated issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 02:30 PM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,312,685 times
Reputation: 3400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's nonsensical.

A more elegant solution is to raise the FICA Payroll Tax from 6.2% for employer and employee to 8.5%, add a 2% surcharge tax on income over the Income Cap, and lower the full-retirement age to 65 years for everyone, then make a one-time lump sum payment to those whose retirement age was 65+.



No, and you're going to have to actually get politically involved for the first time in your life, unless you want to get railroaded.
I think this makes sense. Honestly- I know some do, but how many REALLY want to work close to 70? And are they going to guarantee that someone will keep me employed the older I get?


I'd be more for raising the tax a bit and even raising the minimum age, than to keep raising the FRA. You only have one life and a few years when you are older to reap the benefits or retirement- I'm ticked its up to 67 on me quite frankly because I'm not going to work that long if I can help it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,250 posts, read 8,572,788 times
Reputation: 35701
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsteel View Post
I think this makes sense. Honestly- I know some do, but how many REALLY want to work close to 70? And are they going to guarantee that someone will keep me employed the older I get?


I'd be more for raising the tax a bit and even raising the minimum age, than to keep raising the FRA. You only have one life and a few years when you are older to reap the benefits or retirement- I'm ticked its up to 67 on me quite frankly because I'm not going to work that long if I can help it.
Very good point - if the government is effectively preventing a good portion of the population from retiring at an age where they are relatively healthy then the LEAST they can do is put some real teeth into age discrimination law. People are getting pushed out as early as their 50's with much reduced chances for meaningful employment for another 15 or 20 years. I can't imagine that working at McD's on your feet all day feels good at 70!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,871 posts, read 4,979,827 times
Reputation: 17388
This thread could quickly devolve into a Red vs Blue debate. Let's not go there.

However, I think that way too many people cannot work until age 69. Most corporations give you "an offer you can't refuse" before then. As long as people can retire sooner with lower monthly draws, that's OK.

Getting hired beyond late 50s is also mostly impossible for most people. Also, physical jobs wear out the body. So I don't think mandating later retirement for everybody is the right answer.

I think that people should have the option of paying more into social Security while they are working so they can get more out at retirement. At retirement, people need a secure pension like SS; they cannot be expected to be investment gurus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 03:47 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,179,397 times
Reputation: 8464
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Of course not taking into account that some jobs are very physical and that those folks are more likely to be at the low end of salaries and thus could benefit even more by waiting to start benefits, except dangit their bodies are shot so they get penalized for retiring "early".
If their bodies are shot, maybe they could retire on disability. Maybe, while tightening the disability rules for younger people, loosen them for older people. Just enough to make sure old worn-out unemployable manual laborers don't fall through the cracks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 03:59 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,179,397 times
Reputation: 8464
If we ever get basic income, which gives the same amount to everyone, regardless of whether they're rich or poor, working or not; we could use it as an excuse to get rid of SS. We could make the basic income progressive with age, to completely replace all other old-age benefits. Young people would get just enough to survive while going to school, middle aged people would get just enough to support a small family at the poverty level, and old people would get enough to buy medical insurance and live reasonably well in retirement. If younger and middle-aged people wanted more than the bare minimum, they would have to earn money.

Then, if anyone ever committed fraud to get extra basic income, it would be either from pretending to be more than one person, or pretending to be older than really. Either of those pretenses would be easy to investigate at minimal cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 04:02 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,179,397 times
Reputation: 8464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
less known that suicide rates of people between 55 and 60 took a jump during the last recession.
When suicide rates take a jump, they usually don't take a jump off a bridge nor a tall building. If they did, they would go down, not up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,143 posts, read 12,410,961 times
Reputation: 13997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
No more sense than the delusional "progressives" have regarding the nation's ability to fund huge social programs in a de-industrializing economy.

If we're living longer, we're going to have to work later in life; it really is just that simple.
How about a completely voluntary opt in for additional benefits for a little more money?

I have worked in construction management (pipe fitting) for most of my adult life and there are very few men who can do the work beyond age 60 much lest 70. It's hard work and dangerous for someone who doesn't have the strength and balance of a 30 year old.

We need to lift the cap on social security earnings. That would help a lot.

Another thing we need is a voluntary opt in.. something that says to the younger worker "by adding an additional 3% your full retirement age will be reduced from 70 to 64." The additional money would only be from the worker and would not affect the employers contribution.

By adding an additional 4% your full retirement age would be reduced to 62 and 5% would reduce it further to age 60.

I haven't even attempted to figure the numbers that would work but this is just to give an idea of what I am thinking would be a good idea since defined benefit pension plans are a dying breed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,871 posts, read 4,979,827 times
Reputation: 17388
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
How about a completely voluntary opt in for additional benefits for a little more money?

Another thing we need is a voluntary opt in.. something that says to the younger worker "by adding an additional 3% your full retirement age will be reduced from 70 to 64." The additional money would only be from the worker and would not affect the employers contribution.
That's a good idea.

If people could receive a known increase in retirement benefits for a specific contribution, they would like that.
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
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