Reply With Quote
Both topics deal with old people. Therefore they belong in the same thread
rmt typifies the ignorance-based confusion and faulty so-called thinking by the rightwingnutjob crowd
Both topics deal with old people. Therefore they belong in the same thread
I don't think some posters care what RBG WANTS:
I am mocked for wanting to raise SS age (to 70), but some posters want RBG to work until there's a Dem President and Senate (and she's 87-89).
Are you trying to argue RBG is an accurate representation for how long people work?
or that if she opts to work for 90 years then everybody else should be forced to be 90 years old before collecting SS checks?
she can opt to work however long she wants. she can work till she's 110.
that doesnt mean the whole population needs to have their retirement age to be mandated at 110 years.
i'm not against raising SS age (having it indexed to average life expectancy in some way)... but its ludicrous to tie that argument to somebody who opts to work longer than others
That doesn't explain why you want it to be 70. Unless you just don't like people getting a ss check.
Oh so you dont think that the anecdotal example of one person working into her mid 80s should mandate what the age for SS is?
Why would you be for it?
rmt really is the female Wild Cobra
I don't care how long RBG works - she should work as long as she WANTS - not based on which side has presidency and senate. It's just the hypocrisy on this board. When I mention raising the SS age (in order to save the program as it's predicted to have reduced benefits in 2028?), I am mocked. But when some posters are ragging on RBG because she didn't retire earlier or want her to hang on until there is a Dem president and senate, nary a word of criticism.
You’ve yet to explain what one has to do with the other.
Do they carry granny smith oranges in your world
My world is just fine, but (sometimes) the echo chamber in here makes me weary.
Boutons wants to lower the social security age to 35 iirc
i think it should generally be indexed against life expectancy in some way. they chose 65 as the age of retirement at a time when life expectancy was 61
now i'm not saying it should be exactly scaled to what it was in the 30's, but i do think those changes should be reflected better than they have now
That's because it's Wild Cobra's troll.rmt really is the female Wild Cobra
Well you're saying you want to reduce benefits now so as not to reduce benefits later. But why reduce benefits at all when raising the income cap and slightly increasing payroll tax (like a 2% increase spread out over the next 20 years, that's 1 % for employee and 1% for employer) would set the program up for the next 100+ years.
this guy thinks raising taxes can solve a problem
what a loon
That's some bs certain types (libertarians) on my side like to spout. That's life expectancy from birth. The big increase in lifespan is due to people being more likely to survive childhood. Things haven't changed all that much for lifespan after reaching adulthood.i think it should generally be indexed against life expectancy in some way. they chose 65 as the age of retirement at a time when life expectancy was 61
now i'm not saying it should be exactly scaled to what it was in the 30's, but i do think those changes should be reflected better than they have now
I think the middle class needs to pay more, I've been consistent about that for years.
what are the numbers for that, out of curiosity?
SnakeBoy this seems to have some good numbers
https://www.cleveland.com/datacentra...r_65-year.html
as of 2014, a 65 year old is expected to reach 84.3 years... whereas a 65 year old in 1950 was expected to reach 77.8
thats still close to a 7 year difference. paying somebody SS for 13 years as opposed to 20 years is a pretty big deal... thats a 50% increase
What about boutons plan to lower the age to 35?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions