Why retiring at 65 could become a thing of the past

signalmankenneth said:
I retired at age 65, with a lifetime pension and hopefully with lifetime social security? Pensions are becoming extinct in the working world now and some companies are dropping existent ones?!! People are working longer now, I worked for 40 years and I am through working!

Raising the retirement age is an emotional issue.

For evidence, just look at proposals to move the full retirement age for Social Security. Even the idea upsets advocates who want to see the program expanded and individuals receiving benefits. Because of that, lawmakers tend to tiptoe around the issue.

Outside the U.S., French citizens have taken to the streets to protest President Emmanuel Macron's plan to overhaul the country's pension system. Among the proposed changes is raising the retirement age to 64 from 62 .

Most workers do not want to be told they have to work longer.

Yet it turns out that in the U.S., many already anticipate extending their working years, according to recent research from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.

A majority of workers — 54% — said they expect to stop working sometime after age 65 or never retire at all, the research found.
Click to expand...


Social Security full retirement age was already raised. It is 66 now and will be 67 for those born after 1960. About 70% take their SS early at age 62-65.
 
cawacko said:
Look at the average life expectancy when S.S. was created compared to today. It was much shorter. So to keep the system solvent you either have to raise the retirement age to keep it proportionately in line or you have to massively increase taxes.

It's understandable people don't want to be forced to work later in life if they don't want to. The answer to that is live more frugally now and save more for the future.
Click to expand...

Life expectancy is longer plus Congress steadily increased benefits and expanded it to include more people. Originally, it was designed for workers only and then Congress added surviving spouses, widows and children, early retirement at 62, benefits if married to a person for 10+ years, college students of retired or deceased parent, full SS benefits at full retirement age even if still working full-time (no penalty), annual cost of living increases.....
 
MASON said:
If millionaires and billionaires had to pay on more then their first $100'000 would help!
Click to expand...

Most millionaires and billionaires do not get most of their income from salaries subject to FICA.

They would then be entitled to increased benefits which would take most of the increased revenue.
 
Jack said:
Hard to complain when you become a Shareholder in Global Capitalism. You know ... where your money ... makes MONEY.
Click to expand...

I just figure if you're going to force people to save, it's better to direct them toward the market than toward the state.
 
Woko Haram said:
I just figure if you're going to force people to save, it's better to direct them toward the market than toward the state.
Click to expand...

You could have the State invest the Money for you. But THAT could lead to Corruption. :)
(there'd be a lot of pressure on the Manager)
 
Jack said:
You could have the State invest the Money for you. But THAT could lead to Corruption. :)
(there'd be a lot of pressure on the Manager)
Click to expand...

The government puts the same amount you contribute to SS into a S&P 500 index fund instead. After 40 years the worker has over $1 million. That means the worker gets more in benefits than SS, can retire when he chooses, leaves the fund to his family when he dies, and government is not stuck with making huge SS payments annually (the largest item in the budget).

Everybody is better off. The only problem is that we need the SS contributions paid by workers to pay current SS benefits.
 
Flash said:
When did many people not live paycheck to paycheck?
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting fact about people living paycheck to paycheck:

Why Upper Middle are Living Paycheck-to-Paycheck

""Living paycheck to paycheck is an unpleasant financial reality for many Americans. According to a 2016 GoBankingRates survey, 69% of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. While adults earning less than $25,000 annually struggle the most with keeping money in the bank, a surprising number of higher-income earners are also scrambling to make ends meet.

A 2015 Nielsen study, for instance, found 25% of American families making $150,000 or more a year live paycheck to paycheck. One in three households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 find themselves in the same predicament. With household debt ballooning, and the cost of living skyrocketing in some parts of the country, a higher income doesn’t always translate into financial security. New research sheds some light on just how far a six-figure salary really goes.""


https://www.investopedia.com/articl...igh-earners-still-live-paychecktopaycheck.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top