Working well into your 70s because you can’t afford to retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not country’s job to fix. They should have saved more when they were young.

Hard to "save more" when almost half of Americans only have access to low wage jobs that don't pay enough to save anything.

So raise the minimum wage and put more people out of work? That won't help.

When an employer employs someone for 40 hours out of every week it's no longer relevant what the employer thinks that person is worth paying. When you take up that much of someone's time you become responsible for their livelihood and have a fundamental responsibility to pay them a living wage.

Employers should be paying living wages. The fact that taxpayers are picking up the slack for what companies should be paying by providing benefits like food stamps to low wage workers amounts to massive corporate welfare.

It’s actually better in the long run for companies to provide job training rather than inflated wages.
If you give a man a fish....

Just say no to hand outs. Say yes to hand ups!

Living wages and job training are not mutually exclusive. And living wages aren’t inherently inflated wages. Across the board wages for all but the top earners have stagnated in this country. CEOs and thier directs get inflated wages; the rest of the population gets table scraps and that’s accelerated under GOP leadership.

Interesting to see all the Ayn Randian contempt for the working and middle class on this thread.

What's with this "contempt for the working class" crap? Are you so tied to the idea that just forcing employers to pay double will solve problems? It will create problems. Jobs will be lost, and we'll have even more people dependent on the taxpayer for FULL support.

What woud you rather have? Walmart earners needing food stamps to bridge the gap, or moving them out of jobs entirely so that they need full,support from taxpayers? At least with the former, they're helping support themselves to some extent.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is that our concept of retirement age, while increasing, is not increasing as quickly as life expectancy.

In the 1950s, life expectancy was around 65. You could retire at 60, and SS could handle 5 years (on average*) retirement income vs 40 years of wages.

Today life expectancy in the US is closer to 80. If you retire at 65, you're looking for SS to cover, on average*, 15 years retirement income vs 45 years of wages (less if college / grad school delayed entry into the workforce). It doesn't add up - so of course people are working longer, to keep pace with the longer life expectancy. This idea of covering 30 years of retirement is an fairly new concept.

*I know it's not really that simple, since the total life expectancy includes childhood mortality and others who die before retirement age - the expectancy for someone who has already survived to 55/60/65 is higher than the overall LE. But that's as true now as is was in 1950, so the concept holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not country’s job to fix. They should have saved more when they were young.

Hard to "save more" when almost half of Americans only have access to low wage jobs that don't pay enough to save anything.

So raise the minimum wage and put more people out of work? That won't help.

When an employer employs someone for 40 hours out of every week it's no longer relevant what the employer thinks that person is worth paying. When you take up that much of someone's time you become responsible for their livelihood and have a fundamental responsibility to pay them a living wage.

Employers should be paying living wages. The fact that taxpayers are picking up the slack for what companies should be paying by providing benefits like food stamps to low wage workers amounts to massive corporate welfare.

It’s actually better in the long run for companies to provide job training rather than inflated wages.
If you give a man a fish....

Just say no to hand outs. Say yes to hand ups!

Living wages and job training are not mutually exclusive. And living wages aren’t inherently inflated wages. Across the board wages for all but the top earners have stagnated in this country. CEOs and thier directs get inflated wages; the rest of the population gets table scraps and that’s accelerated under GOP leadership.

Interesting to see all the Ayn Randian contempt for the working and middle class on this thread.

Why did Obama let immigration go so out of control and flood the labor market which kept wages low?

Citation?

Still waiting on this. Any actual facts to back up this comment? Or is it just some crap you read on Breitbert?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When the retirement age was set at 62, the average life expectancy was around 65. SS was never designed to support non-working people for decades. That's why it's hard to fund retirement. It's hard to make enough money in 40 years of working to support yourself for 25 more years. If people are healthy, there's no reason that they shouldn't continue to work. Everyone in my family has, even though they could afford to retire. Retirement before 70 is not a right.

HEAR HEAR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been assuming that SS will be means tested or otherwise not available by the time I retire.

There's an easy fix: Eliminate or raise the $127,200 cap on SS contributions, and implement means testing, since folks like Warren Buffett do not need SS. Those two things alone would make SS solvent for the next couple of generations.

The upper-middle class liberals here would scream holy terror.

I posted earlier. We are done with the cap by mid March. It's ridiculous that we aren't asked to pay more into the system.

Because we do not pay enough into the "system" as it is. Lets see, Federal, State, local, Property Taxes, Luxury Taxes, Sales Taxes, registration fees, gas taxes... What am I missing?

Liberal, sigh.

You take much of what you get for those taxes for granted.

It's been pointed out here many times before, maybe you are new here - if you don't like all of those taxes and you don't big gubmint and regulation, then there's a perfect place for you. It's called Somalia. Somalia is what you get when you don't have all of that pesky government, taxes or regulation.

And if you aren't new here and have already heard this Somalia line before, then WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN?

Thanks for clarifying. Its either Somalia or Scandinavia. The government state or no government. How about less taxes, basic services, and more people pull their weight. Give me a break.

LOL! There aren't exactly boatloads of disheveled desperate Swedish refugees showing up anywhere. They love their system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been assuming that SS will be means tested or otherwise not available by the time I retire.

There's an easy fix: Eliminate or raise the $127,200 cap on SS contributions, and implement means testing, since folks like Warren Buffett do not need SS. Those two things alone would make SS solvent for the next couple of generations.

The upper-middle class liberals here would scream holy terror.

I posted earlier. We are done with the cap by mid March. It's ridiculous that we aren't asked to pay more into the system.

Because we do not pay enough into the "system" as it is. Lets see, Federal, State, local, Property Taxes, Luxury Taxes, Sales Taxes, registration fees, gas taxes... What am I missing?

Liberal, sigh.

How much of that money went to Bush's wars and wasteful defense spending?

Idiots, sigh.

Exactly.

Do you realize how many people in this area benefit from “wasteful defense spending””?”
Hoards of government workers on this forum truly believe their agency’s mission is NOT part o f the problem.
I just ????

Lame.

Why spend just for the sake of spending? Huge wastes in DoD. Multi-billion dollar programs for planes that won't fly, warships that can't fight, et cetera. "People around the area benefit from it" simply isn't good enough. There are REAL needs that could be met, like roads and bridges and those would provide tremendous benefit around the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not country’s job to fix. They should have saved more when they were young.

Hard to "save more" when almost half of Americans only have access to low wage jobs that don't pay enough to save anything.

So raise the minimum wage and put more people out of work? That won't help.

When an employer employs someone for 40 hours out of every week it's no longer relevant what the employer thinks that person is worth paying. When you take up that much of someone's time you become responsible for their livelihood and have a fundamental responsibility to pay them a living wage.

Employers should be paying living wages. The fact that taxpayers are picking up the slack for what companies should be paying by providing benefits like food stamps to low wage workers amounts to massive corporate welfare.

It’s actually better in the long run for companies to provide job training rather than inflated wages.
If you give a man a fish....

Just say no to hand outs. Say yes to hand ups!

Living wages and job training are not mutually exclusive. And living wages aren’t inherently inflated wages. Across the board wages for all but the top earners have stagnated in this country. CEOs and thier directs get inflated wages; the rest of the population gets table scraps and that’s accelerated under GOP leadership.

Interesting to see all the Ayn Randian contempt for the working and middle class on this thread.

What's with this "contempt for the working class" crap? Are you so tied to the idea that just forcing employers to pay double will solve problems? It will create problems. Jobs will be lost, and we'll have even more people dependent on the taxpayer for FULL support.

What woud you rather have? Walmart earners needing food stamps to bridge the gap, or moving them out of jobs entirely so that they need full,support from taxpayers? At least with the former, they're helping support themselves to some extent.

Whether people will lose their employment depends a lot on what sector they are in. Better pay means more disposable income, which means more spending and consumerism, which means more jobs. SOME jobs may be automated but they will be automated anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not country’s job to fix. They should have saved more when they were young.

How could they save more when they were young when our government changed the rules in the 1970s? Prior to that, one person could work, afford housing and a decent life while the other parent raised the kids. Health care was affordable, college was even affordable (and not even necessary since we still had blue collar jobs that paid a fair wage). And the biggest issue: wages never kept pace with the cost of housing or living.

Now it takes a dual income, and even then it's a struggle. Housing is too costly, child care is too costly, and everyone is drowning in student debt. And apparently healthcare is a privilege for the anointed ones.

Yet you think everyone should magically be able to save enough for retirement?

Guess what? A 65 year old man died over the weekend because he was living in his car since he could no longer work construction and simply couldn't afford a place to rent. And mark my words: we will see more of this as the elderly simply can't afford to support themselves.

I don't blame senior citizens who worked hard and still struggle. Rather, I feel disgusted by our country that has devolved to such a sad state that our elderly aren't provided with high quality healthcare and can't afford food, shelter, etc. It's appalling. This is 2018 in what used to be the greatest country on the planet. FTR, I'm a bleeding heart liberal who blames the democrats just as much as the republicans. The sea change that shifted our country to one that put corporate needs above the needs of actual people didn't happen without both parties ripping up the play book and crafting a new deal that screws most Americans.

It's time for a mutiny.

65 Year old car man didn't just end up there randomly. That destiny was very likely the culmination of a lifetime of bad choices.

I'd be curious to know what yhe was doing with himself between say ages 45-65.

On some level we all have to understand that actions have consequences whether we want that to be the way the world works or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

[Anonymous]

Most people don't have the stamina and health to work well into their 70s. Also, I know of so many people laid off in their 50s
It is challenging to find someone to hire you at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yes, proof of what happened from SENATOR MIKE LEE.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/04/we-cant-bail-out-social-security-disability-insurance-forever-heres-a-reform-proposal/

Yeah, Mike Lee, Mr. end-all-spending... And this posted on the Daily Signal, which is an official mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation which also wants to gut all spending.

Here's what can and should be done: Raise the contribution cap for SS and set up means testing for folks who already have significant income and don't need SS, like Warren Buffett.

Analyses have already shown this would extend SS for generations.

I agree with this. The problem is there will be arguing about what constitutes significant income. Someone here already said that people earning more than $500k could afford to give up half. That was probably from a wealthy person with a HHI of $300k who is fine with OTHER people losing benefits.

Let's do the figures. A m not sure what the max benefit is for SS, but let's say $40,000. A retiree with an income of $150,000 can afford to give up half - or $20,000. Plis, at that level, it's almost fully taxed, so it's really like giving up $15,000. There is NO reason why a retired couple needs more than $150,000 a year.

Then stop maintaining Social Security as a separate system. Wind it all into welfare and just eliminate the concept of a lifetime limit after age 65/66/67/whatever the full retirement age is.

If you don't make enough money, you apply for welfare. If you're too old or feeble to work, there is no lifetime cap on number of years.

That wouldn't work because welfare is a charity program and social security is a program in which participants contribute. Needs to be two separate piles of money, so that laws concerning support of elderly retirees who worked all their lives aren't tied to laws impacting welfare recipients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is our country and lawmakers going to do anything about the number of seniors who are working minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet? In the end everyone is at a loss as there are 20 and 30 somethings who can’t take the jobs filled by elderly people and then the fact that someone had to work at 75. I was in a hospital recently and the nurse was 74, she told me she had been working as a nurse for 50 yrs but can’t afford to retire bc she has medical bills to pay. What is this country doing and how can we fix it?

Bullshit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people don't have the stamina and health to work well into their 70s. Also, I know of so many people laid off in their 50s
It is challenging to find someone to hire you at that age.

Ageism is a problem with some companies and they won't hire people over a certain age. Silicon Valley firms love to hire young inexperienced kids straight out of college and pass up seasoned pros with 15-20 years of experience, let alone someone in their 50s.