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.
The decision when to retire is based on a person's financial situation, their health, and how much they like or dislike their job.
I have found that in most "corporate America' companies; the muckity-mucks will stay on board until they either drop dead or are well into their 80s. The main reason for them is that the higher up they are on the totem pole the less work they do anyway, and the less stress they face each day on the job. And how many do you see actually working 8 hrs a day anyway?
The real worker-bees who are worn out from the constant stress and being the company's 'dumping ground' are eager to retire as soon as they are able.
And there are a handful who just love working so much that they don't have a life outside of their job (I feel sorry for them!). It's fine to like your work, but it's better to love your life.
It boils down to a personal decision that only each person can make.
Me? I can't wait to get out! And I have just 5 months left before retirement!!
Last edited by katie45; 06-30-2010 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: typo
Relief of the deficit would best be accomplished if we were not spending more than 30% of our national budget on military (nearly more that ALL of the other nations combined), and 19% on the interest to our debt -- a debt that did not exist until President Bush took office.
How many of you could afford the same expenses from your budget? Clearly, we need to re-prioritize, to get back into a rational distribution, but extending the length of time a person has to work isn't going to do it. Many Americans cannot now work until their social security kicks in, and are force to suffer the gap. Perhaps none of you have yet experienced the discrimination of employers upon the older workers, but it certainly does exist.
For a "God-fearing, Christian" nation, we sure are quick to cut care for our under-privileged, yet have no qualms about military and corporate support -- two industries that do NOTHING for public wellness.
Relief of the deficit would best be accomplished if we were not spending more than 30% of our national budget on military (nearly more that ALL of the other nations combined), and 19% on the interest to our debt -- a debt that did not exist until President Bush took office.
How many of you could afford the same expenses from your budget? Clearly, we need to re-prioritize, to get back into a rational distribution, but extending the length of time a person has to work isn't going to do it. Many Americans cannot now work until their social security kicks in, and are force to suffer the gap. Perhaps none of you have yet experienced the discrimination of employers upon the older workers, but it certainly does exist.
For a "God-fearing, Christian" nation, we sure are quick to cut care for our under-privileged, yet have no qualms about military and corporate support -- two industries that do NOTHING for public wellness.
At least your post doesn't have a political agenda!
Social Security should be cut completely. The government is not a person's financial planner or mother. If a person isn't responsible enough to save for their own retirement then they can keep working. Social Security (and other social programs) punishes those of us who make it on our own by forcing us to pay for those who are not responsible enough to save for themselves.
At least your post doesn't have a political agenda!
Social Security should be cut completely. The government is not a person's financial planner or mother. If a person isn't responsible enough to save for their own retirement then they can keep working. Social Security (and other social programs) punishes those of us who make it on our own by forcing us to pay for those who are not responsible enough to save for themselves.
Wait a second - SS is paid into by the employee and the amount allotted upon retirement is dependent on what's been paid in, correct? How is Social Security "punishing" you if you choose not to apply for the benefits you've accumulated by paying into the system?
There is no question at all that the social and welfare systems need a drastic overhaul but it does seem that when one area of abuse is cleaned up another takes its place so it's an ongoing problem. But I really don't understand the reasoning behind your proposition that SS be abolished.
Wait a second - SS is paid into by the employee and the amount allotted upon retirement is dependent on what's been paid in, correct? How is Social Security "punishing" you if you choose not to apply for the benefits you've accumulated by paying into the system?
There is no question at all that the social and welfare systems need a drastic overhaul but it does seem that when one area of abuse is cleaned up another takes its place so it's an ongoing problem. But I really don't understand the reasoning behind your proposition that SS be abolished.
From a selfish, personal standpoint Social Security is estimated to give roughly a 2% rate of return for someone my age (24 years old). Between property/stock investments I have averaged around 10%/year for the last two years. Simply put - paying into Social Security loses me money.
From an idealistic standpoint, I don't think it is the government's responsibility to take care of people's retirement. I am a big proponent of small government. I also think with the current debt crisis our country is experiencing we need to cut spending down to bare bones (cut all social programs, most of the military budget, etc) until the national debt is eliminated.
From a 'what do we do about it' standpoint, - our country is a guy with 5 maxed out credit cards. Until those cards are paid off, it is irresponsible for that guy to go on vacation/eat out/go out drinking/lend money to friends/etc. Our national spending needs a dramatic cut until it is under control. I absolutely think social programs have good intentions, but we simply cannot afford them at the moment. I also think social programs teach the wrong values. Instead of teaching people to provide for themselves, they are taught they don't need to have 1,2 or even 3 backup plans in case they cannot provide for themselves.
I understand why the retirement age is proposed to increase, I simply think it is a band-aid on a broken leg. It just won't solve the real problem which is us as a nation spending more than we receive every year.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763
The article isn't clear to me - is he talking about raising the minimum benefits age from 62 to 70 or the full benefits age to 70? For people my age, the full benefits age is 67, so this is a considerable difference.
Not only that ... Folks have paid into the system all their lives and I feel that raising the age to 70 is a slap in the face.
This is only in the proposal stage, I don't think it has even made it to committee. I doubt they will try hitting anyone now over 50, that is the age group most likely to vote. Perhaps apply to younger voters who don't expect much or anything from Social Security. Then they can start worrying how to find jobs for all those now looking. Actually, shouldn't they be working on that already?
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.
