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.
#1: The GOP, as a policy position in every one of their platforms for about the past 15 years, have been saying that they cannot be responsible for saving Social Security (as if they want to) unless the retirement age is raised to age 70. So please understand, DorianRo, anyone who votes for Republicans is working toward making 70 the mandatory retirement age. People who want workers to be able to retire prior to that age need to be supporting the candidates who advocate for Social Security staying AS IT IS NOW. So, DorianRo, I hope you are doing all you can to support strengthening Social Security so it is there for people who WANT to retire at age 62 or 65.
#2: I personally know several people who are hanging on to their jobs past the age of 65. All of them need the money because they have un- or under-employed adult children they are helping to support. Please understand that them quitting their jobs would not make a position for their "kids." People who are in their 20s and 30s are rarely qualified for the positions people in their 50s and 60s are "hogging" (to take what I think your point is). What this country needs is more entry-level positions, more jobs for the not-college-educated, a more-adequate wage for people who have jobs on the lower tier, and government encouragement to companies who create new jobs in the U.S. instead of sending them overseas.
#3: The Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives has done everything in its power to:
- Keep young people enslaved to the student loans they took out because higher education has become so expensive,
- Stop job-creation programs proposed by the Obama Administration,
- Stop the minimum wage from being raised so those in entry-level positions can live dignified lives,
- Hinder the payment of Unemployment Compensation and other aid for the unemployed,
- Stop improvements in public transportation, the creation of adequate lower-income housing, family planning availability, day care, and other things that would make the lives of young people better.
#4: Why is the GOP getting away with treating young people so callously and ignoring their need for adequate employment? To a large degree because young people DO NOT VOTE. People like you, who need help to get on their feet, FAIL TO PARTICIPATE in the political process at the level that would really get them some help. The President of the United States, Mr. Obama or anyone other president, is not a dictator. The president cannot make jobs, that's not how it's done. Yet the presidential election is the only one most people under the age of 40 vote in.
Do you know who represents you in the U.S. House, DorianRo? Do you know how s/he has helped or hindered your need for a better life? I agree that your generation has serious problems which are not being addressed. But the answer is not for your parents to take early retirement. That would solve next-to-nothing. You need help with student loan repayment, help getting a job, help with making sure your job is stable and pays a decent wage, help with getting a home mortgage, help planning a family so it arrives when you can afford it. None of those things is being addressed by the majority currently in Congress. Many people will tell you it's not the government's job to help you. Personally, I disagree because to a great degree it's government policies that have created the mess you're in.
Social Security, as it currently is, is not sustainable. There are going to be far too many people drawing funds from the system vs. the number of people contributing funds into the system to make it sustainable. People are drawing benefits for far longer, on average, than when the system was originally thought up. It can be made sustainable, but painful changes will have to be made. You can either work it from the inflow or outflow side, or some combination thereof.
Inflow:
1) You can raise the maximum amount of income that you pay SS taxes on.
2) The tax rates themselves can be raised.
3) A one-time additional levy could be instituted.
Outflow:
1) Increase retirement age. On average, people will be drawing funds for a shorter period, thus decreasing outflows.
2) Decrease benefits.
3) "Lump sum" payment vs. the payments with COLA. Lump sums, if instituted correctly, could save money.
These are just a few ideas. Right now, SS meets the definition of:
Quote:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme
Except there is no need for promises of increasing returns - the government just takes the money by law. If I had the ~12% that is taken from my employer and me to pay for my "retirement" (again, the government assumes I'm too stupid to take care of my own needs), I could make far better use of that money.
I know a lot of 50+ people stuck in "entry" level (read: dead-end) jobs that would have been good for a new college graduate or even a high school graduate. Boomers are not just "hogging" director to C level positions - many were laid off from other industries and are having to do whatever they can to survive. I don't blame them, but there is a "clog" at the bottom of the labor market, and that "clog" is partially skilled boomers in entry level jobs because there are not enough decent jobs available.
How are the Republicans keeping people enslaved to student loan debt? The chief reason costs keep going up is precisely because market forces are not at work! The government is the primary lender in the student loan market. It also controls the regulations on default. With the government being both lender and regulator, it has no interest in writing off the bad debt it holds. There is no real risk to the lender because the lender (government) can change the rules to favor itself. Colleges raise prices because they get their money from the lender (the government) up front - even if the student defaults, the college isn't at risk, so they raise prices just because they can. This has caused a violent feedback loop of increased prices leading to increased, no-risk debt, followed by further price increases, and even more debt.
If there were market forces at work, people couldn't go to some crummy private school (there are plenty of small, often religious, colleges that provide a lackluster education compared to even regional public schools) and run up tens of thousands of dollars in debt for degrees that have no market in the private sector. Few lenders would lend on that basis because it would be a high-risk loan. If they did, the interest rates would be sky high. An engineering degree from a state flagship that costs half as much as that crummy private school would be viewed as a much lower risk for the lender. I know several folks who went to these small, liberal arts colleges, got a degree in something that wasn't really marketable, and are just screwed now. The market would put a lot of these schools out of business, or at least cause substantial reform.
You have this issue completely backwards.
Why is "family planning" and day care something the government needs to provide? You should be responsible for your own birth control needs and day care if you have a kid. I don't have a kid and I most certainly don't want to pay someone else's day care bills. If you can't afford birth control, then don't have sex. It's 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. It is insane to me why this should be even be within the purview of government.
Young people fail to participate? Wasn't Obama supposed to change all that? I was still in college in 2008 and saw this tidal wave of "hope and change." Granted, the Bush presidency was falling apart and McCain was a lackluster candidate, but Obama really did fire people up. All people have to do is get down to a polling place and cast a vote. You can't compel people into voting. I'm 28 and have voted nearly straight Republican (voted for a few local/state Democrats where the Republican was in a scandal or I just did not like the candidate personally) since 2008 and most of my friends are also Republicans. Not all young people drank the kool-aid and vote (D) down the ticket.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,037,797 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
Why is "family planning" and day care something the government needs to provide? You should be responsible for your own birth control needs and day care if you have a kid. I don't have a kid and I most certainly don't want to pay someone else's day care bills. If you can't afford birth control, then don't have sex. It's 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. It is insane to me why this should be even be within the purview of government.
Sounds great. I agree. I don't have kids and don't want to subsidize anyone's kids.
Now lets deal with reality as society. People will have sex. With and without contraception. People will have children, including those that cannot or will not care for the children.
We can't stick our heads in a hole and pretend they aren't there.
Sounds great. I agree. I don't have kids and don't want to subsidize anyone's kids.
Now lets deal with reality as society. People will have sex. With and without contraception. People will have children, including those that cannot or will not care for the children.
We can't stick our heads in a hole and pretend they aren't there.
The argument is - "these kids won't be properly cared for without government assistance." So by this logic, why shouldn't we take care of the refugee kids at the border? They can't really care for themselves.
We are approaching a point (if we're not already there) where people who are willfully irresponsible can compensate for that by simply voting for politicians who will take care of their needs.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,037,797 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
The argument is - "these kids won't be properly cared for without government assistance." So by this logic, why shouldn't we take care of the refugee kids at the border? They can't really care for themselves.
We should. I would never argue otherwise.
We'll pay as society one way or another, the goal is to pay the smart way with the best outcomes. What that looks like, of course, is debatable and should be debated.
As a degreed professional who has worked in aerospace for almost 30 years, I will retire to a pension that's only good for about $2000/month and maybe some social security. The rest will all comes from my 401K savings, which suffered abysmal returns during what should have been my prime earning years.
$2K/mo is pretty good, add in SS and it's really good. Absymal returns? You started working in the early 80's. The 80's and 90's had super high stock market returns, probably not to be replicated any time soon. Plenty of upside returns to way more than counteract the negative 2000-2010 returns.
Your government has moved retirement age up to 67 and it's probably going to be raised higher very soon.
The baby boomers have to keep working to pay the absurd taxes that keep everyone else fat and happy.
Well, then perhaps if the jobs hadn't been sent overseas (by the boomers), the younger generation would have more career options than flipping burgers or going to college to get into debt so they can... flip burgers. If that had been the case, the younger people could have paid more in taxes along with their higher incomes. But, instead it was decided to have a low-wage economy, so I have no sympathy for the generation that made that decision, even if it is cutting into their retirement plans.
As for the OP's question, very few people have enough to retire.
Raising the retirement age just puts a lot of people at a disadvantage. A lot of 55+ workers get laid off and end up in low paying jobs, some of which can be pretty physical. I can see disability claims skyrocket if retirement is pushed to age 70.
Raising the retirement age just puts a lot of people at a disadvantage. A lot of 55+ workers get laid off and end up in low paying jobs, some of which can be pretty physical. I can see disability claims skyrocket if retirement is pushed to age 70.
No one is restricting when you can retire. You can retire at any point, provided you can afford it. All that is changing is the age at which you can collect benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Well, then perhaps if the jobs hadn't been sent overseas (by the boomers), the younger generation would have more career options than flipping burgers or going to college to get into debt so they can... flip burgers. If that had been the case, the younger people could have paid more in taxes along with their higher incomes. But, instead it was decided to have a low-wage economy, so I have no sympathy for the generation that made that decision, even if it is cutting into their retirement plans.
As for the OP's question, very few people have enough to retire.
It is a national disaster just waiting to play out... and yet we keep hearing calls to cut social safety nets... I'm sure that'll work out well...
Agreed that a lot of people go to college and still end up in bad jobs. I was there for a long time. However, I made a conscious decision to do better and that I was not going to accept the situation I was in. I started applying for jobs all over the country, and was not going to do more call center, and I found something in a few months. Many people either can't or won't move to where the jobs are. Had I stayed back in TN, I'd still be stuck in a call center. Not all young people are doomed to flip burgers, especially if you're in an urban area.
There are going to be a lot of older people working until they drop dead because they cannot afford to retire. Had these people been able to retire, we could "unclog" some of the labor market. Many never saved to begin with. Those who diligently saved during the "fat years" would have portfolios that are doing very well today. Others sold at the bottom of the market and screwed themselves. Others lost their jobs and siphoned off of retirement to try and maintain a standard of living they can no longer afford.
Most Baby Boomers aren't even close to retirement, even early retirement, yet.
I have to laugh at you guys that talk about retiring in their 50's when the retirement age has been kicked up over the last couple decades.
To answer your question about what these executives "did" with their money, they spent it like most people do.
Newsflash: retirement in the 50's was never common, was never a "standard" (well, unless you count dying at 55 as "retirement").
That's right, the title "Baby Boomers" is attached to those folks who were born between 1946 and 1964- which makes the oldest baby boomers 68 years old and the youngest baby boomers 50 years old. So it's only the leading edge of the baby boomers ( say from those who are currently 65-68) who are even eligible for retirement. One becomes eligible for Medicare at age 65, and the full retirement age for social security for those baby boomers is 66, and for those born after 1959, it's 67. So with trends for people living longer, they're encouraged by SS administration and other retirement gurus to postpone retirement even longer, so it seems that age 70 has become the new benchmark for full retirement age.
Besides the obvious conundrum that defined pensions have been decimated for most working folks these days, savings plans eroded by virtually non-existent interest rates, and the uncertainty of the stock market and the lousy economy, I'm not at all surprised to see so many folks who HAVE reached the grand old ages of 65 and older still working. And the baby boomers still in their 50's and early 60's still have a way to go to even consider retirement, which is probably more uncertain for them than it is for the older folks.
I'll first off staying that I am no fan of the Republican party, but I view them as the lesser of two evils. The Democratic party makes it very clear that they don't care about white males working at a non-unionized jobs in the private sector. The Democratic party only cares about special interest groups, such as unionized workers, unemployed minorities, single women, Hollywood actresses, and college professors.
My problem with the Republican party is that they try to be both the party of big business as well as the party of family values, but that combination doesn't work. But I still see them as the lesser of two evils, since the Republican party at least pretends to care about me (being a family values person), while the Democratic party supports big business just as much as the Republican party does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
Then you must be voting based on religious and conservative social issues.
My religious views and social issues are definitely more in line with the Republican party. However, those are not the main issues that I would vote based on.
Quote:
Otherwise, how could fail to support the political party that brought about the following things:
-The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act for equality
-Social Security and Medicare for our elders
-Medicaid, Nutrition Assistance/WIC, Head Start, the National School Lunch Act for the poor
-The GI Bill for our veterans
-The Urban Mass Transportation Act, the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for our cities
-The League of Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, U.S. participation in the United Nations for world peace
-Raises in the minimum wage, the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families
-The Bureau of Labor Standards which led to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (UEI) for our workers
-The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Wilderness Act, The Endangered Species Preservation Act to help our environment
-The Tennessee Valley Authority, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the space program, the Internet as we know it today for the promotion of public works and technology
-The Peace Corps, Americorps, President Johnson's Teacher Corps (now replaced by Teach for America) to help people help themselves
-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for public health
-The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities to support our culture
-The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to help our economy
Everything that you mentioned is from a long time ago, and has nothing to do with the current Democratic party. If you are going to play that game, then the Republican party was the one that ended slavery.
Quote:
We'll give credit to Richard Nixon, Republican, for ending the War in Vietnam, creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, creating the first Federal Affirmative Action Program, and signing the National Cancer Act and the Legacy of Parks, all of which have been declared too liberal by many in the GOP. And I give great credit to George W. Bush for sending AIDS drugs to Africa.
Affirmative action, the way it is currently implemented, is legalized reverse racism.
Quote:
But perhaps you're one of those people who think that the Democratic accomplishments I outlined above are responsible for the erosion of the American family via the evils of feminism and the decline of religion?
I agree that the Democratic party is mostly responsible for the erosion of the American family and the decline of religion. That is a major reason why I don't support that party. As for feminism: it depends on how you define it. If you are talking about true equality between men and women, then I support it. If you're talking about anti-male laws, then I am against it. The Democratic party usually pushes for anti-male laws.
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.
