Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Jul '11 19:24
    It seems to me that if we are going to live in a country that pays people when they retire, we need to make adjustments. We do make small adjustments due to inflation, but we also need to make adjustments in retirement age!

    Social Security in the United States began in 1935 with a retirement age of 65.

    I'm using the numbers from this site for average life expectancy in the US:


    http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

    1935
    Male: 59.9
    Female 63.9

    The retirement age was 65 in 1935. Just for easy math, I'll say that the average life expectancy was 62, which means that people didn't retire until 3 years later.


    Looking at the latest numbers:

    1998
    Male 73.8
    Female 79.5

    This would average out to be something like 77! If we were to make the appropriate age adustment and add 3 years to this number (I think I'm being generous here in respect to retiring early), people wouldn't be getting their SS checks until they turn 80!


    Make the appropriate adjustment in retirement age and you fix the problem! I think that an adjustment every 10 years would be about right.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Jul '11 19:26
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It seems to me that if we are going to live in a country that pays people when they retire, we need to make adjustments. We do make small adjustments due to inflation, but we also need to make adjustments in retirement age!

    Social Security in the United States began in 1935 with a retirement age of 65.

    I'm using the numbers from this site for average ...[text shortened]... e and you fix the problem! I think that an adjustment every 10 years would be about right.
    You expect people to work until they are 80 before they can retire and get Social security?
  3. 19 Jul '11 19:32
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You expect people to work until they are 80 before they can retire and get Social security?
    Working until 65 in 1935 was little different to working to 80 today! Everything is relative and people are living longer and staying healthy longer.

    Neglecting this aspect is simply asking for trouble, which we are finding out.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Jul '11 19:32
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Working until 65 in 1935 was little different to working to 80 today! Everything is relative and people are living longer and staying healthy longer.

    Neglecting this aspect is simply asking for trouble, which we are finding out.
    So that's a "yes"?
  5. 19 Jul '11 19:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You expect people to work until they are 80 before they can retire and get Social security?
    People who advocate that don't know what it's like to be 70+ and be old/sick/tired and have medical problems and trouble with mobility, etc.

    Really heartless and thoughtless suggestion.
  6. 19 Jul '11 19:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So that's a "yes"?
    Yes and no. Should people be working until 80? That's up to them. They shouldn't be able to draw SS until they are 80. Retirment and drawing SS are two totally different things.

    How to implement the change? Perhaps bumping up the retirment age 2 years every 10 years until the proper age is reached? I'm not suggesting a huge move at any one time. People make plans, but given enough time and make small enough adjustments and people can easily adjust.
  7. 19 Jul '11 19:39
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    People who advocate that don't know what it's like to be 70+ and be old/sick/tired and have medical problems and trouble with mobility, etc.

    Really heartless and thoughtless suggestion.
    People like you don't understand what it meant to be 65 back in 1935.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    19 Jul '11 19:39
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    People who advocate that don't know what it's like to be 70+ and be old/sick/tired and have medical problems and trouble with mobility, etc.

    Really heartless and thoughtless suggestion.
    :'(
  9. 19 Jul '11 19:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    People like you don't understand what it meant to be 65 back in 1935.
    I know what it feels like to be 60 today.

    Do you?
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    19 Jul '11 19:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes and no. Should people be working until 80? That's up to them. They shouldn't be able to draw SS until they are 80. Retirment and drawing SS are two totally different things.

    How to implement the change? Perhaps bumping up the retirment age 2 years every 10 years until the proper age is reached? I'm not suggesting a huge move at any one time. Peo ...[text shortened]... plans, but given enough time and make small enough adjustments and people can easily adjust.
    Wait, that plan means Zapp probably gets SS until he dies. Let's use a system where SS stops 71 so his generation will go away. Fund it generously until that age.

    Wait he's only 60? Well then yes, make him wait. He needs to work to earn his SS

    It has been claimed that Putin once said, "if you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you aren't conservative when you're old you have no brain."

    That means old people are supposed to not need SS because they're conservatives. Right?
  11. 19 Jul '11 19:43
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    I know what it feels like to be 60 today.

    Do you?
    Nah, I'm 41. Under my plan, I'd reach SS age at about 69, you'd still retire at 65 or 67.

    Surely you'd agree that someone who is 69 in 2035 would be in much better shape than someone who was 65 in 1935.
  12. 19 Jul '11 19:45
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Nah, I'm 41. Under my plan, I'd reach SS age at about 69, you'd still retire at 65 or 67.

    Surely you'd agree that someone who is 69 in 2035 would be in much better shape than someone who was 65 in 1935.
    i've been paying into social security for FORTY FIVE years, I will pay for 5 more.

    You are suggesting that 50 years isn't long enough? The government should take more?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    19 Jul '11 19:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    i've been paying into social security for FORTY FIVE years, I will pay for 5 more.

    You are suggesting that 50 years isn't long enough? The government should take more?
    Take?

    SS is government checks. It is not a savings account with your money in it. If you collect SS you are on old people welfare.

    You had a whole lifetime to get ready for this. Why are you relying on the government now?
  14. 19 Jul '11 19:48
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    i've been paying into social security for FORTY FIVE years, I will pay for 5 more.

    You are suggesting that 50 years isn't long enough? The government should take more?
    SS was supposed to be for retirement near the time you were expected to die. You were never supposed to need SS. The government was supposed to collect your money then you die. That was the way it was intended, with the lucky few actually receiving benefits. It was sort of like a lottery.

    The problem is that they never adjusted for an increasing number of winners. SS should be what it was intended for. To do that they need to make adjustments for age.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    19 Jul '11 19:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Nah, I'm 41. Under my plan, I'd reach SS age at about 69, you'd still retire at 65 or 67.

    Surely you'd agree that someone who is 69 in 2035 would be in much better shape than someone who was 65 in 1935.
    That's not the deal I signed up for and have paid into for decades.

    Is it just for the government to unilaterally change the conditions of SS to reduce or delay someone's benefits AFTER that person has been paying with the understanding that the conditions were X?