Skip to main content

View Diary: Another lesson for Simpson: Raising the retirement age is regressive (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

    I don't really see the outrage here. So, we've made scientific breakthroughs that have taught us how we can extend a life if we do certain very expensive things. Now, those who are able are spending their own money to take advantage of these procedures. And they're living longer!

    And that's a bad thing?!?!

    What solution are we looking for here? Rich people not being allowed to spend their own money on their own healthcare so that they die at the same age as poor people? Heavy taxes that tax them so much that they receive the same quality of healthcare as poor people? What?

    Try looking at things another way.

    by atheistben on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:58:34 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's outrageous (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Virginia mom, Odysseus, Matt Z, MadRuth

      that a program that doesn't contribute to the deficit would be cut, when the stated reason for doing so doesn't apply to at least 50% of its beneficiaries.  What is the justification for reducing the retirement periods of half of American workers from what they could enjoy in 1977?  I'm more or less open to means testing benefits, but the idea that people are living longer (a) doesn't mean they can or should work longer, and (b) it appears that the class of people who are living longer than in 1977 can retire comfortably without putting too much stress on SS, which is, after all, a form of insurance, and complementary to IRA's.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:06:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So now rich people shouldn't benefit (0+ / 0-)

        from the SS system they paid into? SS was designed so that everyone could have it. It was a way to force retirement savings, and to take a small slice to provide a minimal level of income to the poor elderly.

        See, this is why rich people want to kill SS. Because people like you seem to want to use it as a vessel to siphon money from the rich to the poor. That's not its purpose. It's primary purpose was forced retirement savings.

        Try looking at things another way.

        by atheistben on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:29:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm suggesting not raising the retirement age, which means rich people would get more out than poor people.  

          Yes, I think along the edges, there could be some means testing, but nothing truly major.  (There already is some thru inflation formulas.)  I don't care what the primary purpose was -- I care about what works or doesn't work today and in the near future.  Social Security works very well and doesn't contribute to the deficit by law.  That said, when we have huge wealth disparities, monies being paid out to people with net wealth in the tens or hundreds of millions, even under an insurance program, is wrong.  That money could be better used elsewhere.  

          "People like you?"  Reading comprehension FAIL.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:58:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site