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.
People can retire "early" and make room for more jobs for the younger sect. Or . .
Force people to work later and later (a real threat right now), blocking jobs for younger families and singles trying to get started.
So which scenario is better? Especially in a society (the whole US) that does not like to hire "old people"? My employer would love it if more long-term employees would take earlier retirement. But we can't.
I agree with Susanra. Our bodies DO start to break down in our 50's ~ I know very few people even in their 40's who don't have some kind of medical issue. I and a boatload of other coworkers ~ all of us in the mid-50's to early-60's age group ~ would LOVE to retire because we all have physical problems and just want to leave the work force. But we can't because we can't afford to pay for medical. If I can't manage to work much longer, chances are that Social Security at it's reduced rate will have to help with my medical maintenance.
Based on that, I think you'll find less and less people retiring early; that is, unless their jobs are taken away from them.
I have a better idea. Instead of putting 100% of the pain (mostly caused by government criminal theft) on MY generation (which already is being left destitute thanks to unending Depression and unemployment), let's share the pain just a little bit.
The majority of current retirees getting Social Security retired at 62. Most of them have healthy pensions in addition. This group got to work BEFORE the working class had been robbed of all benefits, wage increases, and reasonable hours. They also largely worked under the reduced SS taxes prior to the 1983 changes. They paid the least, but get the most, and are totally exempt from ANY discussion of limiting their ongoing windfall.
My generation, the one that from the beginning paid maximum SS taxes due to entering the work force in 1983, along with not being able to collect full retirement until age 67, also got to work entirely during the time of wages begin stagnant, benefits costs being shifted to us, working hours skyrocketing, compensation actually decreasing, almost no upward mobility, and the wiping out of pensions to boot. Our generation was robbed blind by Big Business and Big Government, in collusion to destroy the economy and rob all the wealth from the Middle Class.
Remember that the 1983 SS changes DID solve the problem of the retirement of the Baby Boom--we in effect paid for all current beneficiaries, but also paid for our retirement in the form of the SS Trust Fund ($2.5 trillion of taxes paid over outgoes). What happened? Corrupt government STOLE and SPENT the entire $2.5 trillion, replaced it with worthless IOUS, and NOW we are told they "can't afford" our SS benefits.
In effect, we paid government for our SS benefits already, but since they spent the money on other things we are told we are just SOL. All proposals now are to phase in the reductions until we are left with nothing, or a retirement age beyond our life expectancy. Problem solved!
My plan is to let the current generation of retirees who are WEALTHY and don't even NEED the Social Security that pads their bank accounts share a little bit of the pain that has been imposed 100% on my generation.
Yes, Washington continues to basically rob our generation blind of EVERYTHING we have, so that the current crop of "HAVES" do not have to sacrifice one penny. I can tell you right now that if my generation is robbed any further, we will not go down quietly as we watch those who were lucky enough to retire at 62 live lives of luxury, while we are expected to work until we die--and still have nothing even then.
I know we've behaved like spineless worms so far, but when we work these insane hours all our lives and in the end have nothing to show for it? Then we won't have anything to lose, but a lifetime of frustration and anger that will have to go somewhere.
A dictionary could define "hyperbole" by stating that it's what NHartPhotog uses when he or she posts on City-Data. Some examples:
1. NHartphotog's generation is bearing "100% of the pain". Gee whiz, I thought that in this terrible economy lots of folks of all ages were in pain. How dumb I was.
2. The working class has been "robbed of all benefits, wage increases, and reasonable hours". Gosh, I thought some people in the working class still had some benefits and some still worked reasonable hours. How naive I was.
3. NHartphotog's generation is being left with "a retirement age beyond our life expectancy". Golly, I didn't know age 67 (the full retirement age being complained about) was beyond the life expectancy of any group in the U.S. How ignorant I was.
4. His or her generation is being robbed blind "of EVERYTHING we have" (capitals in the original). Tarnation! I didn't know that one generation now has nothing, is absolutely destitute because government has taken EVERYTHING they have. How uneducated I was.
I am not done cataloguing the absurdities but this is getting too tedious to continue. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record I will ask NHartphotog if he or she isn't even embarrassed to be posting rants couched in such ludricrous language that any legitimate underlying points get lost in the heavy downpour of garbage?
i agree. there is nothing of truth or value there. why not talk more about those that were successful in that generation. there are more successful and wealthy baby boomers then any other generation.
many were quite successful and thats why to generalize in that post is just silly
The follwoing statement of Wartwatchanameit jumped out at me, causing me to think, Troll! "They also largely worked under the reduced SS taxes prior to the 1983 changes. "
Let's see, most of the folks who post here are, just guessing around 62 to 65. Which means their work years probably started late 60s to early 70s. Mathwize; 1983 minus 1970 = 13 years. Assuming starting to draw SS in 2008, menas the person worked another 25 years.
Let's send Wart....back to school for some remedial math.
I recall reading a SSA Actuarial report that indicated getting rid of the early retirement age would not significantly address the shortfall because many of the applicants would be eligible for disability. Don't have the link handy, but many of the plans suggested by various stakeholders are addressed at the SSA website.
One major impetus for passing the Social Security Act was to encourage older workers to leave the workforce. Our government is actively encouraging older workers to remain in the workforce. I'm not sure this makes sense.
Early retirement due to the recession DID have a negative impact on the Trust Funds. Again, I'd have to find the link to the SSA report.. Maybe in a few days when I'm less busy.
It is a fallacy to assume that the disability issue is limited to folks who engaged in "hard labor." Most of the elderly disabled are disabled due to chronic conditions and cognitive decline. Pretending BBers are exempt from the aging process is allegedly typical of the BBers.
A large part of the shortfall is related to "legacy debt." The members of the Greatest Generation are collecting bennies far beyond what they contributed to the fund. The legacy debt was designed to be shared by all of the following generations, including the BBs.
I think if you check the voting records, many BBs voted for Obama. I voted for him, and I would vote for him again. It took years to get into this mess and it will take years to get out. The majority of the current retirees that voted for McCain and PALIIN. I hope PALIN runs for President and gets the Republican nomination. How would that work for ya?
There is no adequate response to NHartphotog's posts. She ALWAYS b****** about work and how life is unfair, blah, blah. Whatever. We are all in this together.
My question is simple and straightforward. With all the pressure on social security because of upcoming "babyboomer retirements" why not eliminate early retirement at 62 completely? Is anyone aware of any studies that show how much this would save Social Security over the next ten years?
Look, if people have private retirement plans that let them leave the labor force at 55, 58, or 60 that's the way it is. However, why should the government jump on this bandwagon and make a provision for early retirement at all?
I probably sound like a "killjoy", but these are exactly the kinds of hard questions we need to be asking.
The actuarial payout for early or at age is the same applied across the population. The reduced benefit is applied for that reason. Think of it as you can pay us now or you can pay us later. More people taking early retirement means more out of the trust fund now and less later. What isn't always discussed are the assumptions about whether people are still working from age 62 on. That has a significant impact on the trust fund. Not in just payouts but just as importantly contributions in. Actuarial tables may have payments out balanced to even out over the broad population but do they take into account money being contributed in if the person keeps working? The person who stops working at 62 and doesn't collect is seeing their payout go up 8% a year without contributing. The person who continues working is seeing theirs also go up 8% a year but they are still contributing.
I done a Thread in this Forum called "SS/Early Retirement At 62 Due To Being Unemployed". I was sort of shocked at how many people who were turning 62 and unemployed, were forced into SS! This was me! I had used up all of my unemployment compensation and had no money at all coming in. My wife was lucky in getting a descent paying full-time job, or should would have had to go the "early retirement" route as well. She has a Bachelor's in Business with years of accounting/analyzing experience. I have no college degree, but have had two surgeries (hip replacement and rotator cuff) that would not show up good under a pre-employment physical. My last job was a great one, but the winter weather drove us away. If I would have had to wait to get my SS, I'd really be SOL for any kind of money coming in. It has been terribly hard for me to find a job due to my physical limitations, age, no degree and or certification in my chosen career. In my previous jobs, I didn't need the degree and/or certification, but times sure have changed on that.
A dictionary could define "hyperbole" by stating that it's what NHartPhotog uses when he or she posts on City-Data. Some examples:
1. NHartphotog's generation is bearing "100% of the pain". Gee whiz, I thought that in this terrible economy lots of folks of all ages were in pain. How dumb I was.
2. The working class has been "robbed of all benefits, wage increases, and reasonable hours". Gosh, I thought some people in the working class still had some benefits and some still worked reasonable hours. How naive I was.
3. NHartphotog's generation is being left with "a retirement age beyond our life expectancy". Golly, I didn't know age 67 (the full retirement age being complained about) was beyond the life expectancy of any group in the U.S. How ignorant I was.
4. His or her generation is being robbed blind "of EVERYTHING we have" (capitals in the original). Tarnation! I didn't know that one generation now has nothing, is absolutely destitute because government has taken EVERYTHING they have. How uneducated I was.
I am not done cataloguing the absurdities but this is getting too tedious to continue. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record I will ask NHartphotog if he or she isn't even embarrassed to be posting rants couched in such ludricrous language that any legitimate underlying points get lost in the heavy downpour of garbage?
Why do my kids who are in their earlier 30's seem so financially secure now and moving forward? Why don't they begrudge their parents financial security? Why do they say cool? I am with you my friend and keep being a broken record.
1) people who have jobs consisting of hard physical labor often need to retire at an earlier age due to wear and tear on the physical body
2) many people by age 62, even those not doing hard physical labor, find that their bodies are wearing out and they suffer from a variety of maladies that make working 40 hours per week difficult
3) it is a fallacy that most people retiring have a substantial or healthy pension to fall back on; 401(k)'s started replacing employer given pensions many years ago, and it is mostly only government workers who have a nice pension these days
Healthy is in the eyes of the beholder. A pension is a leg of a retirement plan but isn't a retirement plan. A pension reflects a percentage of your income and cost of living in a given era. It is dependent on the individual and their life long decisions regarding education, geographic location and work place decisions about longevity in staying with jobs. Job hopping every 7 years on average comes with retirement consequences with or without a pension. Even with a 401 (k). So I am with you it is a fallacy that so many people have healthy pensions. One of the reasons it seems like that is because so many with pensions transplant to lower cost areas and their relative income jumps.
I was really grateful to get to college where I only had to work 70 hrs a week (3 jobs) to pay my way... (back in the 1960's). That only lasted one short yr, when I became an eldercare giver for a disabled parent (for the next 32 yrs, as well as work 3 jobs the rest of my career. (that did not pay too well for the hours involved)
Yes, life throws curve balls, just gotta deal with it. I will admit it would have been nice to get healthcare and a pension after spending 30+ yrs at an excellent employer (who gave me the adios option 6 weeks prior to retirement... oh well, next chapter (Back to school, for me)
I know very few current 'seniors' cutting the fat hog... (and I volunteer with many). Most are getting by on very little. There are some who are really cashing it in, but usually due to selling their business that they worked in for 40 yrs, or they were government employees. School teacher couples are often doing quite well (some over 100k combined pension + healthcare bennys) They will insist they struggled to get by all their working life, so now they deserve it. What-ever.... I guess I made some bad choices
Want to focus in on your use of the concept couples. Yes school teaching couples can do well. That is a result of their marrying each other and staying together. One of the key things in retirement planning outcome is who you marry, what they do and how long you stay married. Taking off to raise kids is a killer (like it or not) and divorce can slaughter a retirement plan. So perhaps the modern dating check list in addition to reviewing: disease free and debt free might include retirement benefits.
Teaching couples probably didn't struggle to get by their married lives. Not while they were both working. Just do the math for your area. Find the salary for a mid career teacher and double it and compare to the median family income for the area.
When both couples are working they have the opportunity to each have their own health care benefits in retirement or for one of the two of them to have benefits for them to share. It expands your range of possible resources.
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.
Not this all over again!
