Skip to main content

View Diary: Retire at 55: Guess Who Else Is Suggesting an INCREASE in Social Security Benefits? (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've been saying this forever (44+ / 0-)

    Lower retirement age and free up scads of jobs for younger people. Increase benefits and watch money pour into the economy. The economy would be so hot it would sizzle if anyone had the guts to do this. Everything they are doing is wrong. I could technically collect social security now but the amount is so miniscule I'd starve. So next year, instead of being able to take time to write my book and travel and take pictures, I'll almost certainly be taking a job that some young person should have. And even though I'll wait until at least 70 to retire because that is when my full benefits kick in, if I don't keep working after then, I'll be on a bare-bones budget – no movies, no eating out, no gifts for friends, no boost to the economy at all.

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:43:31 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not only does it free up jobs, but those new (14+ / 0-)

      hires will be paid less and if we continue using the employer provided health insurance model, will lower the cost of that benefit too.

      The loss of institutional knowledge is a significant issue, but businesses can simply hire on some of these newly retired folks as part-time consultants to help out the young'uns.

      Form follows function -- Louis Sullivan

      by Spud1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:52:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, but these new retirees (0+ / 0-)

        would be, presumably, covered by Medicare, which would just add to Medicare costs.  

        •  Actually, with millions more paying into the (11+ / 0-)

          system, and the younger people being relatively healthier than the older Medicare members, it should balance out or reduce costs.

          Same principle behind Obamacare: enroll more people and the cost of insurance comes down because more are paying in.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:34:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly right, YM - thanks for making that point. (3+ / 0-)

            There is another plus to moving people into the system at an earlier age: greater access to preventative care means that the onset of serious illnesses are prevented , or, at least, delayed.  And this translates to fewer costs (not to mention pain& suffering) for patient care later in life.  Medicare pays for a heart attack for a 65 yr old, but wouldn't it be better to pay for preventative care at age 40 or 50 and not have that heart attack at all??

            [fwiw, I want prenatal Medicare coverage -- pre-cradle to grave, in other words :) ]

            Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable.

            by FindingMyVoice on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 04:58:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What you two are talking about just sounds (0+ / 0-)

              so far from reality.  Can you show me a back of the envelope equation of the math behind a system that says that you can dramatically increase payments for SS and Medicare and that this will magically reduce costs?

              And why do you believe that kicking the 55 year olds out of the work force all of a sudden creates more jobs?

              To me it sounds a lot like that South Park episode which stated a simple 3 point plan to get rich.

              1. Steal panties.
              2. ?????
              3. Profit!

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:21:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ?? The more people paying into an insurance pool (0+ / 0-)

                the less the individual premium cost could be (more people paying $$ in to cover claim $$s going out), in a not-for-profit system like Medicare.  

                Expand Medicare to younger, healthier people  brings in more $$ to cover claims from sicker patients, without having to raise the sicker patient's premiums to an unsupportable level.    My point was that an added benefit is that by getting younger people covered there is also a long-term payoff in avoiding debilitating, high-cost events later.   People who are controlling their blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose levels have significantly less risk for heart attacks and strokes that people who don't (a frequent reference for this is the Framingham Heart Study ).  

                From a societal perspective it's cost effective (to use my econ. colleagues' term) to make sure people stay healthy longer, and that doesn't even consider the ethical & moral issues around health care.  Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is one way to do that.  

                Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable.

                by FindingMyVoice on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:03:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are making the argument for (0+ / 0-)

                  lowering the age of Medicare and/or going to single payer and that is fine.  I understand that and mostly agree with that.  However, the argument that was presented in this thread is that if you take the most experienced people in our workforce, remove them from the labor pool, provide them with SS and Medicare at taxpayer expense, that you will suddenly make the country much better off.

                  It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me and there doesn't seem to be much explanation behind why people think that removing the most productive people from the labor pool and increasing taxes on those that remain in the labor pool will make the country better off.  They also don't address how they think that we can work only a little more than 30 years and receive SS and Medicare for only a slightly lower amount of time.  What are the tax rates necessary to support such a system?

                  Another way to look at it is:  let's say you are 30.  And your parents are 56.  Some people are saying that that 30 year old can create enough value through their work to be able to support themselves, take care of their kids and pay for all the SS and Medicare benefits for their parents.  (Yes, in reality it doesn't quite work like that but in broad general terms that is what those supporting this idea are saying)  I don't see that system as being sustainable and the people advocating for it are taking it as a given.

                  We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

                  by theotherside on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:42:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ok, we're talking about two different things (0+ / 0-)


                    Back along the jobs line,  Medicare for all would uncouple health care from employment and potentially free up some percentage of the current workforce to be entreprenureal (sp? sorry) or work part-time, or ? without sacrificing their (and their families) health coverage.  Perhaps the thinking is similar for changing SS - a better SS payout (attained by lifting the cap on income subject to SS tax, perhaps?) would give some people the option to retire or go to part-time work sooner, if they wanted.  

                    Under the current system way too many of us are wage slaves to  health insurance coverage from our employers & the distant promise of having enough to survive on without starving when we can't work any longer.  

                    We're all in this together, bottom line.

                    Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable.

                    by FindingMyVoice on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:32:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  You're absolutely right! (0+ / 0-)

                Nowhere on Earth, has social democracy actually worked. People talk about Scandinavia as a model of social democracy .....but you can't find it on any map!

                In the Fox News Christian Nation, public schools won't teach sex education and evolution; instead they'll have an NRA sponsored Shots for Tots: Gunz in Schoolz program.

                by xynz on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:51:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I retired 'still alive at 55' . You see my WWII (20+ / 0-)

      wounded and decorated father had died of a labor related accident at 52, so I thought ......

      Never looked back, living on my piss poor Texas teacher's pension and left my job for someone younger to fill. Yus!

      Now, ten years later, some @sswipes are trying to convert the pension fund to IRA's FTW ! We are fighting it..

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:20:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good luck on that! (7+ / 0-)

        Even though it wouldn't apply to current retirees like yourself, it's good to protect things for the younger workers.

        My spouse also retired at 55 last October; he wanted to get out while the getting was good, and things were getting complicated enough with his mom that I was starting to get overwhelmed with her doctor's appointments. He's now available to go with her to the doctor and listen to what the doc has to say. He also has more time to do a lot of errands for her -- that's added a bit of stress to our marriage but that's not material to this diary.

        We're getting by on his pension, and Mom's helping us out a bit as she can. And he also paid into Social Security as well as getting the employer-provided pension so if the Maya were wrong and we make it past Friday, we just have to get by for another 8 years or so (I need to check and see what his eligibility date is, since he's a 1956 baby).

        "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:13:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't protect younger workers...why should they (0+ / 0-)

          fight to protect your pensions?

          It's intelligent self-interest, in addition to being the right thing to do.

          Unions that buy into two-tier systems to "protect their benefits" are cutting their own throats.  There's nothing but resentment from the new hires.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  70 isn't "full benefits". It's a bonus for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, flowerfarmer


      Not the same thing.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site