• 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!

Should Retirement Age Be Raised to 70?

Should SSI Retirement Be Set At 70?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • No

    Votes: 23 54.8%
  • Maybe (explain)

    Votes: 6 14.3%

  • Total voters
    42

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Boehner seems to think so: Boehner: Raise Social Security retirement to 70 and means-test benefits -

Of course he would raise it to 70 though, the guy is half retired already! He only has to work for 3 weeks (if Republicans get their way this year) for the rest of the year, and he gets plenty of golf time already so who cares?

Me? I want to be working and not be able to enjoy grand kids, great grand kids, or life at all when I'm older. I want to make sure I work my dick straight into the ground.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What I would rather happen is that the money that people pay into SS actually go into it instead of being turned into T-bills. If the Republicans and Democrats would just use the money paid into Social Security for Social Security payouts instead of paying for other government programs, we wouldn't have to raise the retirement age.
 

Camlon

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Well, the problem is. People are living longer and the number of old people is multiplying. That's going to cost a lot of money. Still I think US can increase it to 67 for the moment and still be fine. In the US a lot of people are quite unhealthy, so they don't become very old. I mean, we lived till we were 65 in the 1950s and today americanse live till they are 68, so it makes sense that the retirement age should go up as well.

However in European countries and especially in the asian counties, they should increase their retirement age. The French can't afford to have people retire when they are 60 years old, but live till they are over 80 years old. Also they get fewer children, hence there will be less young people to support the old.
 
Last edited:

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The way things are as of now I would have to agree with Samsmart.




But what I would like to see is Social Security abolished along with the "retirement age".
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
We have to raise it because the projections are that it will grow beyond the amount of money we take in for it, eliminating the excess they use for general funds and eating into the budget. Raising the age to 70 will reduce the costs and grow the revenue. It will still grow, but be paid for for longer. The next beast to tackle will be Medicare, which is growing faster than SS.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, the retirement age needs to be raised, at least to 70, and we need to start having many more children.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We have to raise it because the projections are that it will grow beyond the amount of money we take in for it, eliminating the excess they use for general funds and eating into the budget. Raising the age to 70 will reduce the costs and grow the revenue. It will still grow, but be paid for for longer. The next beast to tackle will be Medicare, which is growing faster than SS.
Unless we stop the practice of turning funds paid into SS into T-bills it's not going to matter how much we raise the retirement age - there won't be enough funds in SS because they all get spent to pay for other things.
 

Camlon

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We have to raise it because the projections are that it will grow beyond the amount of money we take in for it, eliminating the excess they use for general funds and eating into the budget. Raising the age to 70 will reduce the costs and grow the revenue. It will still grow, but be paid for for longer. The next beast to tackle will be Medicare, which is growing faster than SS.
It will, but it's not what is driving the cost up. After what I have seen there are two factors thst drive cost up. Overconsumption and the lack of cost reducing incentives drive the cost up in health care. Also, schools are using too much money on non-school related stuff, like baseball field, indoor swimming hall, tennis courts, football field, track field, etc.

I think going for 70 years is taking it too far, because if the life expectancy is 78, then a lot of people will die straight after retirement and also a lot of people are not able to enjoy their retirement because they are too old.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Unless we stop the practice of turning funds paid into SS into T-bills it's not going to matter how much we raise the retirement age - there won't be enough funds in SS because they all get spent to pay for other things.
Well now it will help...

If we take in X dollars for FICA and we spend x on SS leaving y dollars that gets spent on the general fund, which costs Y, paid for by taxes and fees: z:

X = x + y.
Y = z + y.

On the current course, x will grow larger than X, y will go negative and we will have to dip into general funds to pay for X. By raising the retirement age, X will grow (revenues will increase for FICA as people will work longer paying) and cover the increase in x (the cost of SS). y will stay positive, FICA contributing to the general fund.
 

reefedjib

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
It will, but it's not what is driving the cost up. After what I have seen there are two factors thst drive cost up. Overconsumption and the lack of cost reducing incentives drive the cost up in health care. Also, schools are using too much money on non-school related stuff, like baseball field, indoor swimming hall, tennis courts, football field, track field, etc.

I think going for 70 years is taking it too far, because if the life expectancy is 78, then a lot of people will die straight after retirement and also a lot of people are not able to enjoy their retirement because they are too old.
As for healthcare, the recent healthcare bill will drive costs up even more, what with taxes, an increased base of insured and fewer doctors.

Not sure what school spending has to do with the cost of healthcare.

We need to eliminate SS and reduce Medicare.
 

Camlon

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As for healthcare, the recent healthcare bill will drive costs up even more, what with taxes, an increased base of insured and fewer doctors.

Not sure what school spending has to do with the cost of healthcare.

We need to eliminate SS and reduce Medicare.
I agree with you there, the health care bill is not really a real reform and will only drive up costs further.

However, I was talking about the cost for the federal government. There are two factors that are causing the massive deficit. It is health care cost and education. Also, I don't think US really need to eliminate programs. The most important thing is to bring cost incentives back. Today, people on insurance pay very little themselves for health care, hence they get a lot of uneccesary treatment. Also there is little competition and lawsuits aren't helping either. This is a very good article about what is wrong Reforming American health care, from the Economist
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think going for 70 years is taking it too far, because if the life expectancy is 78, then a lot of people will die straight after retirement and also a lot of people are not able to enjoy their retirement because they are too old.
Where did we develop this notion that we deserved to retire early enough to "enjoy" our retirement?
 

Camlon

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
2,854
Reaction score
567
Location
Oslo, Norway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Where did we develop this notion that we deserved to retire early enough to "enjoy" our retirement?
Not everything is aboout money, is it? I think people deserve a period where they can do what ever they would like before they get too old to do anything fun.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not everything is aboout money, is it? I think people deserve a period where they can do what ever they would like before they get too old to do anything fun.
It's not about money. It is about duty. Too much of our society is dedicated to this notion of being able to live without obligations.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,848
Reaction score
20,683
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I see no problem with raising the retirement age to 70. According to some actuarial tables I just looked up, I am probably going to live to nearly 80 anyway.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Social Security needs significant reform.

If that reofmr won't be talked about and actually dealt with then this is about the best bandiad we can put on that is at least feasable, and in this case I think a bandaid is better than nothing.

However the far better option is a full scale reform of SS with the money paid in being set aside, the retirement age raised slightly, and individuals under a certain age automatically opted out and those between two middle ages having the choice to opt out, and finally with a very small sales tax that goes to the SS fund that remains in place until the final person is off of Social Security. All excess money in the fund after that point either goes directly to paying down the debt or as a tax rebate.
 

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
Man I just love that a potentially significant portion of my retirement funds can be delegated or withheld from me based on the opinion of other people. :roll:

I hate SS, I want to direct all of my own retirement funds and decide when I want to retire.
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,043
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
20 years out means 30-somethings. The Gen-X'ers. There's not as many of them as there are of us Boomers. The age doesn't need to be raised. It's not a mandatory thing anyway. You don't ever have to retire if you don't want to.

As far as taking away benefits from the well heeled, that would be stealing, plain and simple.

Keep it at 67.5. What difference will 2.5 years really make?
 

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
20 years out means 30-somethings. The Gen-X'ers. There's not as many of them as there are of us Boomers. The age doesn't need to be raised. It's not a mandatory thing anyway. You don't ever have to retire if you don't want to.

As far as taking away benefits from the well heeled, that would be stealing, plain and simple.

Keep it at 67.5. What difference will 2.5 years really make?
It's just a baby step, see after they do that a few more years down the road they'll have to do it again to make it fiscally sound.

Realistically, it's much more palatable to take away from gen x and y, than to do anything to make boomers butt hurt.
They have more votes.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Social Security needs to exist for people who are, by virtue of age or disability, unable to continue working.
 

Gipper

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If not privatized, it badly needs to have the age raised. After all, this is not what it was intended for.

Back in the socialist New Deal days, it was set at 65 years old. One problem - the average American lived to be 62 years old in that day.

The average lifespan of America today? 78 years old. Social Security was designed for people who "beat the system" with regards to lifespan. The difference is that the pay-in to pay-out ratio in those days was approximately 16 to 1. Today it's less than 4 to 1. That means that today there are four times more people who collect than back then when you compare to those who pay into the system.

Social Security was designed to fail from a long-run perspective. It should be abolished completely, or at least updated to today's standards.
 
Top Bottom