U.S. business executives call for raising retirement age to 70
Source: Reuters
A business group of top executives on Wednesday proposed reforms to Social Security and Medicare that would raise the enrollment age for both programs to 70 but not raise Social Security taxes paid by upper-income Americans.
The Business Roundtable, which represents more than 200 chief executives from some of the largest U.S. corporations, also urged Congress to add a "premium support" mechanism to Medicare, peg Social Security cost-of-living adjustments to a lower inflation gauge and raise Medicare charges for wealthier beneficiaries.
This strategy for "modernizing and protecting our social safety net" would save $300 billion in Medicare spending over the next 10 years, make Social Security solvent for 75 years and help foster stronger economic growth, the group estimated.
The proposals come as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare for an intensive new round of deficit-reduction talks. Safety net programs including Social Security and Medicare are likely to take center stage.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/16/us-usa-fiscal-entitlements-idUSBRE90F1MY20130116
AlphaCentauri
(6,460 posts)make some space for the young ones to get a job.
JoeBlowToo
(253 posts)they aren't hiring anyone over 50.
What a bunch of putzes!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)sons-of-bitches to propose a minimum age of 75, for that would save even more money. Hell, a minimum of 80 would save even much more. When considering these proposals in the context that those relative few who own most of the nation's wealth were, for the most part, accumulating said wealth during a period of time when the tax code was wholly inequitable and regressive meaning a substantial portion of this wealth was accumulated at much lower tax rates than most lower-earning people were paying. The brazen cravenness shown by these sons-of-bitches is stark, for their pitch is antithetical to every principle on which this nation was founded.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)a worker's benefit.
That is what this is about. It's all about the money.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)They dont want to get rid of the money going INTO it - just going out of it. So raise the age to 100 and keep us paying, but no benefits.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Medicare for all, even the bastards who make up the Business Roundtable.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Larger pool equals lower wages as well.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)people are added the the Medicare risk pool.
It's a win-win for labor and a lose-lose for plutocrats.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)They simply don't want to pay one-half of each worker's benefit. As you know, workers pay the other half.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)Owners owe us that and much, much more. They are nothing but leaches living off of the labor of others.
They view 70 as youngish because they have never done anything to wear out their bodies. They have access to good health-care. They can buy expensive but healthy foods. They can take rejuvenating vacations to replenish the energy.
They can fuck themselves.
Especially the part about how they can go fuck themselves.
These fuckers make me sick. Their greed knows no bounds.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)They pay half, the employee pays half, regardless of who does all the work.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)I manage my mom's finances and due to her age and illness, we have to hire round-the clock help (or else I would not be able to work outside the home), which now has nearly bankrupted her. I do not like paying the FICA tax at all, although I understand the necessity. We are not a big corporation, just an elderly woman who has to have home health care.
What I REALLY don't like is the repukes' use of the term "entitlements." Yes, our employees are entitled to unemployment benefits because we pay for it. The pugs make it sound like it's THEIR money employees must draw on.
adieu
(1,009 posts)People can voluntarily retire before 65 or 70 or whatever age is set. Or, they can continue to work after aging past the retirement age, as many voluntarily do (because they want to keep busy).
There is some effect due to those who are 65 or older, but need to continue working because they don't have enough to retire. Those people will be competing with the younger workers, which will definitely lower the overall pay (more workers, lower pay).
I think they're just thinking, "Hey, let's raise the retirement age so that we don't have to pay more for social security."
It's probably just that simple. They're not that smart.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The 1% are evil.
Steerpike
(2,692 posts)if you want to work until you drop dead...
that is part of being"conservative" -I have my boat,fuck U swim attitude.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)As has been mentioned many times here... what about people who work in labor intensive jobs?
Also what about the unemployment rate of young people. Retirement opens jobs for younger people.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Mt. Olympus . Thats like asking a pedophile advise on child care .
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)How soon they pretend that never happened.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)When looking at the names it's easy to see that they are almost entirely Republican run corps. Many of which have been in the headlines these past few years for ripping off the public (Goldman Sachs), ripping off their workers (Walmart), discriminating against gay people (Target), crashing the economy and abusing the bailout fund (Bank of America), raising cable prices while providing crappier content (Time Warner cable). The list is basically a list of all the assholes that have fucked up the country.
gateley
(62,683 posts)workers, then be adrift for 4 years. Another despicable tactic to keep those who earn more from paying their fair share.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)55.
gateley
(62,683 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)That had better be countered with lowering the ages for both programs, thus opening up more jobs.
That had better be countered with raising the cap.
Assholes, sitting in their plushy padded chairs.
An inflation gauge lower than the one that gives us a .017 increase after what, 2 or 3 years?
Can I say fuck them here? If not, I'll edit.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Courtesy Flush
(4,558 posts)How about over 50?
That's what I thought.
Skittles
(153,159 posts)told ya - they are now political footballs
mrsadm
(1,198 posts)Who are over 50!
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)RKP5637
(67,107 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)cost of living for s.s. should be the same as CEO increases in compensation. Taxes on corporations and the 1% should be tied to unemployment, fewer jobs higher taxes, more jobs lower taxes. Pentagon budget, higher overruns less budget, fewer over runs more budget.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I guess they don't want a bunch of elderly folks loafing around.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Enough of this rye humor.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)
NBachers
(17,108 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)That took place during their revolution?? I think so! Off with their heads! I'm not eating cake!
What's so ironic about their revolution is there were sending us tons of money for OUR revolution, just like we spend tons of money "Spreading Democracy".
And we hate the French!
Go figure~
KansDem
(28,498 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)Americans have chainsaws and they love to use em.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)While the Gun Issue takes center stage today, the Business Roundtable and the faithful news media began their assault today on Social Security and Medicare.
These business executives could care less about the deficit and debt, and they especially could care less about 300 million Americans these programs affect. They are simply screwing us out of our own money so they can take a few more dollars away from us.
Social Security is 100% the people's money - not one penny comes from the US Treasury. We pay about 54% of the Medicare costs - why can't taxes be raised to pay 100%. Better yet, why is there a medical insurance industry at all.
We better stand up and tell President Obama, Republicans, and Democrats that not only do you not harm these programs thru benefit cuts - you make them stronger.
They will take our programs if we don't stop them.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Tell me, execs, how does that crackpot plan of yours work? How are we supposed to live when we are INVOLUNTARILY retired because execs like you discriminate and run us out of work?
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)with destroying public education.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)or by most Democrats for that matter.
One barely ever hears the "raise the cap" argument, unless one happens to be listening to Bernie Sanders, an Independent.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Because people on the way out of the workforce shouldn't be fighting for the same jobs as teenagers.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)their 70 and your 55, i.e., lower than it is now.
Further, political momentum is moving our way - worst case scenario, nothing is done, and later when Congress is bluer and Hillary or Bernie or whoever takes over in 2016, we actually CAN get a retirement age of 60 or less.
DavidDvorkin
(19,475 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)Go "F" yourselves, you shitheads!
patrice
(47,992 posts)for us and they suspect that even if there were jobs for us, we'd be a little resistant to being discriminated against economically by those who will treat us differently from others by demanding that we accept even less than we are worth than they already offer other age cohorts.
They can't SAY any of this because people would be shocked, so they hide this proposition behind something that appears reasonable to SOME people and those who recognize it for the euthanasia of the elderly that it authentically is can then endorse euthanasia behind a socially acceptable persona.
patrice
(47,992 posts)If we'd just "get it over with", that'd "solve" a bunch of people's problems.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Which I thought had died out, from my high school history texts, as being wrong and associated with Calvinism used by the robber barons in the Gilded Age. The first place I began arguing online about the care of the disabled was an offiical libertarian party board. Their solution for anyone born disabled, unable to work was euthanization. They said it was 'immoral to make us pay taxes' for them. No social contract.
patrice
(47,992 posts)in the streets. Concerns about Earth and environmental degradation are their putative motivation for this very callous attitude toward anyone over 50 and what can only be described as a utilitarian attitude toward <50 and disabled.
People need to understand that this cohort does NOT care about rights. Privilege is a good thing to them.
They are also making a mistake in thinking that disposing of people won't result in losses of value that could be the difference between life and death in their Libertarian utopias, so, not only are they evil, they are wrong. What they think they are doing won't work and what's even more weird may be that many of them may even know that too, so the disposables actually include those of their own Libertarian cohort who don't "win".
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They are Randians, who expect to be the new Supermen. They see nothing wrong with it and it's why they come here and say everything we do stinks. Because they don't want those humanistic solutions to be made. They expect to be the new rulers. It's why they don't care about women's and worker's rights except to draw us into their group. They savage all our attempts to make an equal playing field with government to resist the rich and the religious oppressors, and don't believe in voting. The intent, the long-term goals are the same as the Koches. Sad and scary.
patrice
(47,992 posts)reason and/or I care enough, I might even consider CHOOSING some adaptations in myself, if ASKED (not coerced or pressured or demanded or ordered or lied to in any way).
Unfortunately, in my personal experience, the people we are referring to do not engage in any of the above AND they pride themselves on that fact.
bloomington-lib
(946 posts)really looking for. They don't expect you to work til you're 70. They just want you to get even less for retiring at 62 or even 65.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)notundecided
(196 posts)wouldn't like it.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)notundecided
(196 posts)wouldn't like it.
CarmanK
(662 posts)Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)The multinational corporations and the lobbies for other countries should be forbidden from having their shadow ever darken the door to Congress. They need to be shunned from influencing Congress or the media stories. They represent what has destroyed the US economy and their opinion and money should be forbidden.
Populist...progressive...libertarian
valerief
(53,235 posts)RebelOne
(30,947 posts)but I was laid off. It was not because of my age, but the company was downsizing. There were also three others laid off at the same time and they were all younger than me. I wanted to work longer to accumulate more money into my 401K.
markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)in order to get rid of older employees they don't want.
Dems2002
(509 posts)Why in the world would businesses want to keep paying the medical costs of older individuals? They'd be so much better off getting rid of these costs at 55 or so, so their insurance pool would become more affordable.
Sometimes the reactionary nature of people make me crazy.
Jennifer
antigop
(12,778 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Fine, let them do so.
They aren't the ones Social Security was intended to help. And many workers will be dead before the age of 70, so who are they to declare they should work until they drop dead - because that's what this means for people they don't know. It's the same arrogant, irresponsible logic as an the anti-abortion crowd.
Don't like abortion or birth control?
Fine, don't use either.
Stop telling people you don't know, don't want to know and for whom you're not responsible for in any way whatsoever, how to live.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Ugh.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)The Koch Brothers Exposed for more
Absolute BS
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)I was the ONLY person who thought it was unfair / a bad idea. All the others said that they would work until they dropped anyway and didn't even clue in to this being unfair.
This is in CA where people are Democrats. So warning, people can be SHEEP about this kind of thing when told it's for the best.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)It will be interesting what the make up of your group was...
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)Frauds.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)In order to get the largest amount from social security I'll have to.
Has anyone ever done those dismal 'how much money do you need to retire' things? They all seem to imply that a million dollars in 401ks and Investment is barely enough.
And fuck those assholes. American business practices have undermined financial security for workers, cut pensions, got rid of the whole idea of pensions for the most part, and now this. I really hope to see the day when these fuckers are treated like the criminals and sociopaths they are.
condoleeza
(814 posts)we are expendable and just a problem. I got a statement from one of my investments yesterday that said it had gained almost 1K in the last quarter, it's almost worth as much now as it was before Bush 1. That will keep me alive for another month........
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)we have a gentleman that is that old where i work
we all help him all the time, but he also helps us
seriously, the man would probably work no matter what, he loves tinkering
but he should be able to do it as a hobby/for toy money..not 'have to'
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)are extremely demanding and stressful. They are just as wearing of the body as blue collar work.
Kingwithnothrone
(51 posts)Barbarians at the gate...
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)not sure i'd call em white collar
sure some education needed but lotta hard work too
then again using stress one could go 'bank of america ceo dealing with most stress so all of you shut up'
*ahem* believe who they want
point....body (and mind/emotions (i got pals in oncology too)) wear out
70 is nice for spoiled @SS candy ppl
for workers...might as well say ...die or suffer
wordpix
(18,652 posts)If you have 100+ public school kids day, or even 50-60 private school kids, you will be up all night speaking with and emailing parents, creating lesson plans, quizzes and tests, grading assignments, getting final grades and comments in, etc. ad infinitum. It's difficult to have a good home life b/c all this work has to be done at home.
glowing
(12,233 posts)have even more costlier health issues. But I suppose these top excutives who've probably never worked a real honest labor intense job in their pampered lives, are hopping most people drop dead on the job or during the "in between" years of 50 and 70 when most employers don't want to hire older people to cover their health care costs. It would save a ton of money to just kill off the "useless eaters" in the elderly age bracket.
I say, we take over their bank accounts and stick these wealthy idiots on their own primitive "Galt-Style" island and see how well they do without the rest of us to support their lifestyle. The fact that anyone even listens to them or that they have so much power and influence over the rest of us is absolutely sickening!
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)by raising the limit on wages taxed.
Now who will require that they hire older people? And what will happen when no jobs open up for the young people coming into the job market? This will cause a total mess.
And it is easy to stay in a job like theirs to age 70----business lunches and golf games are not all that taxing.
But let's not ask them to do anything that will affect them.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)List each of these Pigs names as widely and as often as possible. Give the list the following introduction:
Eliminating the soc sec cap of 106000 on earned income and applying soc sec and medicare insurance taxes to all income, including inheritance ,capital gains and corporate... these 3 measures which would responsibly and equitably fund forever Americas most valuable and essential social insurance programs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate for bulk drug prices (i.e. repealing Bush's disasterous giveaway to big Pharma in Medicare D) would substantially lower current and future medicare costs.
But rather than any solution that might be fair, equitable, responsible or cause millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share towards our national insurance for the disabled and aging, the following CEO pigs endorse a petition to raise the eligibility age for both soc security and medicare to age 70 plus stealing 10% of benefits via the smarmy chained COLA from nonegenarians and 65,000 from a 40 year old by the time soc sec kicks at today's eligibility age:
List each of 200 CEOs and their Corps for public boycott.
This should be a "fake" satirical article about the cannabalistic !% in The Onion. Tragically it's dead serious without any of these obscenely rich 200 CEO's sensing even a glimmer of their own limitless aptitude for self-parody much less an ounce of shame at their relentless selfishness.
Worse yet, Obama seems to listen reverentially to them ...The Third Way, Fix The Debt, The Heritage Foundation, The International Chamber of Commerce, ALEC...Whether they are named Pete Peterson, Koch or Jaimie Dimion,Blankfein, Caterpillar, Honeywell they are all the same, all for the rich getting richer and the rest of us and our children and grandchildren getting screwed.
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)They don't want this? Will the "Business Roundtable" be the only ones they hear from?
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)This is a prefect example of why we need a Labor News Network (LNN). Why isn't there a "People's Round Table"? They played a big part with Wall Street in the current downfall of our economy. We should call them the "Disaster Capitalism Round Table." Because that is what they really are. Our dear furor business leaders are trying to turn us all into slaves, like they've done for the last 50 years all over the world with Milton Freidman's formula. Free Speech TV and Link TV are excellent alternatives that substitute for a Labor-like channel.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)This was also in the article:
"The proposals come as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare for an intensive new round of deficit-reduction talks. Safety net programs including Social Security and Medicare are likely to take center stage.
The CEOs intend to pitch their ideas to the White House and to congressional officials."
ReRe
(10,597 posts)...the BRT as you think. I distinctly heard him stand up to the BRT in the last 3-4 months... during the campaign, I think. Let 'em pitch all they want. Their ilk have been trying to do away with all safety net programs since they were passed into law many many long decades ago. We're not at the Hunger Games stage yet. Please try to not be threatened by their bluster.
CranialRectaLoopback
(123 posts)To be implemented. The eligibility ages might not be as high, but the essence of the plan will be enacted.
Sorry for trolling.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Just saying...
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I think that anyone who actually works for a living knows that greed never got any job done, which these business people (who are they, anyway?) think.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I basically agree with them, but with this catch: I also favor raising the cap (as in do both at the same time).
I realize that most of this depends on what you do, where you live, and your worldview on retirement. I personally plan on working until I'm 75. My Dad still works full time pushing 80.
I see the situation differently than most here:
1) People are going to live longer -- especially now with the prospect of affordable healthcare for all. Those retiring at 62 & 65 will outlive their resources unless they've invested very well.
2) Yes, older workers in their 60s will do many of the same lower wage jobs people did when they were in their teens and 20s.
3) Any increase in age needs to be phased in slowly.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)First, yes raise the cap.
But...
You know, we all(most) work our ass off since we were 16 or 18. Life
does not dictate that we have to work till we die. I believe we *all* deserve
to retire at a decent age (60? 62? 64?). We are allowed to live our senior years
by enjoying life.
Is someone wants or needs to work till 70 and over - more power to them. I think that
is the exception and not the rule.
condoleeza
(814 posts)The last 25 years I've been self-employed in a job where most of the others who do what I do are younger than my daughters and is extremely physically challenging. I rarely work less than a 16 hour day. At 63 y/o now, I know I can't do this forever. I'm trying to re-invent myself now to find another "career" when I'm not "up to snuff" @ what I do, which appears to be approaching soon. Got lots of talents I can use, but, you know, always thought I'd be able to enjoy life at some point, travel, etc., well, that's a joke.
Just spent a week taking care of my youngest grandson while his parents took a much needed vacation. Would be nice to be able to just be a Grandmother and do that all the time, but I can't afford it.
Nor can I afford to retire and live on SS, so I guess I'll work until I drop dead on the job, us baby boomers are such a problem, damn us.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I don't want you to have to work till you drop when you have worked your behind off not
only for yourself but for your family.
You see, these rich 'business executives' have it made. They don;t have to do anything
because they have the financial ability to do what the hell they want.
But, normal, hard working, what the real definition of American is - we have no choice.
No complaints (hope not), however, we did what we were suppose to do. Work hard and pay
into SS and Medicare.
And, now, they want us or soon to be retirees to do with less.
These people are really heartless and soulless.
Remember, this is our money and these SOBs and our government has *zero* right to
dictate our retirement age or to take our earned insurance benefits.
Hang in there...
condoleeza
(814 posts)Yeah, those of us who didn't have a trust fund or any other options just mean nothing, we are disposable. I guess I can live off the equity in my house when I can't work anymore - lots of ads on the TEE VEE for that now for us old people to buy into since we're too addled to think anymore.
Heartless and soulless, yes they are, and they have a pension for life - so happy my tax dollars are paying for that.....
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)There are two things to consider, money and reality. Money might say that raising the retirement age is the solution. Reality is that we do not need everyone working until age 70. Reality is that we have more automation and efficiency than ever, and we could live in prosperity with half the people in the workforce. Reality says that we will have even greater technology and efficiency in the future, where even fewer people will need to work. Forcing people to work pointless mundane unproductive jobs, to facilitate the financial system, which humans created, is a solution that requires almost no thinking whatsoever. I know we can do better than that.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)It's also highly debatable whether people are living longer--in fact there is much argument against that notion.
Once you're canned after age 50, you can just about forget EVER finding full-time work again.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Real estate sales, real estate appraisal, contract auditing work, etc. Or they get SBA loans and buy turnkey franchises (ServiceMaster, Subway, etc.)
One thing that will change: individuals between 50-75 should be able to get healthcare through the exchanges.
Another thing that will change; the peak of the baby boom will start to age out in the next 7-10 years. This should increase late career opportunities for those born between 1963-1980.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Almost all small businesses fail, there is little or NO demand at ALL for goods and services (which is why the economy is in the ditch), and you MUST have a second income to fall back on. This is NOT an option for destitute, single people like me.
To talk about "self-employment" as if this is a real option for people is NOT engaging in reality.
BTW, self-employed people have to pay the entire FICA tax, or they are supposed to. I have known people who got money under the table or had their own businesses and didn't pay it at all. They are idiots.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)I hope things can improve for you.
I have to think I'm at least somewhat dealing in reality because these are the kinds of things people I've known in this situation have done, either because they got fired/laid off, or forced to take early retirement.
Every situation is different. If one is collecting unemployment, giving that up for a minimum wage job rather than continuing to seek employment in your field makes no sense. OTOH, if you have no unemployment to fall back on, and your 50, either working in minimum wage jobs (Wal mart, Target, McDonald's), working in commission sales (cars, personal investments, etc.) or self employment are the three major options. Personally, I'd rather bet on myself.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Actually, any increase in age should be resoundingly rejected.
I too plan to work until I can't any more. But that's my choice, and SS would be plenty solvent if these Roundtable fuckers would pay SS on their entire incomes.
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Maybe THEY can think of retiring at 70, sitting on their asses at a desk job, not having to worry about collecting SS.
But tell THAT to some guy working as an electrical lineman or a waitress in some diner.
Jesus, these people piss me off.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No more multimillion dollar CEO salaries for a start, and follow that up by closing their off-shore tax havens. Then we'll punch some holes in their "golden parachutes." Maybe that will make them feel a little more generous toward the working and middle classes. Hmmmm?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The fact that it is a 'business roundtable' of 200 CEOs means that anything they propose will rip off the American working and middle classes as well as the poor and shove the money straight into their greedy pockets.
Despicable.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)perhaps they should forget about their bonuses in the billions
raising the age to 70 is ridiculous
Any congressman who votes for this should be out of a job
the same with Medicare
the cuts should be no more billions to other countries ...no more WARS.... no more huge military budgests
Universal care for everyone ....pharmaceuticals hospitals medical companies will have to lower their costs and bye bye
insurance companies
Americans are FED UP and the Republicans are a dead party ....yelling entitlements entitlements
they are no more ....the setting is set
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)... at least until the annual gross hits $110,100 sometime in mid-January. (2012 limit)
wordpix
(18,652 posts)Is the family going to have to cut back on a day of vacation in Hawaii for that?
benld74
(9,904 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)But only for the least physically stressful occupations. On the other hand, 67 is too old for physically demanding jobs. I'd let the janitors and the nurses aides, etc. retire at 65 with full benefits, while kicking the age for full benefits to 70 for pencil pushers like myself.
It wouldn't be too hard to divide the available jobs up into quintiles, with 20% being considered the physically hardest, etc. Let those folks get a full benefit at 65, instead of waiting until 67, and have the folks who sit at desks and punch computer keyboards wait until 70 to get the full ride, keeping the early retirement option of 62 (with reduced benefits) for those who have saved enough and simply want to hang it up.
If you disagree with me, tell me why you think that both the blue collar laborer and the white collar office worker should share the retirement age of 67 under present law.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)We are not slaves. We must not have to work till we drop.
We should work very hard most of our lives, then retire in our early 60's.
Why? Because we deserve it. Doesn't mean some can work later *if they want to*.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)When Social Security was set up, a substantial portion of the population was expected to die before reaching retirement age. By the time the FICA tax rate got to where it is today, the vast majority of Americans eventually got to that age, and started to collect benefits. Today, with people living longer than ever, you have large numbers collecting Social Security for many years.
The worker of two generations ago got to retire a few years before death, the retiring worker of today can usually look forward to a couple of decades of retirement. That's part of what's breaking the system.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)Humans were not designed to sit and stare at a computer screen 8+ hours a day. Forcing someone to do that for 54 years is inhumane. It is actually stressful. At least people get to move around in jobs involving labor, getting some exercise is closer to what human were designed to do. Plus office jobs you need to exercise even more outside the job or you get to be 300 lbs, which of course is not paid, but necessary in order to have a white collar job.
Personally, I'm luck that in the course of my commute, I walk over 2 miles a day to and from work. At least I get some physical activity. But. I'm not sure how I'd make it if I could no longer walk that far every day. I do not see many people in their 60s doing it.
The broader issue is, with all out automation, we just don't need people working for no other reason than to keep a stupid financial system going.
(Oh, and another thing is, something I just thought of.... people often had to study for years to get these desk jobs, where many of them design new and better things... making them work longer because they studied more seems like punishment. I don't think people should be punished for trying harder and accomplishing more.)
BeyondGeography
(39,370 posts)It's disappointing to see the number of people in this thread who think "sitting at a desk" is all that happens in an office job. Technology has made us accountable pretty much around the clock and true vacations have disappeared. There is a lot of mental and emotional stress associated with any job that involves involuntary or contrived human interaction, i.e. "relationships" that only exist because of some sort of underlying transaction. It's stressful for anyone who has already worked three or four decades and would rather be left alone and/or spend more time with their loved ones, which is a lot of us, particularly as we get older.
You reach a point pretty quickly where you realize you have a finite number of healthy days left and you'd like to spend them on something resembling your terms. Work can co-exist alongside that and can even be an energizing force, but the thought of submitting to the regimentation of full-time employment until age 70 is something I'm not going to even contemplate.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I think that within 50 years, if we do things right, jobs will be considered something like national service, something that people are asked to do for, say, only 10 years per person. I work in technology and believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect automation in most areas by then, assuming computer technology advances as fast as it has so far. It is more important to figure out how the economy can work without people working. That's the challenge. As I said it's easy just to tell everyone to work more.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the retirement age, eliminate the cap - bingo, bango, bongo, no more fiscal problem for SS.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)My one sister-in-law has a brother that has worked construction all of his life. That brother has a wife that is 3 years younger than he is so their plan was for him to work until his normal retirement age of 66 and she would take an early retirement and retire at the same time as him. Just before his 64th birthday he started having nagging injuries that hampered his ability to perform his duties but he stayed on the job anyway. After about his 3rd nagging injury he decided that his body just couldn't take the daily pounding any more so he retired at 64. His wife has an office job so it became necessary for her to work until she turns 66 this year and can retire.
While she is in good enough health that she could have continued to work there is no way he could have worked past 64 other than take a minimum wage job if he could indeed find work at that age, which is not a given especially with his background. How would these CEO's manage this problem that so many ordinary Americans face?
Incidentally, I have proposed linking the enrollment age for Medicare Part A and Social Security with higher Medicare premiums for those that enroll early, just as benefits are cut on Social Security for those enrolling early. (I haven't called for raising the retirement age beyond current law for obvious reasons). That change only seems fair to me.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)Fuck them. I have already doubled my working output without any compensation and the American worker's mortality age is dropping.
They won't be satisfied until we all drop dead before collecting even a penny of retirement. I have worked my whole adult lifetime and am tired. I cannot imagine mustering the strenght to work an extra month let alone five extra years.
This proposal ought to be shoved up the business leader's asses.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)I almost said something about human sacrifice, but that would be cruel
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)daleo
(21,317 posts)For even talking like this.
aquart
(69,014 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"I'm sure the 1% would love for the rest of the people to work until they die, but this suggestion is wrong-headed on so many levels it's difficult to count them. Suffice to say we will be initiating a movement to make the retirement age 60, not 70".
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)wishlist
(2,795 posts)For those with chronic illnesses in their 60's , Social Security Disability claims and approvals would increase tremendously so raising the regular retirement age would not save as much as people think. But many more people who develop serious conditions and either try to continue work or die before ever applying would never get a penny back. Already at the current age requirements numerous friends and relatives of mine have died before getting much if any Social Security.
These recommendations are not fair or practical for average workers with limited finances and physically and/or mentally stressful jobs.
Best solutions are to simply increase income taxes on benefits drawn by wealthier and increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier plus raising payroll tax cap..
Stainless
(718 posts)Employees that are well treated and cared for are essential to a successful business. The pinhead CEO's in this organization are sabotaging their own businesses by treating their employees poorly. These businesses need to fire their top management and find executives who are more inclined to sympathize with the well being of their employees and thus improve the bottom line of the business. Until then, the employees should use monkey-wrenching and sabotage to undermine these pricks.
ancianita
(36,048 posts)even if they've the most money. They should have coninued FICA deductions on all their paychecks over $400,000. Then the fund would remain solvent.
As Geithner has raided the Government Employees' Pension Fund a number of times in the past, politicians are similarly getting comfortable with helping themselves to someone else's cookie jar.
The public must stand up to these chiselers, pass a bill that makes SS a lock box, and force Congress to stop embezzling public funds to cover their bad stewarding of their spending half of the ledger.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)right now,
steve2470
(37,457 posts)They really want MY SON to work 52 years to retire ? That's f****g crazy. It's bad enough that he has to work (I think) 49 years to get full SS benefits, but an extra 3 years on top of that ?
The cap on SS taxable earnings needs to be lifted. This is horrible and unjust, especially
for our kids and grandkids.