No one should be retiring at 65

Right wingers want you to start working at 14 and retire when you die.

People are living longer so it makes sense to push the age for full benefits out a few years. It also makes sense to lift the wage cap on SS taxes to ensure SS remains viable. Both things can be true at the same time.

He got a few things wrong. People can start collecting SSI at 62. What many people do, and I plan to, is start collecting SSI at full retirement age (67 for me) and keep working. My work income won't impact my SSI monthly payment. This is kind of scammy. If someone can still work full time, why are they collecting SSI?

I hate that little worm. Hate!

Retiring this week at age 70. Wooooo hoooo.

What he's saying only makes sense from his own narrow perspective. It's easier to think this if you're writer, musician, artist, journalist, pundit, etc. Your work in that case is personally meaningful and easy on your body. Would love to see this little twerp forced to work just two hours on a construction site.

It's easy to say the retirement age should be raised when you haven't done a bit of physical work in your entire fucking, sorry ass life. Right, Ben?

[quote]What many people do, and I plan to, is start collecting SSI at full retirement age (67 for me) and keep working. My work income won't impact my SSI monthly payment. This is kind of scammy. If someone can still work full time, why are they collecting SSI?

Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP!

I did this and am now approaching 70. First time I have been able to really save in my life.

Yeah, I'd be happy to be doing what I'm doing at the age of 70* but my blue-collar brothers are all showing signs of physical wear and tear in their 50s. There's no way they'll be able to work into their mid to late 60s.

*I don't have any expectations that the work will still be there for me at 70, though. It's a young man's game.

We seem to forget that many are "retired" by their company and have no say when they retire. I am only going to work as long as I can stomach it.

Ben and the Republicans don't care about those people, R10. Why would they?

I'd love it if that shitstain was killed in a plane crash.

A whole lot of us are going to be “retired” once AI comes for the white collar jobs

Well, considering life expectancies in the mid-30s, he’s kinda right when he says that SS wasn’t initially intended to fund retirements for twenty years.

65 is sufficiently old for someone doing manual labor, not everyone has a desk job that is easier on the body.

By allowing older workers to retire you give younger workers an opportunity to join the work force, if people were not meant to live past 20 years then adjustments should be made to offer incentives for later retirement, raising SS contributions, improving retirement plans like 401k. I’m sure there are plenty of other things that can be done to help without forcing people to keep waiting longer.

[quote]I’m sure there are plenty of other things that can be done to help without forcing people to keep waiting longer.

Well, if Trump gets back in, he can start working on decreasing American life expectancy again. That was his signature accomplishment during his first term.

If you've been working since age 17 like me- isn't 40 years enough? Should I drop dead at work?

Ask the BlackRock CEO how many 66+ year olds he'll hire outside the executive suite.

Didn't the life expectancy decrease in recent years in the US?

EVERYONE should be able to retire at 65 if they want to.

Exactly r18. These companies start pushing out workers who are still in their 50s.

R19 Yes, contrary to trends in most modern countries (Europe, China, Japan) life expectancy went down for a couple years starting before COVID... but this last year it continued to rise again slowly. It's true, there is a real international problem that the workforce is not growing fast enough to support the increased number of seniors. The US is doing better than most largely because of immigration.

But there is statistical flaw in these draconian sob sisters on the far right: the life expectancy has risen significantly 1) because people live longer BUT also 2) because many, many humans no longer die from diseases in their 30s, 40s, 50s not too mention babies and children don't die from measles etc etc. This means that the AVERAGE of life expectancy rises. But it also means there are more "survivors" in the workforce do the pyramid of "the young pay for the old" is more stable.

Black Rock CEO Larry Fink has never lifted anything heavier than a computer keyboard in his entire fucking career, so he's in no position to tell someone who has been digging ditches his entire life how long he should work before retiring.

People who push buttons for a living have no conception of the word "labor."

No one should be paid more than $500,000 a year.

The people who say this don't work manual labour. Air traffic controller for example. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires air traffic controllers to retire at age 56 to prevent burnout. Factory workers, who work monotonous lines, and lift heavy equipment, should be forced to work well into an age when their bodies are broken? I love how rich elitist conservatives can preach about how long people should work, not having worked a day in their lives.

R2, life expectancy in the US has actually decreased-

This guy is just another angry Repub certain that under serving (poor) are getting away with whatever.

r3, STFU, just STFU.

SSI= Supplemental Security Income (Federal Welfare) and with SSI you get Medicaid (Title XX).

Social Security is actually RSDI

Social Security Retirement Insurance, what most people just call Social Security,

Social Security Survivors Insurance for widows and minor children,

and

Social Security Disability Insurance.

The Social Security Act of 1935 is an INSURANCE based program as the income was exempt from Income Taxes, but Reagan changed that and made SSRI budge table as regular income. Republican thieves point out that nobody makes enough SSRI to have it taxed BUT it does push every OTHER taxable dollar into a higher tax bracket. Republicans know how to screw Americans over money.

R26 see R22

Life expectancy in the US since 1950.

Yes, COVID caused a decline. But obviously it's up hugely since SS was conceived.

Politicians are scared to annoy old people, because old people actually bother to vote.

You may not be sick at 65, but the motivation wanes.

Ben Shapiro ought to be boiled in oil and set on fire.

Says Ben Shapiro, who only sits at a desk and talk into a microphone for a living.

He's never done a decent day's work in his life.

[quote]You may not be sick at 65, but the motivation wanes

It depends on what you are doing. I know plenty of 65+ year olds who are happy working, part-time or full-time. Not everyone wants to quit their job and stay home watching cable TV.

It's perfectly true that Social Security was never intended to fund such long retirements, but he's still an idiot. HIs beloved free market won't employ people above 65. Blue collar jobs are usually too physically demanding. White collar employers begin to push out employees in their 50s. That is why you so often hear the refrain, "I'm too old to find a job" but rarely the complaint, "We can't find enough older workers". And the fact that life is much longer doesn't mean that all those extra years are years of vigor and robust health. A 45-year-old in 1932 might have been just as close to death as a 60-year-old now, but that doesn't mean the 60-year-old has 20 more good working years in the same way that the 45-year-old did.

HIs claim that everything falls apart once you retire is a silly generalization made by a 40-year-old in cushy job and seems to be at odds with his complaint of how long people thrive after retirement.

He's offering a typical free lunch conservative fantasy. He's saying people should just work longer so that no one will have to pay any more for the retired population, rather than just admitting it's a demographic change that results from advancements in medicine and science. Exhorting people to work harder isn't the magic wand that is going to spare society the costs of an aging population.

And most members of Congress don't work all that hard and get nothing done. No wonder that some of them think retirement age should be raised. They don't know what it's like to actually work where you have to show up for 50 weeks a year..

[quote]It depends on what you are doing. I know plenty of 65+ year olds who are happy working, part-time or full-time. Not everyone wants to quit their job and stay home watching cable TV.

R33. Yeah, yeah, I know people who still want to work too. But these Repigs including Ben Shapiro want to pass laws that apply to everyone and require people to work, and not have them eligible for Social Security until they are 70-72. Try getting a job in your 60s up to 70 years old. It's hell if someone if someone will even hire you. And working part-time does not give you enough money to sustain yourself.

But Ben Shapiro can keep blowing smoke at his microphone in his house forever. And members of Congress won't retire because they collect nearly $200,000 a year and have their health care paid. So please, don't think that some people want to sit at home and "watch cable TV" as you say. Some cannot get hired in their 60s--and some have genuine health concerns even though people are living longer these days.

I'm going to get cunt-called for this, but many desk jobs are almost as hard on the body as blue-collar jobs--just in a different way. The frenetic pace and intense pressure of a lot of white-collar occupations results in tremendous stress that can cause all kinds of illness.

If you were to observe me and my office co-workers at our desks on any day of the week, you would probably think, Gosh, that looks like a calm and easy job. But it's not. The stress is merely less visible to others, since it's occurring through a computer or phone. I'm highly stressed at least half of the time in my desk job. At 55, I'm exhausted. By 67, I'll be more than ready to retire. If I live that long, which these fuckers like Fink are hoping I and my peers will not.

[quote]And most members of Congress don't work all that hard and get nothing done.

Sorry, r35, my representatives in Congress continually try to govern this country. Can't wait till the Republican obstructionists are voted out.

R38. I agree. But still, not much gets done. And yes, it's the Repugs fault.

Just take Suze Orman's advice. Marry a rich lesbian and steal all her money and then say you are a financial expert.

Colonel Sanders used his social security check to start a whole new business.

^What was that?

R42 The first Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant

Don't think I agree much with him but I find it Ok to question the status quo. I think the biggest flaw in his argument is that older people don't find jobs easily. You expect them to work at old age, and some are happy to work and stay productive. But do employers actually hire people over 60?

Ideally - in my opinion - people should get the opportunity to better ease out of the workforce. The transition time could start at 60 and end at 67. Maybe part-time work should be more embraced to accommodate physical and mental decline at some point. For example, employees could embrace stepping down to a lower profile position without facing the stigma of failing and the prospect of diminished retirement benefits. Not for equal pay, so the older employee would need to be able to afford stepping down. Generally speaking it seems to make sense to work more in your twenties and forties than in your fifties or sixties.

R44, yes, excellent point. Companies do NOT hire older people, and even more so, they eliminate those jobs when there are layoffs. So what is someone to do?

It's always the rich who make comments like that. Shapiro can afford to retire before 65 if he wants to, so it's easy for him to say no one should retire before that.

Why the fuck would I care what this idiot (or anyone who agrees with the idiot) thinks about when I choose to retire?

Exactly R47.

Your late 60s is an excellent time for a career change,

Social Security should provide a guaranteed income while you make that change.

R49 I hope you’re joking. I’m retired and loving it, but honey, I was pooped at 55.

Me: retired in January at 61 after 40 years of teaching in public schools. I'm not eligible for social security, but I can get Medicare in four years (paying for my own health insurance in the meantime).

Some observations from this thread and a similar one:

1. Notice how this topic starts pitting workers against each other? Blue vs. white collar is an old argument, but the only winners are management/the rich. ALL jobs are difficult, create stress, and are physically and mentally exhausting. As workers, we need to be united in standing up against billionaires and politicians who want to get richer off our labor, while keeping us struggling to survive.

2. Our current "crisis" in both entirely manufactured and easily foreseen. The Baby Boom is not a recent discovery. The solution is not to raise the retirement age and keep everything else the same! Employers should be incentivized to NOT push out older employees before they are ready to retire. A living wage should be the law of the land so that EVERY worker can actually save and invest for their future. When you live paycheck to paycheck you don't buy stocks or keep a viable savings account. The SS cap needs to be either removed or moved up to at least $500k. Instead of taxing people's social security income, how about making sure the millionaires pay their fair share of taxes?

3. Pensions. Pensions. Pensions. I was able to retire relatively young because I would get a defined-benefit pension. And, yes, I had to pay into it myself, on top of my employer's contribution. In another thread someone pointed out that fewer than 15% of today's workers have a pension, but many of those have a defined-contribution pension. That means they are required to contribute a certain amount, but what they ultimately get back depends on markets and administrative costs. With a defined benefit, you know what your check is going to be -forever. Mine even has a built-in inflation adjustment, with a supplement that kicks in if my pension fails to keep pace with inflation. Thank you, union!!! In the last fifty years Americans have been conned into believing that unions are bad, and not needed. That's bullshit. Workers should be unionizing wherever they can, and backing their unions to the hilt. Don't fall for the con that "you can manage your retirement better than some corrupt union thug." Unless you're a stockbroker or financial manager you really don't have the knowledge and resources required. And Wall Street is NOT going to look out for your best interest like your union will.

It's time for American workers to stand up and organize. Otherwise we'll find ourselves working to 75, still living paycheck to paycheck, with nothing to look forward to in our final years on earth. The monied classes will always unite to take advantage of us and pit us against each other so that we remain downtrodden and powerless. If we stand together and VOTE together we can make change happen -and happen quickly. But only if we stand together.

Perfectly said, r51. I was able to retire because of a pension, but of course, the company has eliminated it for new hires.

Agree with a lot of your points r51. This is just another manufactured argument created by the ultra-rich to make workers feel like they need to work until they die while turning them against each other.

Its just like the thread we had on corporations trying to roll out the daily paycheck model. All kinds of nonsense infighting about people not being able to budget, when the real problem is the horrible wages the corps pay workers.

IMO everyone should be on their way out of the workforce by age 67, with few exceptions. There are so many reasons for it. Right now we are entering a era where participation in the workforce is still declining after the pandemic. Younger people will not take up these traditional jobs if they have to wait until they are 35 or older to make decent money.

[quote]IMO everyone should be on their way out of the workforce by age 67

At 70, if someone could guarantee that I would die before I go through my savings (about $300k), I'd call my boss and quit today.

They should make postponing SSI to 70 or later more worthwhile for those who want and are capable of doing so. There is little incentive to do so. Someone on The DL pointed this out and I did the math. He was 100% correct. Also, I don't know if millionaires or those who have large investment income should collect. I say give more to people who are collecting at the bottom half of the group.

R51 You describe what is so plainly the truth. Collective bargaining created an unprecedented equitable distribution of wealth from the early mid-20th century to the 80s and the 90s. The weekend. Health coverage. An old age with economic security. Somehow the economic gentry created a politic movement that resisted unions and government being organized to help its populations. Reagan, right wing think tanks, "greed is good" social standards, international crony capitalists... worked to persuade many of our countrymen to hold beliefs which hurt themselves and their families.

In some unlikely future the masses of Trumpers will wake up and realize that the elite have manipulated their "anti-elitist" energy to oppress them, not "hear" them. Not to engage with all the "Bernie killed Hillary" stuff that so often emerges here in DL, but Bernie in 2015-2016 was a movement that could solve our problems. Socialism? That's just smack-talk from high school cafeteria mentality. Solving problems; creating better lives for more people; giving meaning to life; lessening suffering. Happy Easter and fuck the lying overlords.

I was actually thinking about state pensions this morning. First off, I have been in two medical professional unions. I make a very good living and have a lot of perks, but my job is very difficult and not something many people could tolerate. So, I'm very pro-union. However, things are out of control and people are greedy.

The NY state pensions are out of control. The older workers of state employees got the golden goose and are raking in huge pensions. Some first responders are getting almost their salary as pensions, and they retire early so they get a huge amount of taxpayer money in their lifetime. It is really out of control and probably explains a lot of the reason why NYS has a GDP equal to Canada but the highest US taxes and nothing to show for it.

"Also, I don't know if millionaires or those who have large investment income should collect. "

I disagree. Social Security was always sold to the public as a social insurance program where we all pay in through payroll taxes and all get assured of getting some of it back in our dotage. To suddenly change the rules so that people get nothing after decades of paying in, just because they were otherwise able to save a million dollars on their own, is a complete upending of what the program was designed to be. I'm all for increasing the percentage returned to low income households (and a corresponding decrease in return for high net worth individuals), but people shouldn't have all their Social Security ripped away because they diligently put away other money for decades.

R58 Obviously there is merit in what you say. But I'd suggest very few US citizens now remember or think about this "original language" about social security. If there is a need to protect and preserve SS, this principle of "needs-based" should be considered.

I have a generous state pension: my "dotage" is peachy and slippery and delightful because I have this security. My pension is also structured to withhold dollars in proportion to work and income I still might have.

[quote]From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Yes, it's Marx, but it's something President Johnson used to say and it used to be something as American as apple pie.

R59, many of the people who have saved their own money for retirement didn't have generous state pensions as you do. They instead had to save as much as they could. To eliminate their social security completely as R55 considers is a disincentive to saving any money at all. And doing so would eliminate the political support of the middle class for Social Security entirely. They would say "if I'm not going to get any Social Security at all, why should I be paying in for forty to fifty years?"

[quote]If there is a need to protect and preserve SS, this principle of "needs-based" should be considered. I have a generous state pension: my "dotage" is peachy and slippery and delightful because I have this security.

State pension funds have their own challenges. Who's going to be in charge of determining whether or not you really need all of your "generous" retirement.

I would like to re-direct Social Security into my legal defense fund. Remember: it's not just me they're after- it's all of us. They're coming for your freedom. MAGA!

R60 This conversation always happens. I will not be able to change your perspectives, but I will respect your response with sharing these points:

1. My generous pension, achieved through workers organizing together, is predicated on my own contributions and my accepting a salary (public sector) that was far lower than salaries in the private sector. I had/have four graduate degrees. I worked my ass off. I did not get compensated like those in the private sector. I accepted and welcomed this, knowing the benefits including pensions.

2. The whole 401c3/personal savings model of "retirement" was a scam foisted on the public and workers in the 80s. Track the accrual of profit from these plans by the financial sectors. Research the exponentially altered ratio between "employee" salaries and "owner class" (CEO) salaries. Track the profits that used to go to employee benefits (like pensions) and R&D for product improvement that now go to CEO compensation and return to investors. The whole paradigm shifted in the 80s. MBAs are not taught how to create solid companies with healthy employees - they are taught to change numbers on spreadsheets to shift more wealth to the already wealthy.

3. Reviewing the data from #2: workers should have maintained or enhanced collective bargaining and had many if not most workers to share in the profits from their companies, including pensions.

You will not accept these points, but perhaps they will inspire more thought. Have a lovely Saturday evening. I'd recommend a gummy.

[quote]Have a lovely Saturday evening. I'd recommend a gummy.

And I'd love one.

Ha, 401k. Not a non profit. ^^

Sorry, R59, Marx' statement was ridiculous and it just doesn't work, as has been proven many, many times in many places. Marxism itself is quite foolish.

I understand and I do agree with what you are saying about the wealthy, R58.

- R57

The whole "generous state pensions" argument doesn't fly with me. There was no generosity involved -public employees had to fight for those benefits just like everyone else. Instead of complaining that someone else gets too much, how about working to make sure everyone gets enough?

R66 Absolutely proven a lie like in places like Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands.... you know all those countries that compose the Top Ten Most Happiest Countries on every measure.

Those governments do not control the means of production. They are not socialist or marxist countries, the PM of Sweden or Denmark has even said this. They are definitely capitalist with generous social programs.

R69 was for R68. They definitely do not espouse or live by the marxist credo that was cited.

R69 They are, in fact, the dictionary definition of democratic socialism. We have been so conditioned by our tribal DNA, habit of mind, and suffocating media. "Socialist" or "Marxist" immediately lowers our IQ by about 30 points.

They "share" the prosperity of an economy more equitably. That is the product of that quote that disturbs you so much. Whatever you call it or don't call it, people are happier in Denmark and Finland than in the US because of what that sharing has accomplished.

It's Easter... if you can't abide the smell of the "S" word, try reading Luke 19.

R63, you and I actually agree on many of your points. I believe strongly in collective bargaining and am saddened that 401k's largely replaced traditional pensions. But the "personal savings model" was the only thing that existed prior to Social Security (other than living with your kids or simply dying), and the promise of Social Security is that we all pay in and we all get some of it back if we live long enough. I'm just against changing the rules late in the game so that "if you have $X in the bank, sorry, you get back $0 of what you paid in."

And I have worked for a non-profit for over 20 years and accepted a far reduced salary from what I could have made in the private sector. I made sure I saved as much as I could but also knew Social Security would be a portion of my retirement income.

Have a good night as well.

[quote]Whatever you call it or don't call it, people are happier in Denmark and Finland than in the US because of what that sharing has accomplished.

The "sharing" only extends so far, though.

R71, stop, they are capitalist countries. Their wealth is generated by private companies. The true socialist countries really had a lot of love, sharing and Christian charity going on to the tune of hundreds of millions dead, slave labor and the countries being huge prisons. You have a very superficial knowledge of Marx and Marxism.

R73 Ha, the conditioning goes so deep. "Ok, they are happier, but not THAT happier."

R72 Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Despite my own comments, I do appreciate the power (re: SS) of "this is what I paid for, it's not government assistance." It's, maybe, why SS will last the current attacks on it.

R74 Hon, you are confusing socialism with communism. And, apparently, I can't help you.

R63, I hope it survives these attacks as well. I believe modest tweaks (in rates, caps, payouts at higher incomes) could save the program for posterity, but I'm afraid both sides have incentives not to compromise.

[quote]Ha, the conditioning goes so deep. "Ok, they are happier, but not THAT happier."

That's not the point. The point is they don't, in fact, operate according to Marx' slogan like R68 thinks they do.

r55, go back and read r27

R76 and you have no clue what you are talking about so I'm not going to try to educate you.

Just don't get confused r77, and assume that "both sides" actually want to save Social Security. There is very much a side that wants to kill it and never see anything like it again. Don't assume universal goodwill where none exists.