U.S. CEOs push plan to raise full retirement age to 70

[DamianTV]

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-ceos-push-plan-to-raise-full-retirement-age-to-70/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-57564374/u.s-ceos-push-plan-to-raise-full-retirement-age-to-70/


An influential group of business CEOs is pushing a plan to gradually increase the full retirement age to 70 for both Social Security and Medicare and to partially privatize the health insurance program for older Americans.

The Business Roundtable’s plan would protect those 55 and older from cuts but younger workers would face significant changes. The plan unveiled Wednesday would result in smaller annual benefit increases for all Social Security recipients. Initial benefits for wealthy retirees would also be smaller.

Medicare recipients would be able to enroll in the traditional program or in private plans that could adjust premiums based on age and health status.

Well, so much for EVER retiring...

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://diggndeeper.com/liberty/wp-content/gallery/memes/corporatism.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

At the time Social Security was passed, the retirement age was only a few years less than the average lifespan. Today people live a lot longer and are healthier longer. Somdbody retiring at 65 may have 20- 30 years collecting benefits when before it was five to ten. That makes the program much more expensive. Can we afford to leave things as they are?

If you choose to cut out the government benefits for yourself, you can retire at any age you want.

[DamianTV]

Right. Because all Mundanes should be forced to work until the day they die.

[Keith and stuff]

What is it now, 68? I don't even currently qualify for the program anyway.

[GunnyFreedom]

Anything to keep the younger workers in menial lower positions, and to not have to hire the hoards of unemployed...

[Danke]

Fuckers already took away my retirement.

[Pauls' Revere]

Depends on the year you were born. But yes, born after 1960 and your full retirement age is 67. May as well play the lotto.

[Zippyjuan]

What is it now, 68? I don't even currently qualify for the program anyway.

From the CBS link (Infowars is not always accurate):
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-ceos-push-plan-to-raise-full-retirement-age-to-70/

Retirees can now get reduced Social Security benefits starting at age 62. Retirees must wait until they are 66 to get full Social Security benefits, a threshold that is gradually rising to 67. The eligibility age for Medicare is 65. The business group's plan would make unspecified accommodations for people with physically demanding jobs.

Social Security and Medicare both face long-term financial problems as aging baby boomers reach retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers behind to fund the massive benefit programs.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say the trust funds that support the retirement and disability program will run out of money in 2033, unless Congress acts. At that point, payroll taxes would generate only enough money to pay about three-fourths of benefits.

Medicare is in worse shape. Its trust fund for inpatient care is projected to run dry in 2024, leaving the program unable to cover all its bills.

"The facts are clear: If we want future generations to have access to Social Security and Medicare, America can no longer afford to wait," said Randall L. Stephenson, Chairman and CEO of AT&T (T). "The time to act is now."

Among the CEOs' proposals—
Adopt a new government inflation measure that would result in smaller annual increases in Social Security benefits.

Make initial Social Security benefits more progressive by guaranteeing low-wage workers enough benefits to stay out of poverty, while lowering initial benefits for retirees with higher incomes.

Require newly hired state and local workers to join Social Security. Some state and local agencies are not part of the system.

Expand means testing for Medicare benefits so that wealthier recipients must pay more for services.

Improve Medicare services for low-income people by better coordinating prevention and care for chronic conditions

[TaftFan]

I thought older folks were complaining they were being dropped in favor of younger workers?

[Cutlerzzz]

We actually have people here that think that the government should plan people's retirement?

My problem with this is that it will preserve the system for longer. I'd rather Social Security goes bankrupt in the 30s when it's projected.

[Zippyjuan]

Anything to keep the younger workers in menial lower positions, and to not have to hire the hoards of unemployed...

Keeping kids broke or poor means less money going into the coffers for the older folks though.

Raising the retirement would help reduce government spending (at least on that program).

[eduardo89]

Raise SS age to 99. Social Security isn't meant to be your retirement program, it's supposed to be a safety net for those who outlive their retirement savings.

[gwax23]

The government has no right to dictate retirement ages to begin with.

[helmuth_hubener]

Seems like a pretty reasonable plan. Guys, the SS is headed for financial difficulties. As Ron Paul might say: "we're broke." Raising the pay-out age is one way to lower the costs and make ends meet. As Cutlerzzz says, this is not without downside. But basically, it's reasonable that leading citizens not want their government to go catastrophically bankrupt, but instead do something financially responsible for a change. Now as to how likely that is to happen......

[GunnyFreedom]

We actually have people here that think that the government should plan people's retirement?

Not that I am aware of. Perhaps you are mistaking statements of consequence as though they imply approval?


My problem with this is that it will preserve the system for longer. I'd rather Social Security goes bankrupt in the 30s when it's projected.

[Anti Federalist]

Right. Because all Mundanes should be forced to work until the day they die.

I never had any illusions about doing otherwise.

[James Madison]

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." -Thomas Jefferson

[oyarde]

At the time Social Security was passed, the retirement age was only a few years less than the average lifespan. Today people live a lot longer and are healthier longer. Somdbody retiring at 65 may have 20- 30 years collecting benefits when before it was five to ten. That makes the program much more expensive. Can we afford to leave things as they are?

If you choose to cut out the government benefits for yourself, you can retire at any age you want. Well , If you could leave the 13 %

of stolen income to someone when you die , then OK , otherwise , just a bullshit boon to the evil govt . they should have put all of the money back , and since they did not , they are only evil , criminal thieves.

[oyarde]

Seems like a pretty reasonable plan. Guys, the SS is headed for financial difficulties. As Ron Paul might say: "we're broke." Raising the pay-out age is one way to lower the costs and make ends meet. As Cutlerzzz says, this is not without downside. But basically, it's reasonable that leading citizens not want their government to go catastrophically bankrupt, but instead do something financially responsible for a change. Now as to how likely that is to happen......

I agree , they can just give my 200k or 300k ( I have not checked in awhile ) back , lump sum , tomorrow , I will call it even .Yeah , fuck them .

[oyarde]

They did not get " broke " by stealing 13 % of income , they got broke doing other things . I hate those worthless motherfuckers.

[jclay2]

The only problem I have with this "fix" is that it keeps the flawed system in place: 1. pay benefits with current taxes 2. Do number 1 when the benefits promised have an exponential behavior to them.

[Brian4Liberty]

I thought older folks were complaining they were being dropped in favor of younger workers?

Crony corporatists have no problem with laying off every worker over 40, and also moving the government retirement age to 80. More money for bailouts and incentives and pork and stuff. It's not like there is a contradiction there. It's the same as backing extended UI and calling for more importation of workers at the same time.

[Demigod]

I expect the life expectancy rate to drop like a stone when all the retirees ( who have been retired for decades ) start dying.Maybe work has become a lot less physical but stress is killing like a plague,not to mention changing technology with witch I just can not see the average worker keeping up at the age of 65-70.Even the most not physical jobs like low level programmers or tech guys could not keep up to work 8 hours a day sitting in a chair before a screen trough the age of 60-70.Yes it would be great for government employees where they will probably get someone else to do their job while they just punch the time card to show they are there but that is about it.

And I think it is fairly reasonable to expect that after you have worked for 35-40 years and payed in that you will be able to take something back for at least 10-20 years.

[Ronin Truth]

What a great idea. Now all we need are enough "enlightened" managements that will even consider hiring the MILLIONS of unemployed seniors (45+), that really want to work, out here in the REAL world. :rolleyes:

[MRK]

Retirement age should be 14 or whenever someone starts working. Why should the government decide when someone gets to retire?

Also for those of you who are unaware, this already exists: It's called social security disability, and the payrolls for it have been exploding since 2008.

[tod evans]

Everything government gets involved in it fucks up.

SSI is no different.

Let my child opt out.

I never figured I'd live this long so foregoing any promised "benefits" doesn't concern me, I've known since '74 that the deductions were taken with no intention of ever paying them back, let alone with the promised interest.

Lop the head off the beast, don't just nibble around the edges.

[donnay]

At the time Social Security was passed, the retirement age was only a few years less than the average lifespan. Today people live a lot longer and are healthier longer. Somdbody retiring at 65 may have 20- 30 years collecting benefits when before it was five to ten. That makes the program much more expensive. Can we afford to leave things as they are?

If you choose to cut out the government benefits for yourself, you can retire at any age you want.

That doesn't stop them from stealing your money.

[jbauer]

Keeping kids broke or poor means less money going into the coffers for the older folks though.

Raising the retirement would help reduce government spending (at least on that program).

Yeah just means we can spend more on war. There's no way we actually cut spending.

[kcchiefs6465]

I never had any illusions that the money taken from me would ever be repaid. No one else does either. In fact, it is a joke, of sorts, among those collecting. I was talking to one the other day and she laughed when mentioning that money would not be available for me to be repaid. Ha.

They will never end Social Security voluntarily. It will take an economic failure for them to do so, and even then, they'd probably still be pumping worthless dollars into it.

[torchbearer]

Raise SS age to 99. Social Security isn't meant to be your retirement program, it's supposed to be a safety net for those who outlive their retirement savings.

they take money out of my check like its a retirement account. for some reason, i never get to see my account or the portfolio.
where is that money going?

[tod evans]

they take money out of my check like its a retirement account. for some reason, i never get to see my account or the portfolio.
where is that money going?

http://www.fair.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cluster-bombs.jpg

[Feeding the Abscess]

I expect the life expectancy rate to drop like a stone when all the retirees ( who have been retired for decades ) start dying.Maybe work has become a lot less physical but stress is killing like a plague,not to mention changing technology with witch I just can not see the average worker keeping up at the age of 65-70.Even the most not physical jobs like low level programmers or tech guys could not keep up to work 8 hours a day sitting in a chair before a screen trough the age of 60-70.Yes it would be great for government employees where they will probably get someone else to do their job while they just punch the time card to show they are there but that is about it.

And I think it is fairly reasonable to expect that after you have worked for 35-40 years and payed in that you will be able to take something back for at least 10-20 years.

Not in an inflationary environment. Even with a 100% savings rate. In a free market, where a slight deflationary economy would likely be the norm, absolutely; someone could save 25% or so of their earnings, have their savings grow in value, and be fine in retirement.

[Origanalist]

http://www.fair.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/cluster-bombs.jpg

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/NA-BQ884_Number_E_20120525153402.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/2-10-12bud-f2.jpg

[brandon]

Well, so much for EVER retiring...

Yea I guess if you're planning to retire on government paychecks. That shouldn't be your plan in the first place though.

[erowe1]

I don't understand the negativity of some of these posts.

The more they cut Social Security and Medicare, and the sooner they cut them, up to the point of total immediate elimination, the better.

Raise away that retirement age. Don't stop at 70.

[Red Green]

I'm 45 and my retirement plans are counting on a total SS payout of $0. I would suggest that anyone my age or younger that are including SS into their retirement plans should rethink that position and start making a plan that is bereft of SS. I am HOPING that medicare might still have some crappy coverage for me, but if not no big deal. I'll most likely end up retiring to South America or Asia anyway.

SS will eventually be means tested, which will basically means it will be a welfare program for people who failed to plan for retirement, instead of the inter-generational welfare program it is now. The retirement age for SS means nothing to me and should really mean nothing to anyone on this board.

[otherone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/2-10-12bud-f2.jpg

what a misleading chart. The top 20% make 75k a year and up. 75k....the REAL middle class. Why did they choose top and bottom 20%? What would top and bottom 10% look like? Or the percent making OVER the SSI deduction threshold (IIRC, 105K?)

[Origanalist]

what a misleading chart. The top 20% make 75k a year and up. 75k....the REAL middle class. Why did they choose top and bottom 20%? What would top and bottom 10% look like? Or the percent making OVER the SSI deduction threshold (IIRC, 105K?)

Good points, my take from it was simply how many people were sucking from the government teat.

[otherone]

Good points, my take from it was simply how many people were sucking from the government teat.

The entire tax code is centered around "married with children" who tithe to the banking cartels that finance the "American Dream"(tm) of home ownership. These are the sheep who love their big gubment that protects little Brylee and Cortlyn from brown people AND gives them a REFUND every year. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Right. Because all Mundanes should be forced to work until the day they die.

S.S. is a "safety net" welfare program. It's not a retirement fund. You can retire at 30 if you want-you just have to have sufficient funds.

[Philhelm]

Well, it looks like we've already pledged our fortunes. May as well pledge the other two.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm 45 and my retirement plans are counting on a total SS payout of $0. I would suggest that anyone my age or younger that are including SS into their retirement plans should rethink that position and start making a plan that is bereft of SS. I am HOPING that medicare might still have some crappy coverage for me, but if not no big deal. I'll most likely end up retiring to South America or Asia anyway.

SS will eventually be means tested, which will basically means it will be a welfare program for people who failed to plan for retirement, instead of the inter-generational welfare program it is now. The retirement age for SS means nothing to me and should really mean nothing to anyone on this board.
This^^

The problem with retirement http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/10/gary-north/dont-retire/
Retirement is death http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/10/gary-north/dont-retire/

[Origanalist]

This^^

The problem with retirement http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/10/gary-north/dont-retire/
Retirement is death http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/10/gary-north/dont-retire/

I have no plans of "retiring". I'm getting out of drywall because I'm simply getting too old, but I'm going into something not so physically demanding and when that option starts wearing down I will simply adapt again. I see no point in my future where I cannot be productive in some manner until quite close to death.

[Demigod]

Not in an inflationary environment. Even with a 100% savings rate. In a free market, where a slight deflationary economy would likely be the norm, absolutely; someone could save 25% or so of their earnings, have their savings grow in value, and be fine in retirement.


In my country inflation has been 1-2% for the past 20+ years ( it is around 1.2 usually ) but interest on a yearly deposit is 4-5% while a 40 year one can reach 7.5-8.6% .That makes more than enough to compensate for inflation.

5 years ago they implemented private pensions funds where you can give half of your paycheck deductibles for the pension and can manage them like a fund while the other half must go to the government pension fund because it is already more than bankrupt.Every new worker chooses the 50-50 option instead of everything to the government because with the government if you die your family gets nothing.

[angelatc]

http://www.infowars.com/u-s-ceos-push-plan-to-raise-full-retirement-age-to-70/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-57564374/u.s-ceos-push-plan-to-raise-full-retirement-age-to-70/



Well, so much for EVER retiring...


Cry baby liberal bullshit. Retiring was not something anybody ever did until the government started paying for it.

Idiotic Infowars bullshit: There is no mandatory retirement age in the United States, so it is not possible to raise it.

[oyarde]

In my country inflation has been 1-2% for the past 20+ years ( it is around 1.2 usually ) but interest on a yearly deposit is 4-5% while a 40 year one can reach 7.5-8.6% .That makes more than enough to compensate for inflation.

5 years ago they implemented private pensions funds where you can give half of your paycheck deductibles for the pension and can manage them like a fund while the other half must go to the government pension fund because it is already more than bankrupt.Every new worker chooses the 50-50 option instead of everything to the government because with the government if you die your family gets nothing.

I would not give my Fed govt jack shit for my " retirement" if it was up to me .......

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The idea of collecting a government check for any length of time sounds paralyzing, debilitating, deflating, and all of those adjectives. I'm an opportunist at every turn, but this shit is fucked up. I'm with somebody else or two on here who said they would go to Asia or S America. I have the wherewithal to do that and I probably will do that. Live better over there. Screw this dumbass country.

[kcchiefs6465]

I would not give my Fed govt jack shit for my " retirement" if it was up to me .......
"Must spread some reputation around"

Hear here.

You mean people actually want to invest in a ponzi scheme?

[DamianTV]

Yea I guess if you're planning to retire on government paychecks. That shouldn't be your plan in the first place though.

If I paid into it, why should I be able to at least and at most, get the money I paid into the system back? Oh yeah, someone else already spent it. Opposite side of the coin, if I didnt pay any money in, why should I get to take that money from other people? But I have paid in. Most have. And we will not get the same thing in return. Impossible to do in an Inflationary Economy.

401k? Every time I tried, the money dries up. Giving others control of my money seems to be the exact opposite of the solution that is needed.

[eduardo89]

You mean people actually want to invest in a ponzi scheme?

It's not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes promise great returns.

[erowe1]

If I paid into it, why should I be able to at least and at most, get the money I paid into the system back? Oh yeah, someone else already spent it. Opposite side of the coin, if I didnt pay any money in, why should I get to take that money from other people? But I have paid in. Most have. And we will not get the same thing in return. Impossible to do in an Inflationary Economy.

401k? Every time I tried, the money dries up. Giving others control of my money seems to be the exact opposite of the solution that is needed.

Why do you keep using the line "paid into it"? That sounds like propaganda.

You had money taken from you and given to other people. In order for you to get money, that money will have to be taken from other people. That's all SS ever has been.

[satchelmcqueen]

well im quitting work at 60 no matter what. ill be a bum on the beaches of the florida keys if i have to. at least i can fish.

[DamianTV]

Why do you keep using the line "paid into it"? That sounds like propaganda.

You had money taken from you and given to other people. In order for you to get money, that money will have to be taken from other people. That's all SS ever has been.

Youre right. It was taken from me by force. And it is Ponzi Propoganda. Too bad I cant get what they took from me back out.

Thanks for the correction, comrade!

[Smart3]

http://mindreels.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/continuum.jpg

All aboard the train to the Corporate Congress.

[eduardo89]

Why do you keep using the line "paid into it"? That sounds like propaganda.

You had money taken from you and given to other people. In order for you to get money, that money will have to be taken from other people. That's all SS ever has been.

I don't get why anyone actually believes any of the money that is taxed for SS somehow remains theirs.

[helmuth_hubener]

I agree , they can just give my 200k or 300k ( I have not checked in awhile ) back , lump sum , tomorrow , I will call it even. Remember, oyarde, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. If the system collapses, you get nothing, because there'll be nothing to get. Any plan that fixes some of the SS system's financial difficulties (such as this one: raising the retirement age) should be one you should probably support in the interest of "getting back" your money.

Don't worry: as long as the system doesn't collapse, and as long as you live to a good old age, they will almost surely "give you back" all that was taken and then some.

[DamianTV]

I don't get why anyone actually believes any of the money that is taxed for SS somehow remains theirs.

Youre right. Govt should take it all and give nothing back. But, they already do that.

[kcchiefs6465]

well im quitting work at 60 no matter what. ill be a bum on the beaches of the florida keys if i have to. at least i can fish.
So long as you can panhandle permit money, you ought to be fine.

You'll need two kitchens to cook the fish though. The law is the law.

[oyarde]

Remember, oyarde, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. If the system collapses, you get nothing, because there'll be nothing to get. Any plan that fixes some of the SS system's financial difficulties (such as this one: raising the retirement age) should be one you should probably support in the interest of "getting back" your money.

Don't worry: as long as the system doesn't collapse, and as long as you live to a good old age, they will almost surely "give you back" all that was taken and then some.Sadly , no , I will never live long enogh to get back what has been taken

. I support total change in the entire system , none of which involves changing " age ", if you support changing " age" to whatever this time , I assume the next " change". oh , next yr or so to age 80 will be ok too ......

[oyarde]

As real example of many others , not only could I never live long enough to get back what has been taken , my Father , the previous , lovely Mrs Oyarde , the current lovely Mrs Oyarde and myself etc, have taken none to date .Taking is a govt special, not an Oyarde special . Like I said , Fuck them .

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't get why anyone actually believes any of the money that is taxed for SS somehow remains theirs.

+1 I get the impression some people think they somehow have an account somewhere in that great slush fund.

[oyarde]

+1 I get the impression some people think they somehow have an account somewhere in that great slush fund.

Oh , I have a " slush" fund and I do not care if the gubmit keeps one , as long as none of the wise and precious Oyarde dollars go into it . By the way HB , if anything happens to me , and you turn up on the poll bearer list , in the kitchen in the beak of the wooden Toucan, there is an FRN for you .

[oyarde]

Actually , if anyone paying this ridiculous tax supports raising the age , they are voting for a tax increase for everyone . This is immoral. I can no longer pray for the immoral , you must ask for forgiveness for yourselves .I am not Jesus , only oyarde....

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't get why anyone actually believes any of the money that is taxed for SS somehow remains theirs.

If something is stolen from you, does it not still rightfully belong to you?

[tod evans]

If something is stolen from you, does it not still rightfully belong to you?

If you're working for another person who takes withholding from your pay you sign a consent form.

So if you signed the consent form how can the withholdings be stolen?

[erowe1]

I assume the next " change". oh , next yr or so to age 80 will be ok too ......

Of course 80 would be ok. Why wouldn't it?

[helmuth_hubener]

Sadly , no , I will never live long enogh to get back what has been taken

. I support total change in the entire system , none of which involves changing " age ", if you support changing " age" to whatever this time , I assume the next " change". oh , next yr or so to age 80 will be ok too ...... I don't know that I really "support" it, it just didn't seem that bad.

But then you explained something I didn't think of: if the age is raised, that means more years during which one has to pay SS taxes. I think that's how it works. Either you're eligible to retire and take money, or you are "eligible" to be forced to have money taken from you. If that's how it works, then I agree, you're right: it's a tax increase. And so I oppose it.

[erowe1]

I don't know that I really "support" it, it just didn't seem that bad.

But then you explained something I didn't think of: if the age is raised, that means more years during which one has to pay SS taxes. I think that's how it works. Either you're eligible to retire and take money, or you are "eligible" to be forced to have money taken from you. If that's how it works, then I agree, you're right: it's a tax increase. And so I oppose it.

No. It's actually a tax cut.

Total taxation = total government spending.

Every alleged tax cut that doesn't involve spending cuts is really just a shuffling around of the revenue sources.

[Origanalist]

I don't know that I really "support" it, it just didn't seem that bad.

But then you explained something I didn't think of: if the age is raised, that means more years during which one has to pay SS taxes. I think that's how it works. Either you're eligible to retire and take money, or you are "eligible" to be forced to have money taken from you. If that's how it works, then I agree, you're right: it's a tax increase. And so I oppose it.

That made me think also. My reaction was a big "meh", but Oyarde has a point.

[Ronin Truth]

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ............

Whose faces are on the FRNs and coins?



(Hint: dead Caesars)

[Red Green]

I have a suggestion for the raising of the SS age: we should all write in to our representatives and support this measure, provided that one other measure is added: for every year the SS retirement age is raised, the retirement age for IRAs is reduced. So given that the full retirement age of SS was 65 and the early retirement age was 62, the IRA retirement age should be reduced to 54.5 and maybe add an early retirement option to IRAs at 51.5. I would fully support that.

[Zippyjuan]

If you have enough in an IRA you can retire at whatever age you want. (there currently is a 10% penalty though if you start withdrawing before 59 1/2).

[Red Green]

If you have enough in an IRA you can retire at whatever age you want. (there currently is a 10% penalty though if you start withdrawing before 59 1/2).

My point was the age at which the penalty is incurred should be lowered in direct relation to the raising of the age of SS retirement. I'd be happy to retire at 52 years old.

[erowe1]

I have a suggestion for the raising of the SS age: we should all write in to our representatives and support this measure, provided that one other measure is added: for every year the SS retirement age is raised, the retirement age for IRAs is reduced. So given that the full retirement age of SS was 65 and the early retirement age was 62, the IRA retirement age should be reduced to 54.5 and maybe add an early retirement option to IRAs at 51.5. I would fully support that.

Fixed.

[Red Green]

Fixed.

I'd personally like to see the income tax go away, but I don't see why, given I have the resources, I should be penalized by retiring earlier than the govt says I should, especially since they're moving SS further and further out on the horizon.

[erowe1]

I'd personally like to see the income tax go away, but I don't see why, given I have the resources, I should be penalized by retiring earlier than the govt says I should, especially since they're moving SS further and further out on the horizon.

You shouldn't be penalized for that. I definitely support the part I crossed out. Anything anyone can do to get away with paying less taxes is a good thing.

I just don't think there needs to be any proviso to the first part. Raising the retirement age for SS is a good thing all by itself.

[Red Green]

You shouldn't be penalized for that. I definitely support the part I crossed out. Anything anyone can do to get away with paying less taxes is a good thing.

I just don't think there needs to be any proviso to the first part. Raising the retirement age for SS is a good thing all by itself.

Yes, but as with any bargaining, there should always be some give with the take. Who is made better by raising the SS age to 70? Arguably, only the govt and the bureaucrats who have to report on the 'solvency' of SS. Does it help me? No. Does it hurt me? No, not really. But what would help me is getting the option to retire earlier without penalty. Does that hurt anyone else? No, because I would be spending my own money. Who would lose by me doing that is the govt would lose another wage-slave to financial freedom, most likely in another country where they would have little control over my person.

[erowe1]

Yes, but as with any bargaining, there should always be some give with the take.

But raising the retirement age is already take. We're not being asked to give anything there. It's a completely good thing with no downside.

It seems like what you're suggesting is something like telling someone who wants to wash your car for free, "I'll only accept it if you also mow my lawn."

[Red Green]

But raising the retirement age is already take. We're not being asked to give anything there. It's a completely good thing with no downside.

It seems like what you're suggesting is something like telling someone who wants to wash your car for free, "I'll only accept it if you also mow my lawn."

I am made neither better off nor worse off by the raising of the SS age. Why exactly raising the SS age is a good thing is what I am trying to fathom. As I stated earlier, I think the only people who would find this to be a good thing are the govt agents who report actuarial figures on the 'solvency' of SS.

[Red Green]

It seems like what you're suggesting is something like telling someone who wants to wash your car for free, "I'll only accept it if you also mow my lawn."

Also, a more fitting analogy would be someone holding me up and taking my wallet, but trying to make me feel better by promising to wash my car every week when I turn 70. Given that I don't believe that I will ever see my car washed by this person, I ask that they at least mow the lawn now so I get something from the deal.

[erowe1]

I am made neither better off nor worse off by the raising of the SS age. Why exactly raising the SS age is a good thing is what I am trying to fathom. As I stated earlier, I think the only people who would find this to be a good thing are the govt agents who report actuarial figures on the 'solvency' of SS.

Raising the retirement age for SS = spending less on SS.
Spending less on SS = a tax cut.

At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Granted, your last point about solvency has something to it. If cutting SS just ended up meaning that it would last longer before it went away, then that added duration of the program could make up for a reduction in its cost per year. What we really need the federal government to do is to repudiate all of its future liabilities. And when you look at it from that angle, I admit that making SS more solvent could be bad rather than good.

[Red Green]

Raising the retirement age for SS = spending less on SS.

This proposal, if put into effect, would not change anything for 15 years in terms of amounts spent on SS. This will simply make the actuarial projections look better. It helps no one.



Spending less on SS = a tax cut.

Spending and taxes have been disconnected for some time with respect to the govt's ability to borrow and print money. If you believe that somehow this will save you money personally, I have some oceanfront property I would like to sell you here in AZ.




At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Granted, your last point about solvency has something to it. If cutting SS just ended up meaning that it would last longer before it went away, then that added duration of the program could make up for a reduction in its cost per year. What we really need the federal government to do is to repudiate all of its future liabilities. And when you look at it from that angle, I admit that making SS more solvent could be bad rather than good.

Exactly. This simply makes some ledgers look a little more palatable, but both you and I know that SS in unsustainable in the long run so arranging deck chairs on the titanic is just a feel-good measure. My proposal however has some real and lasting benefit to us.

[parocks]

I don't understand the negativity of some of these posts.

The more they cut Social Security and Medicare, and the sooner they cut them, up to the point of total immediate elimination, the better.

Raise away that retirement age. Don't stop at 70.

We have to raise the retirement age. 70 isn't enough, but it's the right direction. It's basic math, ideology-free.

[erowe1]

Spending and taxes have been disconnected for some time with respect to the govt's ability to borrow and print money.

It's only disconnected when you pretend that printing and borrowing money are not forms of taxation. But they are.

When you look at it like this: "total spending = total taxes," it all comes together.

[Red Green]

It's only disconnected when you pretend that printing and borrowing money are not forms of taxation. But they are.

When you look at it like this: "total spending = total taxes," it all comes together.

What I am stating is there is no real restraint on govt spending, and cooking the actuarial projections is not really a restraint. Borrowing is deferred taxes.... provided the debt is eventually paid, which it can't and won't be. As my one economics professor, who was a bit on the left side of the ledger once said, "everyone focuses on the debt but nobody looks at the assets!". I assume he was speaking of stuff like land and buildings and equipment that can be exchanged for debt, but I suppose he could of been speaking of people....

At any rate, forget the debt and the supposed obligations. They won't be made good on. The system as it is can't stand for another 10 years without folding completely. This is the end of the party and it's time to be one of the one's hitting the door first before the cops arrive, so to speak.

[tod evans]

What I am stating is there is no real restraint on govt spending, and cooking the actuarial projections is not really a restraint. Borrowing is deferred taxes.... provided the debt is eventually paid, which it can't and won't be. As my one economics professor, who was a bit on the left side of the ledger once said, "everyone focuses on the debt but nobody looks at the assets!". I assume he was speaking of stuff like land and buildings and equipment that can be exchanged for debt, but I suppose he could of been speaking of people....

At any rate, forget the debt and the supposed obligations. They won't be made good on. The system as it is can't stand for another 10 years without folding completely. This is the end of the party and it's time to be one of the one's hitting the door first before the cops arrive, so to speak.

Government and it's leaches are going down the tubes, I don't see the growers-n-builders being affected much...

[LibForestPaul]

At the time Social Security was passed, the retirement age was only a few years less than the average lifespan. Today people live a lot longer and are healthier longer. Somdbody retiring at 65 may have 20- 30 years collecting benefits when before it was five to ten. That makes the program much more expensive. Can we afford to leave things as they are?

If you choose to cut out the government benefits for yourself, you can retire at any age you want.

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...
We do not care what the avg. lifespan was...

Post facts about how long people paid into soc sec, and how long they took out, how many working supported how many retired.

It is a ponzi scheme, always has been, always will be.

[Red Green]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...
We do not care what the avg. lifespan was...

Post facts about how long people paid into soc sec, and how long they took out, how many working supported how many retired.

It is a ponzi scheme, always has been, always will be.

Back about 18 years ago, I read an analysis that stated the avg person retiring then would receive everything they paid in plus a real rate of return of around 2%.... plus an extra $100,000. So the geezers who have been living off SS for 20 years now have made out quite well for what they paid in.

[DamianTV]

If you have enough in an IRA you can retire at whatever age you want. (there currently is a 10% penalty though if you start withdrawing before 59 1/2).

So giving your money to someone else and entrusting they wont somehow manage to lose it is the safest thing to do? And why shoudl I have to pay any form of penalty for something that is wholy and rightfully mine to begin with?

[willwash]

Right. Because all Mundanes should be forced to work until the day they die.

Not if they've lived responsibly and saved. And no, you don't have to save millions of dollars in order to not have to work. If you commit to frugality and debt free living, you can have a modest home paid off in full and a reasonable nest egg built up in the 40 years between 22 and 62, even on an average income of only $35,000 a year.

[phill4paul]

I love it when the other party can change a social contract at will.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you're working for another person who takes withholding from your pay you sign a consent form.

So if you signed the consent form how can the withholdings be stolen?

Government forces compliance on business owners. Like with a sales tax, government is claiming ownership over a transaction between individuals.

Your argument could also be used to defend the income tax.

[tod evans]

Government forces compliance on business owners. Like with a sales tax, government is claiming ownership over a transaction between individuals.

Your argument could also be used to defend the income tax.

Work for yourself, it permits great latitude.....

[oyarde]

This is kind of like the loser thread from hell , people on RPF's think you should give more of your money to the Feds , pay more tax etc.

[phill4paul]

This is kind of like the loser thread from hell , people on RPF's think you should give more of your money to the Feds , pay more tax etc.

Don't want to give more money. Just would like to see some returned. Before I die.

[helmuth_hubener]

So giving your money to someone else and entrusting they wont somehow manage to lose it is the safest thing to do? Having an IRA (Individual Retirement Account) is not doing this at all! It is not "giving" your money to someone else, nor is it necessarily "entrusting" them to make good decisions with it. You maintain total ownership of the money. You have not given it to anyone.

Now, if you choose to put the money into one of the managed fund options -- funds that have a lot of manager discretion rather than following simple, set rules, funds that are actively managed, always trying (and almost always failing) to beat the market -- then in that case you are in a way "entrusting they wont somehow manage to lose it," just as you say. Who knows what they'll do! Fund managers have been known to do really stupid things from time to time, losing their funds billions of dollars pointlessly. But almost all (if not all) IRAs today have one or more "index fund"-type options -- funds that are not actively managed, but instead just follow simple allocation rules and don't really try to beat the market. As long as you put your money into these type of funds, you're doing a minimum amount of trusting and retaining a maximum amount of control.

So that covers the "entrusting" part of your statement.

As for the "giving your money to someone else" part, giving someone else signature power over your funds would be an example of "giving your money to someone else". It's a bad, bad, bad idea.

In fact, it is so important to not entrust other people to make decisions for you money, it is Rule #8 of the 16 Golden Rules of Financial Safety:


Rule #8: Don't let anyone make your decisions.

Many people lost their fortunes because they gave someone (a financial advisor or attorney) the authority to make their decisions and handle their money. The advisor may have taken too many chances, been dishonest, or simply incompetent. But, most of all, no advisor can be expected to treat your money with the same respect you do.

You don't need a money manager. Investing is complicated and difficult to understand only if you're trying to beat the market. You can preserve what you have with only a minimum understanding of investing. You can set up a worry-proof portfolio for yourself in one day — and then you need only one day a year to monitor it. Allowing the smartest person in the world to make your decisions for you isn't nearly as safe as setting up a safe portfolio for yourself.

Above all, never give anyone signature authority over money that's precious to you. If you should put money into an account for someone else to manage, it must be money you can afford to lose.

So basically I would agree with you that both giving someone else your money (e.g.: signature power) and entrusting other people to make good decisions for your money (e.g.: actively managed funds or financial advisors) are bad, bad, bad ideas. But you can have an IRA and not do either of these things! That is what I would advise.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't know that I really "support" it, it just didn't seem that bad.

But then you explained something I didn't think of: if the age is raised, that means more years during which one has to pay SS taxes. I think that's how it works. Either you're eligible to retire and take money, or you are "eligible" to be forced to have money taken from you. If that's how it works, then I agree, you're right: it's a tax increase. And so I oppose it. Upon some very slight further thought on this issue, I think that actually the way it works (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm young enough that I've never really looked into it) is that whenever someone is working they are required to pay blood money to the SS. That is regardless of how old they are. So, the retirement age makes no difference whatsoever as to the owing of taxes. If you are 100 years old and are choosing to not retire, but instead to work full-time, then you will be having SS blood money automatically stolen from your pay check, in the normal, convenient way. It really doesn't matter how old you are. If you're working, you're stolen from -- plain and simple.

[oyarde]

Upon some very slight further thought on this issue, I think that actually the way it works (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm young enough that I've never really looked into it) is that whenever someone is working they are required to pay blood money to the SS. That is regardless of how old they are. So, the retirement age makes no difference whatsoever as to the owing of taxes. If you are 100 years old and are choosing to not retire, but instead to work full-time, then you will be having SS blood money automatically stolen from your pay check, in the normal, convenient way. It really doesn't matter how old you are. If you're working, you're stolen from -- plain and simple.

The effects this would have are for the most part ; 1) many will take the benefit penalty and draw @ age 62 ) Many will continue working to 70 and die , the govt keeps the money 3) Many more who would have retired , went to part time @ 65 or 67 will try to work to 70 , paying more tax. More winnings for the govt .

[GunnyFreedom]

Raising the retirement age for SS = spending less on SS.
Spending less on SS = a tax cut.

At least that's the way I'm looking at it. Granted, your last point about solvency has something to it. If cutting SS just ended up meaning that it would last longer before it went away, then that added duration of the program could make up for a reduction in its cost per year. What we really need the federal government to do is to repudiate all of its future liabilities. And when you look at it from that angle, I admit that making SS more solvent could be bad rather than good.

You do know that before people retire, the government keeps drawing SS out of their checks, right?

[heavenlyboy34]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...
We do not care what the avg. lifespan was...

Post facts about how long people paid into soc sec, and how long they took out, how many working supported how many retired.

It is a ponzi scheme, always has been, always will be.
I used to think of it this way as well. But really, that's kind of an insult to ponzi schemes. In ponzi schemes, there's a kind of winner at the end (top of the pyramid). In SS, our monopoly money/cronyist system debauches the currency so much that a person loses significantly more than they would in a typical ponzi scheme.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Work for yourself, it permits great latitude.....

Have a government license(s) for your business? Pay your property tax? Pay your income tax? Comply with all federal regulations? If not, good luck when the government comes for you.

The government is an oppressive tool of subjugation and control. It's not voluntary or optional. Chastising others because they're forced to comply is an awful tactic. Point your guns at the State, not at your fellow man merely trying to make their way in life.

[tod evans]

Have a government license(s) for your business? Pay your property tax? Pay your income tax? Comply with all federal regulations? If not, good luck when the government comes for you.

The government is an oppressive tool of subjugation and control. It's not voluntary or optional. Chastising others because they're forced to comply is an awful tactic. Point your guns at the State, not at your fellow man merely trying to make their way in life.

I have never pointed my guns at my fellow man!

I simply pointed out the ridiculous nature of your statement that you were stolen from when you in fact signed a contract permitting the monies in question to be withheld.

If you don't find your own use of language questionable then I'll hush up on the subject.

As far as "forced to comply" each one of us makes a conscious decision to own property that is taxed, I don't like it either but I pay the taxes I agreed to when I purchased my properties.

I, as you do, have the option of not owning property that is taxed, we make these choices knowing what we're getting into.

I find the use of the terms "force" and "stolen" disingenuous is all.

[erowe1]

You do know that before people retire, the government keeps drawing SS out of their checks, right?

Yeah. But it's still a tax cut.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I have never pointed my guns at my fellow man!

I simply pointed out the ridiculous nature of your statement that you were stolen from when you in fact signed a contract permitting the monies in question to be withheld.

If you don't find your own use of language questionable then I'll hush up on the subject.

As far as "forced to comply" each one of us makes a conscious decision to own property that is taxed, I don't like it either but I pay the taxes I agreed to when I purchased my properties.

I, as you do, have the option of not owning property that is taxed, we make these choices knowing what we're getting into.

I find the use of the terms "force" and "stolen" disingenuous is all.

You're blaming the victim and excusing the unconscionable evil of the State's intrusion on peaceful, voluntary interaction. The worker and entrepreneur are not the perpetuators of the tax system in the US. The State is. And it's not optional, compliance is indeed something the State forces on both the entrepreneur and worker. At gunpoint. Don't agree? Start up your own business without permits and see what happens. Do you really think the government will simply allow you to mind your own business if it finds out about your activities? No. They will shut you down, and, depending on the nature of the business, will attempt to kidnap you and detain you. You describe to me the voluntary aspect of this exchange and I'll stop.

'Force' and 'stolen' are absolutely appropriate language, as those words are accurate descriptions of what is taking place.

[pcosmar]

Don't want to give more money. Just would like to see some returned. Before I die.

That was never the intention.
You are supposed to die before collecting.. That is why they Keep Raising the Retirement age..

[Pisces]

Raising the retirement age for SS = spending less on SS.
Spending less on SS = a tax cut.



I disagree. Spending less on SS = more money for other govt boondoggles. I don't oppose raising the SS retirement age, but at least the money spent on retirees can't be spent on NSA, TSA, etc. I'm starting to lose hope that we will ever see a decrease in the size of government.

[tod evans]

'Force' and 'stolen' are absolutely appropriate language, as those words are accurate descriptions of what is taking place.

Obviously I'm wasting my breath.

I do agree that I'd like to see all monies given to government be voluntary contributions at the citizens leave...

[GunnyFreedom]

Raising the retirement age for SS = spending less on SS.
Spending less on SS = a tax cut.


You do know that before people retire, the government keeps drawing SS out of their checks, right?


Yeah. But it's still a tax cut.

I don't think so. Spending is not the same thing as taxing. "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" as the conservative mantra goes. Government can tax your eyeballs out without spending a dime, or government can spend the whole country dizzy without taxing a cent. Taxing and spending are different things. Related, to be sure, but different. Making people pay more money in = tax increase.

[erowe1]

Spending is not the same thing as taxing.

Not everybody looks at it the way I do. But as I see it, government spending and taxing are always exactly the same, with no variation between them and no exceptions to the rule.

It is mathematically impossible for government to spend without taxing the exact same amount. It's just a matter of recognizing that the inflation tax is a tax.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not everybody looks at it the way I do. But as I see it, government spending and taxing are always exactly the same, with no variation between them and no exceptions to the rule.

It is mathematically impossible for government to spend without taxing the exact same amount. It's just a matter of recognizing that the inflation tax is a tax.

You must live in an alternate universe where governments balance their budgets.

[erowe1]

You must live in an alternate universe where governments balance their budgets.

I don't. I consider the deficit a tax. I think that's the proper way to view it.

[oyarde]

It will allow the govt to make lower and less payouts and collect more .

[Red Green]

I don't. I consider the deficit a tax. I think that's the proper way to view it.

Economically speaking, a deficit is a deferred tax; it can be nothing other.

[Danke]

Economically speaking, a deficit is a deferred tax; it can be nothing other.

Could default on the creditors.

[GunnyFreedom]

Could default on the creditors.

^^ This. Runaway debts and deficits lead to default, not repayment.

[Red Green]

Could default on the creditors.

If that happens, then it's not a deferred tax so much as a cancelled one. If you were going to default on the debt and considered that to be the most realistic scenario then there is no deficit is there?

[Danke]

If that happens, then it's not a deferred tax so much as a cancelled one. If you were going to default on the debt and considered that to be the most realistic scenario then there is no deficit is there?

Or maybe they could sell off all the Federal assets. May be paying some Chinese outfit admission fees to visit our former National Parks. :eek:

[GunnyFreedom]

Or maybe they could sell off all the Federal assets. May be paying some Chinese outfit admission fees to visit our former National Parks strip mines. :eek:

fify

[Red Green]

Or maybe they could sell off all the Federal assets. May be paying some Chinese outfit admission fees to visit our former National Parks. :eek:

Yes, my one rather leftist professor pointed that out, but that would still be a form of taxation.

[eduardo89]

^^ This. Runaway debts and deficits lead to default, not repayment.

And default is simply a tax on creditors.

[erowe1]

Economically speaking, a deficit is a deferred tax; it can be nothing other.


Could default on the creditors.


^^ This. Runaway debts and deficits lead to default, not repayment.

What Red Green said is not what I'm saying.

The deficit isn't a deferred tax. It's an immediate tax. It taxes us by devaluing the dollar, and this devaluation happens precisely in conjunction with the spending itself.

If at some future time that debt gets paid, then it will add value back to each dollar by way of collecting a more traditional tax. If that repayment doesn't happen, and there's a default instead, then the initial devaluation tax will just remain in place. In neither of those cases is the burden of the cost of the initial spending avoided or even deferred.

There is no possible way for government spending to exist without being paid for by some kind of tax.

This is easier for me to see when we simplify it by ignoring the dollars themselves and just looking at all the goods and services they represent. When the government allocates the distribution of goods and services, rather than letting free people allocate them, the cost of that automatically happens along with the distribution of those goods and services. It cannot be deferred, and it cannot be avoided.

[Red Green]

What Red Green said is not what I'm saying.

The deficit isn't a deferred tax. It's an immediate tax. It taxes us by devaluing the dollar, and this devaluation happens precisely in conjunction with the spending itself.

You are confusing two different things. Deficits, by definition, are a deferred tax. You can look it up and not take my word for it, but they are. Now, if a country tries to inflate itself out of DEBT, then yes that is a tax on the holders of bonds, cash and other fixed rate instruments. However, because the govt is also a consumer, it cannot inflate itself out of a deficit because it's outlays will rise as a result of the inflation.



If at some future time that debt gets paid, then it will add value back to each dollar by way of collecting a more traditional tax. If that repayment doesn't happen, and there's a default instead, then the initial devaluation tax will just remain in place. In neither of those cases is the burden of the cost of the initial spending avoided or even deferred.

You are making the point for deflation as a result of payment of the debt, but that would only happen on the portion of the debt being held by the Fed. It would have no effect on M0, and I am unsure it would have affect on any of the other measures of currency in circulation. I would have to look that up.

[erowe1]

You are confusing two different things. Deficits, by definition, are a deferred tax.

I disagree.

The deficit, by definition, is the difference between total spending and the sum of all the sources of revenue that are counted. What I'm saying is that the deficit itself should be one of those counted sources of revenue, and it is just as much theft as all the others are. And the money that makes up the deficit is not stolen in the future, it's stolen the very instant the money gets spent. It is mathematically impossible to defer that theft. The government is forcing all the resources that exist in the economy right now to be allocated differently than the way their owners would allocate them right now. Therefore, the theft is happening right now. Now there could be another theft in the future, to pay back the theft that the deficit causes today. But that theft that happens today cannot be either deferred or avoided just by defaulting on the debt.

The form this theft takes is what Ron Paul calls "the inflation tax." And I believe he is absolutely right to call that a tax.

[Red Green]

I disagree.

The deficit, by definition, is the difference between total spending and the sum of all the sources of revenue that are counted. What I'm saying is that the deficit itself should be one of those counted sources of revenue, and it is just as much theft as all the others are. And the money that makes up the deficit is not stolen in the future, it's stolen the very instant the money gets spent.

It is arguable that the money that a govt spends is theft; that is a philosophical point. I am dealing with economics here rather than philosophy. When a govt runs a deficit, it borrows money; the understanding of the parties lending the money is that it will be paid back with interest. That means that at some future time, the govt will have to find some form of tax to finance the debt it has accumulated. That is why deficits can only be deferred taxes; there is no other way around getting the debt paid that is the result of the deficit. If you argue that the debt is not really a debt (which is why the govt does not accrue liabilities for SS or medicare on its financial statements), then one has to argue that there is no deficit because incomes did indeed cover expenditures.



It is mathematically impossible to defer that theft. The government is forcing all the resources that exist in the economy right now to be allocated differently than the way their owners would allocate them right now.

Again you are confusing issues with the definition of a 'deficit'. The govt, by its very nature and the fact that it participates in the market, does indeed distort things, but that is quite separate from the issue of a budget deficit.


Therefore, the theft is happening right now. Now there could be another theft in the future, to pay back the theft that the deficit causes today. But that theft that happens today cannot be either deferred or avoided just by defaulting on the debt.

The form this theft takes is what Ron Paul calls "the inflation tax." And I believe he is absolutely right to call that a tax.

Right now people are holding govt bonds. The expect to be able to redeem them in the future. The govt has not repudiated that debt. That outstanding debt represents a future tax that was created by years of deficits. It's pretty much that simple.

[erowe1]

It is arguable that the money that a govt spends is theft; that is a philosophical point.

That is the axiom of everything else I said.

[Red Green]

That is the axiom of everything else I said.

Then the issue of a "deficit" is moot. I was arguing an economic / finance term, not debating the legitimacy of the whole of govt.