Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:49 pm

Canada did it: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-raise-r ... 56915.html

Canadians against the move have become veritably apopleptic and riotous, by politely asking, "Are you quite certain that is a good idea?"

Post by **laklak** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:52 pm

I don't see the problem, since in all proposals I've seen so far I'm grandfathered in at 62 for early retirement. Let the fucking kids work longer, buncha slackers anyway.

Post by **Tyrannical** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:16 pm

Instead of raising the retirement age, require that all workers must work forty years paying into the system.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:33 pm

Nehner, nehner, nehner!

Post by **Warren Dew** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:20 pm

If you were born in 1960 or later, your social security retirement age is already 67. It will probably need to be raised to 70 for younger people, in order to keep social security around.

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:23 pm

Warren Dew wrote:If you were born in 1960 or later, your social security retirement age is already 67. It will probably need to be raised to 70 for younger people, in order to keep social security around.

That is how competent the government is. They can't even competently operate a system where people pay money in, have it sit in accounts earning interest, and then pay money out.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:24 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:If you were born in 1960 or later, your social security retirement age is already 67. It will probably need to be raised to 70 for younger people, in order to keep social security around.
That is how competent the government is. They can't even competently operate a system where people pay money in, have it sit in accounts earning interest, and then pay money out.

The problem appears to be that they expected a certain return on their investment of the funds, and didn't get it.

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:31 pm

going back to the slave till you drop days...

Post by **Woodbutcher** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:40 pm

I'm still OK to retire at 65. Or I can work longer if I wish to eat hot meals and live indoors.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:42 pm

Svartalf wrote:going back to the slave till you drop days...

That's where extended families came in. Social security in The Good Old Days was having a family that would feed you when you got too old to work. As the oldsters were the prime teachers of skills to the youngsters this wasn't a lopsided system.

Post by **Tyrannical** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:30 am

Gawdzilla wrote:
Svartalf wrote:going back to the slave till you drop days...
That's where extended families came in. Social security in The Good Old Days was having a family that would feed you when you got too old to work. As the oldsters were the prime teachers of skills to the youngsters this wasn't a lopsided system.

Progressive pretty much destroyed the family unit by replacing dependency on family with dependency on government.

Post by **Ian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:35 am

Tyrannical wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:
Svartalf wrote:going back to the slave till you drop days...
That's where extended families came in. Social security in The Good Old Days was having a family that would feed you when you got too old to work. As the oldsters were the prime teachers of skills to the youngsters this wasn't a lopsided system.
Progressive pretty much destroyed the family unit by replacing dependency on family with dependency on government.

Yeah, I think that was on the official DNC platform in 1992.

Post by **Warren Dew** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:01 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:That is how competent the government is. They can't even competently operate a system where people pay money in, have it sit in accounts earning interest, and then pay money out.

Sure they can. The government employees' retirement system works fine. It's other peoples' money that seems to evaporate unexpectedly.

Ian wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:Progressive pretty much destroyed the family unit by replacing dependency on family with dependency on government.
Yeah, I think that was on the official DNC platform in 1992.

Try 1932. Just took a while to kick in, is all.

Post by **Ian** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:03 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:Progressive pretty much destroyed the family unit by replacing dependency on family with dependency on government.
Yeah, I think that was on the official DNC platform in 1992.
Try 1932. Just took a while to kick in, is all.

As long as those pesky progressives can be blamed somewhere in history.

Post by **JimC** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:04 am

Woodbutcher wrote:I'm still OK to retire at 65. Or I can work longer if I wish to eat hot meals and live indoors.

I was rather hoping to pull the pin around 62, but I suspect I'll have to add a year or two to that to accumulate a big enough gin stash to last me until I shuffle off this mortal coil...

rationalia.com

Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Re: Raise the Retirement Age to 67?

Who is online