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.
Unless you own your own company or are independently wealthy, there are very few employment opportunities for people in their late 60's. This may be fine for white collar workers, but I don't see many 60 year old ditch diggers.
Well then you live a make beleive world: my brother was a senior gardener for the city of Los Angeles, not much difference than a ditch digger, just a little better trained, a little brighter and a little more knowledgable: He retired at 63 from doing just what you are saying: our foster daughter is an electrician and is a union worker, the contracts are almost always major corporation :much of the work in outside and on her hands and knees in the heat. She is 60 and plans on working til she is 67. Will she make it? Probably not, but she is 60 with no intentions of quitting. Our son, with a college education, is 51, and is a floor refinisher working for a large company that has contracts with many of the large restaurant chains. No, he isn't a ditch digger and not working in the heat, but he still works his butt off. Luckily he does more supervising than actual hard work anymore. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Ok, you are referring to late 60s, still there will be options for those who choose to retire a few years early and there are always jobs available for people from early 60s til 70ish and the way health advancements are headed, working even in blue collar jobs will be no different 10 years from now than it was working til 60, 20 years ago.
This is just Chris Christie doing nothing but trying to distinguish himself from the other candidates. It creates drama and when it doesn't get through congress he can say he tried.
All that has ever been needed is the simplest of solutions and that is to remove the cap that limits participation by those who have done well.
Raising the age is increasing the possibility of getting all the money paid in forfeited in the hope more will die before they can collect. Do we really want a plumber or electrician showing up with a walker to make repairs ? Increasing the age has the potential of more people getting disability and causing a faster drain on the system.
What the banker owned politicians want is a new revolutionary way to control your money from cradle to grave and the quicker they can get you into that grave the better they like it. The legislation will be written by those bankers and rubber stamped by their revolving door comrades. There is no limit to the endless sachems designed to get the citizen separated from his money. Somehow they will up the age and the banker will end up with the money you paid in but died before you could collect. Just another fee or whatever is in their interest.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound: yes, take the cap off is needed, but raising the age for full benefits as well as the age for medicare is also needed. As for dieing before collecting, what is the average life expectacy compared to 1936? Do you have any idea? And you are overlooking, the spouse and in some cases more than one spouse can collect your SS if you do die.
This is just the start of the war against social security. Means testing is always the first step to the ultimate goal of abolishing this vital lifeline for millions upon millions of vulnerable Americans. Social Security serves no purpose for the billionaire class who fund these politicians. Campaigning for Bernie Sanders for president can ensure that SS is not only preserved but expanded. America is the wealthiest country in the world and the wealth should be used for human needs, not the demands of the greedy who can never get enough.
Electing Bernie Sanders will mean choosing to stand in line for toilet paper. You'll love that.
What bothers me is that our government has mismanaged our money and we lose. In spite of the cuts and 'changes' to SS, I bet those in Washington will still be supported cradle to grave on the taxpayer income with raises, early retirement, and 4x the income of the average American as it stands now.
Unlimited benefits for the wealthiest 0.1% shouldn't be our priorities when millions of seniors who have worked their whole life are struggling to make ends meet and disabled veterans are hurting greatly on meager social security incomes. Making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax rate as the average hard working American will make sure that social security benefits can be expanded for seniors and disabled veterans in America. This is what the American people want. Of course, the Koch brothers and Wall Street and the politicians they have on their payroll are vehemently opposed to this.
Welfare by another name, taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive is always the level that leftists want to reach.
avoid wasting money on the wealthy that found some way of getting rich during their working years. If the wealthy seniors don't like this there are so few of them they should not matter.
In other words, punish people that worked harder and longer, got an education, exercised discipline, didn't waste their resources, and persevered. All the while, rewarding those that didn't do those things. That's beyond warped, that's insanity. But then, you're a Marxist.
People who worked at low-wage jobs their entire lives without benefits and thus did not have the resources to prepare for retirement...didn't do the right thing?
People have become millionaire working at low wage jobs. Of course it required discipline, frugality and perseverance. If you choose not to do those things, it is entirely your fault.
In other words, punish people that worked harder and longer, got an education, exercised discipline, didn't waste their resources, and persevered. All the while, rewarding those that didn't do those things. That's beyond warped, that's insanity. But then, you're a Marxist.
Leftie makes the claim that those who are rich, shouldnt receive federal welfare, people applaud
rightie makes the same exact claim, the left say he's on drugs..
What about the people who had a lot of money going into retirement and then somehow lost it all, should they die in the streets or be allowed to collect?
There is a difference between wealth and income. In some cases income is based on wealth. In your example, the wealth was lost and therefore the income was lost. They should collect according to what they had put into the system.
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.
