Should the retirement age be raised?

[MrPresident]

The world is growing older. People are living longer. In a few years the old will out number the young. The burden on the working to support the eldely is growing year on year. Something must be done, but what? In Britain a pension "Tsar" (really that is what he is called) has suggested that the retirement age be raised from 65 to 70. Do you support such a measure? Is there another way that you would prefer? Or is this evitable and ultimately beneficial? Would the political power of the elderly can such a measure ever be enacted? or would it be political suicide? Are you prepared to wait an extra five years to collect your pension?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Doesn't bother me; I will never reach pensionable age.
The aging of the population is a worrying factor in the West. I am personally for encouraging a higher birth rate in Australia, as if we don't, then there will be insufficient means to look after the old.

Retirement age depends upon the individual.

 

[Corinthian]

With the state of pensions in my country being what they are, may people of my generation especially will likely have little alternative but to work into their 70s.

The public pensions system is insulting, and people are being deliberately forced to buy into the private sector pensions. Unfortunately the recent stock problems have struck something of a rather severe blow to these schemes. The poor sods work all their lives, and are shat upon by a system focussed on the youth.

In Britain our elders are not seen to be efficient consumers, and therefore do not matter to Mr Blair.
But hey, it's depressing to think about old age and death, so let's just sweep them all under the rug. Besides, those people that matter will be able to afford genetic engineering to bring back their youth.

Bitter Corinthian.

 

[Padma]

In the U.S., back near the beginning of the twentieth century, the government instituted this wonderful thing called 'social security'. All workers chipped in a smal portion of their wages, with the promise that if they lived to be 65 the government would pay them this pension. The government got to look nice and beneficial, yet they only had to pay out a small amount of pension, because back then very few workers lived to see 65. (BTW, this system, including the magic age of 65, was borrowed/stolen from the German Kaiser, IIRC.)

The problem today is, most workers live to see 65. And 75. And an awful lot see 85. And higher.

For myself, I am looking forward to retiring in less than 20 years. But on the other hand, I hope to be able to be a productive worker at least into my 70's. I guess that, even though it would be 'inconvenient' for me, the retirement/pension age should be raised to (at least) 70.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I am personally for encouraging a higher birth rate in Australia, as if we don't, then there will be insufficient means to look after the old.

Very true, but how would His Evilness do that?

 

[MrPresident]

I am personally for encouraging a higher birth rate in Australia, as if we don't, then there will be insufficient means to look after the old.

Wouldn't this just delay the problem without actually solving it. Also it would create a lot of further problems.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Hitro

Very true, but how would His Evilness do that?

Well, if you've followed some of his other posts you would know that for this particular task, delegation is the way that SD would increase population. He certainly isn't going to be personally involved.

You might be wondering who he would delegate it to, and while I am not privy to that consideration, I suspect that it will at the very least involve the Ministry for Women and other Alien Races.

Currently I've got the inside track on that post though, so look elsewhere!

 

[BlueMonday]

NO!!! We spend too much of our lives at work as it is. Why add five more years to what is already 45 years of hell? Do your wife; don't let your work do you.

 

[amadeus]

Leaving the Social Security age at 65 would be lethal to the economy. You can't have a small workforce pay for a large population base...if it did, you may as well call it "Socialism Security".

Over the next five years, partial benefits should be extended to those approaching 65, and slowly raise the age to (at least) 70.

The age of 65 was set during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Medical technology has improved, people live longer.

The only reasonable way to keep the age down is to privatize Social Security.

 

[ajohn505]

Well, we have government-sponsored private systems already in place for funding retirements (401k, etc), for those that aren't too stupid to rely on Social Security. People are too shortsighted to plan for their own retirement, so everyone gets left holding the bag. And that's where Social Security comes in. Big deal, it's the price we pay for living in a capitalist society where the stupid are exploited anyway.

Social Security is currently a functioning program, and everyone gets their benefits. It needs adjustments to be totally sustainable once the baby boomers start siphoning off their unfair share, but hey, that's the price we pay. Privatization isn't going to change the fact that there's more people sucking off the system than contributing. Unfortunately, higher taxes are probably the only answer.

...and there can't be much of an argument that a liberal's 'Tax and Spend' economics are infinitely better than the current administration's 'Borrow and Spend' credo

edited for clarity.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Leaving the Social Security age at 65 would be lethal to the economy. You can't have a small workforce pay for a large population base...if it did, you may as well call it "Socialism Security".

Over the next five years, partial benefits should be extended to those approaching 65, and slowly raise the age to (at least) 70.

The age of 65 was set during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Medical technology has improved, people live longer.

The only reasonable way to keep the age down is to privatize Social Security.

I agree. And depending on how well our technology keeps pushing the average death age along, 70 may just be a brief pit stop.

Very true, but how would His Evilness do that?

Easy. Barry White.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Wouldn't this just delay the problem without actually solving it. Also it would create a lot of further problems.

No it would not. It would take a while to take hold, but it would turn the situation around. Through the agency of the Ministry for Women and Other Alien Races, the Department of Spoons, and the diligent research of those madmen down at the Stalin Institute, a proper rate of, say, 6 or 7 children for each approved breeder CAN BE ACHIEVED as well as a lot of test tube work, and the bold workers down at the Dr Strangelove Memorial Mineshaft and Breeding Centre working fanatically.I have visions of an assembly line at a breeding plant...
We will employ the machine that goes "PING!"
Barry White wasn't quite what I was thinking of. Locating the breeding centre next to a slaughterhouse, with a conveyor belt linking the two for those who do not breed sufficiently or quickly is more than enough encouragement.

This is short term. In the longer term, the evil scientists at the Institute are working on a wonderful machine that will eliminate the sordid physical contact that currently makes sexual reproduction most inefficient. It is time we moved beyond making the beast with two back. Or, more accurately, one back, and a rather interesting middle.

It is one way of addressing an aging society. All options must be explored.

 

[Ren]

I voted No

If we decrease the amount of Welfare to people who "Can't get a job" -- then we will ba able to afford pensions for the growing aged population (for now anyway)

Edit 1:

 

[TrailblazingScot]

In Britain our elders are not seen to be efficient consumers, and therefore do not matter to Mr Blair.

Yet old people vote more consistently than young people AND there are alot of them AND Blair is in power...because he had most votes and seats.

Now how did the old people vote?


Quite simply these people never put aside money for when they retired and worse they probably never had that money to put aside. What these people are looking for is that the working generation today bail them out and this is continued into the future.

But as the proportion of elderly is increasing as a percentage of the population as compared to the working population it will become a greater and greater burden. The problem is simply the poor not being able to stop working and live in any way considered decent unless taxation increases.

Also a small point...people leaving universities and schools aren't the richest people in the world, nor those with young families...it is those who have retired or have had their children and the children are independent. Quite simply in the "oldie" community there is plenty of money, just that most are unwilling to spread it around.

Looking to tax the upcoming generations for the lack of forsight and planning of the previous ones isn't the answer in my opinion.


The idea of a legal age of retirement only applies to getting the State Pension the giving out of which isn't too much of strain for a nation as rich as ours...but it is simply that these people with such low income are going to be living in crap accomodation, have crap diets and health are going to be a drain on the NHS and other social services that the problem will get worse and worse.

Changing the age of retirement won't change a thing except be an attack on the poorest of our society. What is daft is that the state pension is given out to well-off people aswell as poor just because they made a contribution...THAT should end to allow more money for those who need it!