Boehner, "Raise SS age to 70"

Not exactly.

Poppy is spot-on. Working to age 70 is fine for me, I'm an information worker. But anyone working retail, construction, mining, or on an assembly line simply can not work full time that long. Add standing on your feet all day teaching school to the list.

WalMart is always hiring greeters.

Life expectancy will continue to increase. When the average is 100 years, we will be retired and on benefits for the same number of years we work. Unless we want our kids rising up against us (might I remind you they are younger and stronger than we are), you best come up with a solution. ;-)

let's use occupation, if you will agree a coal miner has a shorter life expectancy than a desk worker then let that person retire earlier. There must be all kinds of stats in use at this moment on the life expectancy of different occupations.

Did I miss that they passed a law saying you MUST work full time until the age when you can draw full Social Security benefits?

I don't know if I actually know anyone who has done that.

let's use occupation, if you will agree a coal miner has a shorter life expectancy than a desk worker then let that person retire earlier. There must be all kinds of stats in use at this moment on the life expectancy of different occupations.

All men are created equal and should be treated equally, remember? That won't cut it for me.

All men are created equal and should be treated equally, remember? That won't cut it for me.

I knew it wouldn't but you ask for a solution. Yes all men are created equal but as our history proves they aren't always treated equally.

I knew it wouldn't but you ask for a solution. Yes all men are created equal but as our history proves they aren't always treated equally.

Well at least my positions have me standing on the *right* side of the Constitution. What's your excuse?

You have lost me, please explain.

"Social Security is a mandated supplemental retirement system in the US that was established in 1935 as part of Roosevelt's New Deal. It was motivated largely by the events of the Great Depression, which saw many Americans out of work and the nation's retired elderly often left in the direst of poverty. The intent of the Social Security program is to ensure a threshold subsistence level below which any worker who had paid into the program cannot fall."

The program was never intended to be the sole source of retirement funds. In 1930 the life expectancy was 59.2 and the life expectancy of someone age 65 was 12.2 years. This means a large percentage of the population would never make it to draw a single check and those who made it would draw an average of 12 years. In 1997 the life expectancy of someone born in America was 76.5 and those who reached 65 could expect to live and additional 17.7 years.
(Source: National Vital Statistics System.)

So, in order to maintain the status quo of the system you would need to add 5 years to the retirement age or age 70. If you base the age totally on life expectancy you would need to add 17 years to the age or age 82 to maintain the original concept.

The system is failing and will be a huge burden to our children and grandchildren. This is the primary threat to the system and was anticipated by FDR:

"It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action."-Franklin D. Roosevelt from his address to Congress regarding Social Security. ( emphasis added)

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.....this is the real issue. everyone is fighting over the ever shrinking crumbs.

I'm not talking about waiting until your 50's, I am saying that saving 33% of your gross income every year will NOT get you 10-15 years of your ending average of your last 10 years of earning, because your earnings are so much lower in your 20's and 30's. You would have to increase your savings rate in your 50's to 40-50% of your gross to get there.

I know, in that imaginary world where we all sat down in our 30's and figured out how much we would need to save each year, we imagined that what we saved in our 30's and 40's would actually GROW, not SHRINK, as it has for the last 15 years. We had scenarios where you had a return of 3-5% average each year. After the dot-com bomb and the real estate bomb (even though my funds weren't in tech or real estate), I've seen zero growth over the last 15 years.

I think it's wiser to do what our parents did, and to plan on seriously curtailing your expenses upon retirement - have your mortgage paid off, stop buying new cars, have budget travel plans.

Don't forget that when you retire, in order to live to your standard, you only need current earnings minus current savings. Once you retire, you don't need to sock away money any more. The only reason you do that is for retirement. [Edit] You have to worry about inflation too.

Well at least my positions have me standing on the *right* side of the Constitution. What's your excuse?

Well then you can sleep soundly tonight knowing you are "right" and you will get your full share.

Well then you can sleep soundly tonight knowing you are "right" and you will get your full share.

I'm entitled to my full share.

"Social Security is a mandated supplemental retirement system in the US

Unfortunately many people view it as their primary retirement plan. This survey from 2004 during the privatization discussions says:

No one doubts Social Security income is important to retired senior citizens, but a survey says an astonishing 94 percent expect it to be their primary source of income during retirement.

It certainly helps explain why so many seniors are concerned with proposals to allow younger people to invest part of their Social Security payment in the stock market. Most seniors know that would put their primary source of income at risk, since current collections by Social Security fund current payouts.

The research, 2004 Senior Sentiment Survey by Financial Freedom, earlier this year questioned seniors between the ages of 62 and 75.

I doubt its changed much since then.

Boehner..eh! He smokes too much, he drinks too much, he lays in tanning booths way to long.....and now, according to Conservative Republican Joe Scarborough, he is one of the laziest guys in the Senate......


...someone needs to force HIM to work til he is seventy..or, at least until 5 PM!!

Boozy Boehner? - Swampland - TIME.com

I'm entitled to my full share.

Everyone does and in the time frame promised. Football comes to mind, you see the goal, you have your play, you're physically and mentally tired and all you wish to do is rest yet every time you get near the goal it moves back ten yards and you wonder if you will survive long enough to reach it.

Everyone does and in the time frame promised. Football comes to mind, you see the goal, you have your play, you're physically and mentally tired and all you wish to do is rest yet every time you get near the goal it moves back ten yards and you wonder if you will survive long enough to reach it.

Some do and others will. It is a known, but often ignored fact, that if you wish to retire, comfortably, you must do serious planning toward that goal. I, and many others did, and now some expect us to give up what we spent most of our lives planning. I don't think so. The goal is still attainable. Some may have to change their strategy as to how to get there.

Some do and others will. It is a known, but often ignored fact, that if you wish to retire, comfortably, you must do serious planning toward that goal. I, and many others did, and now some expect us to give up what we spent most of our lives planning. I don't think so. The goal is still attainable. Some may have to change their strategy as to how to get there.

The lowest paying jobs are usually the most physically demanding. Planning ahead for many of these people is having food on the table, a roof overhead and staying healthy so they can work and possibly pick up a few hours overtime. Planning a retirement strategy is not a realistic option for many. Expecting timely receipt of the small stipend promised through the payroll tax they have been paying all their working life is not asking you to give up anything.
(unless your plan was for them to die early.)

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.....this is the real issue. everyone is fighting over the ever shrinking crumbs.

I do not get your point. If I have gotten a good education, worked hard, been lucky by being in the right spot at the right time and had the sense to grab the oppurtunities, what is wrong with that ?? Isn't that the American Dream ??

I do not get your point. If I have gotten a good education, worked hard, been lucky by being in the right spot at the right time and had the sense to grab the oppurtunities, what is wrong with that ?? Isn't that the American Dream ??

I agree with most everything you said except maybe I think the whole idea of the American Dream is some worn out cliche.

The lowest paying jobs are usually the most physically demanding. Planning ahead for many of these people is having food on the table, a roof overhead and staying healthy so they can work and possibly pick up a few hours overtime. Planning a retirement strategy is not a realistic option for many. Expecting timely receipt of the small stipend promised through the payroll tax they have been paying all their working life is not asking you to give up anything.
(unless your plan was for them to die early.)

..... no one can expect to survive only on their SS check! It wasn't designed to live on...it was to supplement you....you have to plan for retirement...a little socked away each month will make a difference over time.

..... no one can expect to survive only on their SS check! It wasn't designed to live on...it was to supplement you....you have to plan for retirement...a little socked away each month will make a difference over time.

The stock portfolios of the working poor have been hit pretty hard lately by the economy.

The fact that the "working poor" have stock portfolios says quite a bit about just how cliched the American Dream is. :roll:

The whole idea of Social Security is that everyone can have a certain minimum standard of living even if they have done nothing to save for their retirement.

And that minimal payment - even if it gets reduced - still makes them "wealthy" in the eyes of 95% of the planet.

Poppy, I couldn't disagree with you more throughly. The American public has never been prone to save or plan for retirement, as a whole. My wise, but uneducated father, taught me the value and necessity of saving and financial planning at the ripe old age of 11. That's when I started cutting lawns and by 13, I was checking in a Safeway store. One of the biggest mistakes we ever made in this country was the "child labor laws". We negated teaching our youth how to work and how to save. I hated what my father did at the time. I have revered him ever since I turned 20.
Please spare us the idea that people who don't make a lot of money cannot plan and save for retirement. I never made a salary of more than $22,000 a year in my life. I now manage to do quite well. In my mind, it is attitudes such as yours, that to a great degree, have our nation in the financial peril it is in, as far as the support of our citizens of retirement age is concerned. We do not educate our youth about the value, use and requirement in future years, of money.

The American public has never been prone to save or plan for retirement, as a whole. .

That's really a recent development. According to this Federal Reserve document Savings Rates were as high as 14% as recently as the 1970's. Rates were climbing in the 60's, peaked in the 70's (as we came out of a recession) and began a decline that has continued ever since.



Interestingly enough, the last time savings rates went negative was during the Great Depression.

The government has built a system that seriously discourages people from saving. You pay taxes on the money you save, but you get to deduct from your income for some of the money you spend. The system is designed with incentives to spend and penalties for savings.

That's really a recent development. According to this Federal Reserve document Savings Rates were as high as 14% as recently as the 1970's. Rates were climbing in the 60's, peaked in the 70's (as we came out of a recession) and began a decline that has continued ever since.



Interestingly enough, the last time savings rates went negative was during the Great Depression.

The government has built a system that seriously discourages people from saving. You pay taxes on the money you save, but you get to deduct from your income for some of the money you spend. The system is designed with incentives to spend and penalties for savings.

Such a strange graph.. we eliminated a whole set of deductible loans in 86, including credit card debt. I've never been able to put my finger on what exactly changed in the attitudes of Americans in the mid-80s. Rising tide of consumerism maybe with a move toward a more capitalist system? Some sort of credit card or loan legislation maybe?

Poppy, I couldn't disagree with you more throughly. The American public has never been prone to save or plan for retirement, as a whole. My wise, but uneducated father, taught me the value and necessity of saving and financial planning at the ripe old age of 11. That's when I started cutting lawns and by 13, I was checking in a Safeway store. One of the biggest mistakes we ever made in this country was the "child labor laws". We negated teaching our youth how to work and how to save. I hated what my father did at the time. I have revered him ever since I turned 20.
Please spare us the idea that people who don't make a lot of money cannot plan and save for retirement. I never made a salary of more than $22,000 a year in my life. I now manage to do quite well. In my mind, it is attitudes such as yours, that to a great degree, have our nation in the financial peril it is in, as far as the support of our citizens of retirement age is concerned. We do not educate our youth about the value, use and requirement in future years, of money.

22K 30 years ago adjusted for inflation is over 53K in 2010.

We agree that Americans just don't save enough-young or old.

My point is that a $12/hr job doesn't buy what it did thirty years ago.