4 ms·

> We would have a budget surplus if we actually made Social Security/other Gov. retirement program replacement actually sustain itself perpetually. What. A. Con

by xienze 10y ago

> We would have a budget surplus if we actually made Social Security/other Gov. retirement program replacement actually sustain itself perpetually. What. A. Concept. The problem is that there are a lot of people who believe that SS isn't broken because you can simply increase retirement age, make people pay in more, and other assorted band-aids. SS will be "solvent" until it suddenly isn't, and people need to realize that.

bigtimeidiot 10y ago
>SS will be "solvent" until it suddenly isn't, and people need to realize that. And with a stroke of the pen, they'll make adjustments. SS isn't a real debt obligation; it's merely a "promise".
kzrdude 10y ago
Retirement age must increase. People are living longer than when retirement pensions were first designed. It was easy to introduce, people weren't expected to live that long then and now they do.
- ballenf 10y ago
  And it could be changed so gradually that no one near retirement age or who has started planning significantly for it is affected. Even a glacial rate of change would help -- one month later every year for the next few generations. And delay the start by a few years. Point is to make changes without giving any cohesive group a strong reason to organize opposition. Or to have a strong moral argument that it was promised them.
- dota_fanatic 10y ago
  So (rich) people are living longer... does that mean they are as productive, longer? Just because they're alive longer doesn't mean they can work as well in their 70s as they used to. There's also the whole ageism thing to consider. How hard is it to get a job in your 60s. How about if you're 70? 75? The people with the lowest life expectancy are those that need SS the most, yet you're suggesting they not be able to receive it until after they're likely to be dead.
  - kzrdude 10y ago
    If you're thinking of America, it has homework to do first with SS (health care for all). I can see your perspective coming from there, I don't think it would be a viable argument in Europe.
- geogra4 10y ago
  the cap MUST increase
- dlp211 10y ago
  Living longer != able to work longer. Making SS solvent isn't a hard problem, we know how to do it. It is simply politically hard.
- gautamdivgi 10y ago
  This!!! I believe originally the retirement age was set way above the average life expectancy. Some information I had was that when it was first setup life expectancy was 55 yrs while you could collect SS at 60 years. If that is really the case then SS has been a ponzi scheme of sorts for a while but now that people are living longer the time to payback is coming. Second, I think sometime in the 70's or 80's accounting changes were made so that the budget deficits could be "hidden" with SS money (i.e. it was no longer an exclusive trust).
  - kzrdude 10y ago
    I believed so too, but reading on Wikipedia somewhat opened my mind to different arguments, since they underscore how the average life expectancy could be said to be approximately 70 years at the introduction of the 70 year retirement age in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#Old_Age_and_Disability_Insurance_Bill_of_1889 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#...
- runeks 10y ago
  The retirement age increasing isn't strictly necessary just because people live longer. As long as a stable rate of interest exists, retirees can save up enough money and keep living off the interest payments. All that's required is that they're able to save up the same amount in the same time frame (provided the rate of interest doesn't change). Unfortunately, we haven't had a stable rate of interest for over a century.
- Pokepokalypse 10y ago
  I will actually HAPPILY increase my retirement age: when employers stop firing engineers over the age of 55 and replacing them with college grads. I'm happy to work until 72 or even 75. I have a pretty generous vacation allowance, so I'm not feeling the "rat race" in that way anymore. What I'm feeling is the creeping dread as I approach 50, that I'm going to be rightsized.

by xienze 10y ago

bigtimeidiot 10y ago

>SS will be "solvent" until it suddenly isn't, and people need to realize that. And with a stroke of the pen, they'll make adjustments. SS isn't a real debt obligation; it's merely a "promise".

kzrdude 10y ago

Retirement age must increase. People are living longer than when retirement pensions were first designed. It was easy to introduce, people weren't expected to live that long then and now they do.

ballenf 10y ago
And it could be changed so gradually that no one near retirement age or who has started planning significantly for it is affected. Even a glacial rate of change would help -- one month later every year for the next few generations. And delay the start by a few years. Point is to make changes without giving any cohesive group a strong reason to organize opposition. Or to have a strong moral argument that it was promised them.
dota_fanatic 10y ago
So (rich) people are living longer... does that mean they are as productive, longer? Just because they're alive longer doesn't mean they can work as well in their 70s as they used to. There's also the whole ageism thing to consider. How hard is it to get a job in your 60s. How about if you're 70? 75? The people with the lowest life expectancy are those that need SS the most, yet you're suggesting they not be able to receive it until after they're likely to be dead.
- kzrdude 10y ago
  If you're thinking of America, it has homework to do first with SS (health care for all). I can see your perspective coming from there, I don't think it would be a viable argument in Europe.
geogra4 10y ago
the cap MUST increase
dlp211 10y ago
Living longer != able to work longer. Making SS solvent isn't a hard problem, we know how to do it. It is simply politically hard.
gautamdivgi 10y ago
This!!! I believe originally the retirement age was set way above the average life expectancy. Some information I had was that when it was first setup life expectancy was 55 yrs while you could collect SS at 60 years. If that is really the case then SS has been a ponzi scheme of sorts for a while but now that people are living longer the time to payback is coming. Second, I think sometime in the 70's or 80's accounting changes were made so that the budget deficits could be "hidden" with SS money (i.e. it was no longer an exclusive trust).
- kzrdude 10y ago
  I believed so too, but reading on Wikipedia somewhat opened my mind to different arguments, since they underscore how the average life expectancy could be said to be approximately 70 years at the introduction of the 70 year retirement age in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#Old_Age_and_Disability_Insurance_Bill_of_1889 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_%28Germany%29#...
runeks 10y ago
The retirement age increasing isn't strictly necessary just because people live longer. As long as a stable rate of interest exists, retirees can save up enough money and keep living off the interest payments. All that's required is that they're able to save up the same amount in the same time frame (provided the rate of interest doesn't change). Unfortunately, we haven't had a stable rate of interest for over a century.
Pokepokalypse 10y ago
I will actually HAPPILY increase my retirement age: when employers stop firing engineers over the age of 55 and replacing them with college grads. I'm happy to work until 72 or even 75. I have a pretty generous vacation allowance, so I'm not feeling the "rat race" in that way anymore. What I'm feeling is the creeping dread as I approach 50, that I'm going to be rightsized.