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.
Given how long the current and future generations live and are kept healthy, I suspect the full retirement age will be increased to 70 and in another 30 years or less to 75. Right now, the average lifespan is 72, I believe, but if you look at the pool of people who reach the age of 62, the average lifespan is 84, according to Social Security.
Given how long the current and future generations live and are kept healthy, I suspect the full retirement age will be increased to 70 and in another 30 years or less to 75. Right now, the average lifespan is 72, I believe, but if you look at the pool of people who reach the age of 62, the average lifespan is 84, according to Social Security.
The expected lifespan of someone born in 2016 was 79.
not really true 100% for the most part . life expecatancy at birth plays no part in your life expectancy as you get older and older .
as michael kitce's points out .
“life expectancy” can be a somewhat misleading term. Many people hear the term and think of it as a measure of how long they can “expect to live”. In reality, though, life expectancy is a measure of the average time a person within some particular population is expected to live. While the average is meaningful in many respects, it may not always provide the best measure for setting expectations about the actual age someone is likely to reach. Because mortality rates aren’t constant across a lifespan and the distribution of ages at death are heavily skewed (i.e., more people die old than young), commonly cited life expectancy measures—particularly life expectancy at birth, which is most often cited in the media—may result in misleading expectations.
For instance, a child born in 2014 has a life expectancy (average age at death) of 79. However, the median age of death for the same child is 83, and the modal (most common) age at death is 89! Given the shape of the distribution of ages at death (negatively skewed), it’s simply a mathematical fact that the mean is going to be lower than the median or the mode
even average life expectancy changes for couples as you get older and older . so much so that by 65 the expectancy is very different than birth . one person in a couple has just under a 50% chance of seeing 90 .
[/i][/i]Just raise the income cap a lot more. Done.
Now Medicare/Medicaid, health insurance, healthcare in general... An ongoiong disaster.
^^This. This is what they will probably do, as they have done in the past. So many folks have no other way to provide for their years after they can no longer effectively work. It is a life-saver to so many. If you want to see people become active in voting and politics try to take their SS away. See what happens.
What if the SS portion of peoples wages were invested in the S&P 500 over a forty year period? I haven't done the math. Any insight Mathjak?
Social Security is a microcosm of socialism and it really doesn't scale too well with regard to population growth and increased life expectancy. Making it solvent will require more wealth redistribution in the form of higher taxes and decreased benefits for the middle class.
Well, since soooo... many these days, seem to be nostalgic for the 50's, let's go back to the taxes rates then ...90% on Capital Gains and 70% on the highest Income Tax bracket. Social Security and Medicare would be rolling around in cash! But let's see who screams the loudest, if that were to happen!
But Frank, this is not new news - we've known about this for years. What can you expect when the system is being used the way it is?
You do realize that when social security was established the average Americal only lived a few years beyond retirement and so paying his benefits was not a problem? These days the average American uses up what they actually contributed to the system over their lifetime in about 3 years, BUT THEY STILL GET TO KEEP GETTING MONEY, sometimes for 20 years or more!
People have got to stop thinking of social security as their ONLY retirement plan!
I don't think it's an issue of "thinking" it. for many people it IS the only retirement.
I think you will eventually see a move to a mix of the following
1. Income taxaable will be raised
2. % going to SS will increase
3. Increase in FRA
A mixture of all three. As someone said earlier, those in that age group vote and that group will increase and for many is all they have so no way politicians can take it away.
I don't think it's an issue of "thinking" it. for many people it IS the only retirement.
WSJ had an article only 25% of the retiree population relies solely on SS. The result of analyzying people 's tax returns.
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.
