• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner wants to raise the retirement age to 70

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree based on the long term ability of Social Security but disagree as well because it's unfair to younger people.
Us younger folks will get less and have to pay more, it's not right.
Actually, it is fair. When SS was first enacted, lifespans were much shorter than they are today. With the increase in lifespans, the requirements must be also adjusted to reflect this.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I agree based on the long term ability of Social Security but disagree as well because it's unfair to younger people.
Us younger folks will get less and have to pay more, it's not right.
Not really -- because you'll live longer.

When social security began, life expectancy was much shorter. Not that many people lived into their 70s. Now, people are still working way past that time (including a recent President and quite a few Senators).

Most people get more back from social security than they put in, which is one of the reasons it's going broke after all.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, it is fair. When SS was first enacted, lifespans were much shorter than they are today. With the increase in lifespans, the requirements must be also adjusted to reflect this.
There is no guarantee that I will live past tomorrow, just because the average lifespan is longer doesn't mean my lifespan is longer.

I'd rather have the option of opting out altogether.
 

Groucho

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
933
Location
Pocono Mountains, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is no guarantee that I will live past tomorrow, just because the average lifespan is longer doesn't mean my lifespan is longer.

I'd rather have the option of opting out altogether.
Well, as long as we're on the subject, I'd also like to make social security based on need. If we want to balance the budget it makes sense. There's no reason why millionaires should be getting social security. Treat it like insurance -- you pay into it hoping that you don't get poor in your old age and if you are, you can collect. You could even make it like real insurance in that you can buy better policies.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not really -- because you'll live longer.

When social security began, life expectancy was much shorter. Not that many people lived into their 70s. Now, people are still working way past that time (including a recent President and quite a few Senators).
Shouldn't I be able to choose when I want to retire?
That's a lot more fair.

Especially when you break down who gets the most benefits out of the program.

Most people get more back from social security than they put in, which is one of the reasons it's going broke after all.
That should raise the retirement age for some but not all people, if we are going to do it based on life expectancy.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, as long as we're on the subject, I'd also like to make social security based on need. If we want to balance the budget it makes sense. There's no reason why millionaires should be getting social security. Treat it like insurance -- you pay into it hoping that you don't get poor in your old age and if you are, you can collect. You could even make it like real insurance in that you can buy better policies.
I think a person making $50k a year doesn't really need it as long as they save.
Some people plan their retirement without factoring in SS and call it icing on the cake, if they do get it.

Your idea isn't a bad start though.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem I have with this law is that it wouldn't just affect the work sector, it would affect the way retirement savings work. Would people start being penalized with taxation if they start dipping into retirement funds at age 65 instead of 70?

I think retirement age should stay where it is. Just because life expectancy is now higher does not mean you have long term quality of life. At least at age 65 you have the potential to still be somewhat healthy and active. Once you hit age 70 you are exponentially more likely to suffer a debilitating illness that renders you incapable of doing very much.

They might as well set retirement to near the point of death. Gotta work people until they've got nothing left in them.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, **** them.

But whatever. I'm going to retire before I'm 45. They can go to hell.
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Can see that suggestion going down like a lump of lead with the voters come November.

Problem with politicians is they never know when to keep their tongues from flapping.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,280
Reaction score
32,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, **** them.

But whatever. I'm going to retire before I'm 45. They can go to hell.
Nope. You will be forced to work until 70! To the coal mine with you.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree based on the long term ability of Social Security but disagree as well because it's unfair to younger people.
Us younger folks will get less and have to pay more, it's not right.
Not correct about the fairness in raising the retirement age. You have to look at life expectancy.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
16,869
Reaction score
9,668
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I agree based on the long term ability of Social Security but disagree as well because it's unfair to younger people.
Us younger folks will get less and have to pay more, it's not right.
I thought conservatives believed that social security was just the safety net? If so, what's the problem? Social security does not dictate when you can retire, you dictate when you can retire. Just make a ton of money and retire at 50ish, if you want.

".....May you live long and prosper...."

I accept the fact that social security retirement ages should be pushed out. However, they may need to offset this with looser definitions of disability for persons over 60 AND be diligent in enforcement of age discrimination laws.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Shouldn't I be able to choose when I want to retire?
Technically you can. There is a fully legal way of retiring early, and then upon hiting the regular age, paying all of the SS benefits you took back and restarting at the full benefit rate. And you don't eat the taxes (I think, I'm about 80% sure about that). Ths, you can retire when you want and still reap full benefits. I can explain this further if you want.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,223
Reaction score
30,805
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, as long as we're on the subject, I'd also like to make social security based on need. If we want to balance the budget it makes sense. There's no reason why millionaires should be getting social security. Treat it like insurance -- you pay into it hoping that you don't get poor in your old age and if you are, you can collect. You could even make it like real insurance in that you can buy better policies.
Thats fine provided that you make it optional. If the government FORCES people without option to pay into a retirement system then at the very least they ought to offer a one time payout.

Your plan of allowing people different investment options sounds suspicously like Bush's plan! :shock:

Of course...he only advocated voluntary choice to invest a small portion of your social security...NOTHING like the retirement accounts congress has.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The problem Vance, with an opt out is those who squander their payment and end up bankrupt. We end up pay for them rather then forcing them to shoulder some of the burden. I don't suggest people do what I suggested in post #16 because people are irresponsible. From a Libertarian view, I completely agree that if forced there should be an opt out method, maybe as a deduction against future taxes, but merely looking at my fellow humans, I cannot reasonably suggest that we really let them do that. Especially when the cost is higher welfare and higher taxes. And aside from the very fringe group, we are not going to just let people die because they did poor retirement planning.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,223
Reaction score
30,805
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem Vance, with an opt out is those who squander their payment and end up bankrupt. We end up pay for them rather then forcing them to shoulder some of the burden. I don't suggest people do what I suggested in post #16 because people are irresponsible. From a Libertarian view, I completely agree that if forced there should be an opt out method, maybe as a deduction against future taxes, but merely looking at my fellow humans, I cannot reasonably suggest that we really let them do that. Especially when the cost is higher welfare and higher taxes. And aside from the very fringe group, we are not going to just let people die because they did poor retirement planning.
I get what you are saying. Maybe there would have to be some sort of secured retirement account in place...maybe a metered trust fund (hey...it could even be interest bearing and taxed).
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually, it is fair. When SS was first enacted, lifespans were much shorter than they are today. With the increase in lifespans, the requirements must be also adjusted to reflect this.
no, in the 40's I garantee they were not paying 12% in taxes for it.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, as long as we're on the subject, I'd also like to make social security based on need. If we want to balance the budget it makes sense. There's no reason why millionaires should be getting social security. Treat it like insurance -- you pay into it hoping that you don't get poor in your old age and if you are, you can collect. You could even make it like real insurance in that you can buy better policies.
I kinda disagree, that would make it another welfare program. SS is a social insurance. I have a compromise though. What if instead we slowly phased in the payments, so when you first retire you get a little and as you age you get larger and larger transfers. Everyone still gets benefits, but it does what it is supposed to, insure against aging.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a novel idea:

Get the government out of the retirement business and then people can set their own retirement ages.

Last I checked the Constitution, the only people the Federal Government is allowed to set retirement ages for are people directly employed by the Federal Government.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, as long as we're on the subject, I'd also like to make social security based on need. If we want to balance the budget it makes sense. There's no reason why millionaires should be getting social security. Treat it like insurance -- you pay into it hoping that you don't get poor in your old age and if you are, you can collect. You could even make it like real insurance in that you can buy better policies.
Do you have ANY IDEA how many millionaire liberals are having their Socialist Security checks direct deposited to their banks?

Every single one that is old enough to be eligible.

Then they yell at us for being "greedy" for not wanting to pay higher taxes.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a good idea by Boehner, and needs to be coupled with further reform to social security beyond simply raising the age.

I thought conservatives believed that social security was just the safety net? If so, what's the problem? Social security does not dictate when you can retire, you dictate when you can retire. Just make a ton of money and retire at 50ish, if you want.

".....May you live long and prosper...."

I accept the fact that social security retirement ages should be pushed out. However, they may need to offset this with looser definitions of disability for persons over 60 AND be diligent in enforcement of age discrimination laws.
Ah, yet another person that likes to act like they understand what conservatives think and then show they only listen half heartedly.

Yes, in general conservatives view social security as a safety net. Yes, in general, if it could be done away with many conservatives would like to see that happen. However, much like federal dollars going to states, as long as the government is taking my money and its going to have to go SOMEWHERE then yes, I'm going to want my part of it back. I would rather it just never have been taken in the first place, but I'm also not going to live in a fantasy land.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Can someone explain to me why we "need" to retire in general?
What's the purpose of retiring, why is it a common thing? Why do people feel that "at a certain age I should be able to survive without being employed" ???

I understand this concept not.

It seems to fly in the face of all other advice and knowledge: work hard, earn a decent wage so you can support yourself and have a good life . . .
 
Top Bottom