+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ (/Thread-Bush-Retirement-age-should-be-phased-in-to-%E2%80%9968-or-70%E2%80%99)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ - Devils Advocate - 07-11-2015
'Live longer, work longer' is such a silly notion.
RE: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ - BmorePat87 - 07-11-2015
(07-11-2015, 02:14 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: 'Live longer, work longer' is such a silly notion.
Not really. Average life expectancy in the 30's was 60 years old, and you had a program that paid out once you hit 65. They raised it to 67 in the 60's when the average life expectancy was 70. Now it's 2015, the average life expectancy is 79 and someone is suggesting that it should be raised to 68 or 70 for those who are younger than 40. That's quite reasonable, considering those affected by this won't be drawing from it for 30-40 years when the life expectancy may be close to 90.
We do not have a system that can comfortably give benefits to people for 25 years. You're going to need to make more money to provide for the fact that you'll be living to the age of 80-90.
RE: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ - GMDino - 07-11-2015
(07-11-2015, 10:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not really. Average life expectancy in the 30's was 60 years old, and you had a program that paid out once you hit 65. They raised it to 67 in the 60's when the average life expectancy was 70. Now it's 2015, the average life expectancy is 79 and someone is suggesting that it should be raised to 68 or 70 for those who are younger than 40. That's quite reasonable, considering those affected by this won't be drawing from it for 30-40 years when the life expectancy may be close to 90.
We do not have a system that can comfortably give benefits to people for 25 years. You're going to need to make more money to provide for the fact that you'll be living to the age of 80-90.
Not for nothing that life expectancy is seldom used as the reason for increasing the retirement age. More the "its unsustainable" argument.
Its all about getting their hand on that money and "privatizing" it while hoping no one lives long enough to ever need it.
RE: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ - BmorePat87 - 07-11-2015
(07-11-2015, 10:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not for nothing that life expectancy is seldom used as the reason for increasing the retirement age. More the "its unsustainable" argument.
Its all about getting their hand on that money and "privatizing" it while hoping no one lives long enough to ever need it.
Suggesting that the age be pushed back 1-3 years is a far cry from privatization, especially when we consider that there was a 2 year push back 30 years after the program was created, and now we're suggesting a 1-3 push back 40 years after that second push back.
RE: Bush: Retirement age should be phased in to ’68 or 70’ - michaelsean - 07-11-2015
(07-11-2015, 10:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not for nothing that life expectancy is seldom used as the reason for increasing the retirement age. More the "its unsustainable" argument.
Its all about getting their hand on that money and "privatizing" it while hoping no one lives long enough to ever need it.
You don't get how life expectancy and unsustainablecan go hand in hand?