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)
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:40 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
30,076 posts, read 16,626,189 times
Reputation: 22626

Advertisements

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.
Tell it to the corporate overlords who like to escort anyone over 55 out of they can get away with it.

Age discrimnation is real.

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 like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
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.
That is already happening. It's kind of a running, unfunny joke that SSD is the new SS. And it's not just manual laborers who are unemployable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
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.
I like this too.

Why can't our highly paid politicians come up with and implement some of these ideas? You know, ALL those with lifetime incomes and insurance ~ on both sides of the aisle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:40 AM
 
15,323 posts, read 4,047,808 times
Reputation: 11055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Another +1. This is exactly why I began investing in rental property at age 30. I just wish I had started 5 years sooner. Social Security already sent me a letter a few weeks ago stating that only 70% of SS will be funded by the time I get to 62 or 70. AFAIC, it may not even be around anymore. If it is, I'm sure that $1,500/month won't go far in 30 years.
Hint - if everyone invests in real estate there is no one left to rent the places....hence the many bubbles we have had in the housing market.

Any true solution to our problems must contain sustainable plans. Being a "boss" (as I was for decades) requires having workers. So what happens to the workers - or, in other words, the majority of citizens?

We had an economy based on this from about 1940 to 1975 or later. It was only the big business takeover of DC and intentional plans to screw the poor and middle class that messed things up.

Maybe you will be lucky enough to make it. But do you relish stepping over homeless people on your way to the restaurant?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:45 AM
 
15,323 posts, read 4,047,808 times
Reputation: 11055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post

I like this too.

Why can't our highly paid politicians come up with and implement some of these ideas? You know, ALL those with lifetime incomes and insurance ~ on both sides of the aisle.
You know, they have all of you eating out of their hands.

Instead of asking the real question - which is:
Why did the workers 50 years ago get full pension paid for by the COMPANY, as well as health care and other things.....especially since productivity is up 80% since then?

You are asking:

Hey, Joe and Jane - you know that wage you are working for now which doesn't include pension, health care and is 1/2 of what people got 30 years ago? How would you like our new plan for you to - besides funding your 401 and health care - ALSO get to take MORE money out of your pay to perk up your SS?

I say that's the wrong question. The proper one is how we reverse the damaging and immoral policies which have created the greatest sucking of wealthy to the top...ever in history.

You can see how the pols get away with it. The Serfs all decide, after being downsized, to plant a little garder so they can eat. Meanwhile the Knights and Kings order up another private jet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:45 AM
 
4,315 posts, read 2,527,661 times
Reputation: 7686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Another +1. This is exactly why I began investing in rental property at age 30. I just wish I had started 5 years sooner. Social Security already sent me a letter a few weeks ago stating that only 70% of SS will be funded by the time I get to 62 or 70. AFAIC, it may not even be around anymore. If it is, I'm sure that $1,500/month won't go far in 30 years.


How many other posters received letters from SS stating SS will only be funded at 70% ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:48 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,252 posts, read 6,345,210 times
Reputation: 9856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
That pretty much sums up the Libertarian view, i.e. "I am responsible only for me; you are responsible for you"

Paul Ryan famously gives out copies of Ayn Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

If you can get through it, you will gain an insight to that philosophy.

When I was 23, it sounded good to me. After all, why should I have to be taxed to pay for others? I used to think that people who have no kids should not be taxed to send kids to school and that people who had many kids should be taxed more.

Now that I'm 67, in hindsight, my views have changed. Although I still believe that people should be primarily self reliant, I realize that we all have different capabilities, and many get the short end of the stick.

As a community of fellow humans, we should support each other.
I think online members like to exaggerate. Both my parents were on Medicaid, they thought it was quite generous. If the maid at the nursing home didn't steal their $2000 allowance, they would have that much when they died.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:50 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,252 posts, read 6,345,210 times
Reputation: 9856
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Of course you can retire at any age, if you don't care about eating or having a place to live. And it's great to plan well for your old age, most people sort of intuitively know that. But if you are a low wage worker, dont't have a great education and lack marketable skills it's pretty darned hard to save enough money to fund a meager emergency fund let alone a retirement- if you don't believe me, try it sometime.
I think when you are in this situation, government will take care of you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:50 AM
 
2,444 posts, read 2,073,760 times
Reputation: 5690
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A Stone View Post
How many other posters received letters from SS stating SS will only be funded at 70% ?
I didn't get the letter. Doubt anyone has
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 10:55 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,252 posts, read 6,345,210 times
Reputation: 9856
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A Stone View Post
How many other posters received letters from SS stating SS will only be funded at 70% ?
I never did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,097 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22152
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
Those are socialist countries with ZIRP interest rate. Why should we follow them?
We spend more on healthcare than any other western nation and have worse outcomes

"Health care spending in the U.S. far exceeds that of other high-income countries, though spending growth has slowed in the U.S. and in most other countries in recent years.3 Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system, it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries.

Public spending on health care amounted to $4,197 per capita in the U.S. in 2013, more than in any other country except Norway ($4,981) and the Netherlands ($4,495), despite the fact that the U.S. was the only country studied that did not have a universal health care system. In the U.S., about 34 percent of residents were covered by public programs in 2013, including Medicare and Medicaid.7 By comparison, every resident in the United Kingdom is covered by the public system and spending was $2,802 per capita. Public spending on health care would be even greater in the U.S. if the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance (amounting to about $250 billion each year) was counted as a public expenditure".

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund

Heck yeah, we don't want none of that socialist universal healthcare nonsense, we need to keep spending money on a system that doesn't work so that we can proudly proclaim our status as an Oligarchy, or perhaps after January 20th, a Kakistocracy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2017, 11:41 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
30,076 posts, read 16,626,189 times
Reputation: 22626
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
You know, they have all of you eating out of their hands.

Instead of asking the real question - which is:
Why did the workers 50 years ago get full pension paid for by the COMPANY, as well as health care and other things.....especially since productivity is up 80% since then?

You are asking:

Hey, Joe and Jane - you know that wage you are working for now which doesn't include pension, health care and is 1/2 of what people got 30 years ago? How would you like our new plan for you to - besides funding your 401 and health care - ALSO get to take MORE money out of your pay to perk up your SS?

I say that's the wrong question. The proper one is how we reverse the damaging and immoral policies which have created the greatest sucking of wealthy to the top...ever in history.

You can see how the pols get away with it. The Serfs all decide, after being downsized, to plant a little garder so they can eat. Meanwhile the Knights and Kings order up another private jet.
Well, I am ALL for it if you can figure out a way to get corporate America to start paying pensions again. I squeaked in as one of the last employees with a pension at my current company.

Younger people that got into the workforce ten years ago are not so lucky.
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