Work 'Til We Die?

Ummm... is this a joke? For starts, Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. That is not why it was created. Secondly, anyone younger than 50 who is counting on Social Security as their "retirement plan" is a moron. Twenty years ago my parents were talking about how they can't rely on Social Security alone, and that they'll have to start investing for retirement. That is called personal responsibility, a concept that is apparently foreign to leftists.
 
Also, the liberal plan to make SS solvent (raise taxes, of course) will only work for so long. When SS was first introduced, the payroll tax was 2%. Now it is 15%. When will it end?
 
The way I see it is if someone requires more than just the basic food, shelter and medication....if someone desires money for travel and recreational activities....they are capable of working.
 
apple0154 said:
The way I see it is if someone requires more than just the basic food, shelter and medication....if someone desires money for travel and recreational activities....they are capable of working.
Click to expand...

So even those who are able-bodied but refuse to work should expect our financial support?
 
King of Gods said:
Also, the liberal plan to make SS solvent (raise taxes, of course) will only work for so long. When SS was first introduced, the payroll tax was 2%. Now it is 15%. When will it end?
Click to expand...

The baby boom generation has been arguably defined as those born between 1946 and 1964, 18 years. The Boomer retirement started Jan 1, 2011 and will continue for 18 years bringing us to 2029 when the last of the Boomers reach 65. Then we add 15 years as the US life expectancy is around 80 years. That brings us to 2044. That's only 33 years from now.

So, we take the average 25 year old and add 33 years. That places the individual at 58. From then on their contributions to pensions will dramatically decrease or they will use the extra to boost their pension plans. In any case, the ratio between the retired and working will be more balanced and all will be fine.

The foregoing has been brought to you by the Liberal Budget Boys. :)
 
Heywood Jablowme said:
What is its purpose?
Click to expand...

It was created as a supplement for retirement income, in addition to providing basic income to those who are unable to work, such as the disabled and mentally ill. It was never created to be a retirement plan. To my knowledge, the government never encouraged people to stop saving for their own retirement.
 
King of Gods said:
So even those who are able-bodied but refuse to work should expect our financial support?
Click to expand...

No more than welfare recipients.

My point was more to address the constant doom and gloom we hear about retirement. "How will one maintain their lifestyle?" "What will you do?"

My question is, "What lifestyle?" The four-bedroom home? Going sailing on the week-ends? If one can raise the mast and navigate the choppy waves they can get their ass out of bed in the morning and go to work. If they can stand in line for over an hour at an airport waiting to board a plane they can stand behind a McDonald's counter and flip burgers. If they can walk along a beach they can walk the neighbor's dogs along a street and make a few bucks.

This idea of retiring at 65 when in good health is a whacky idea. How many people can reasonably save enough money to live 15 years, from 65 to 80, without working?

Very few people work all their life at one company and contribute to a pension plan. Many marry, have kids, buy a home....most are trying to make it day to day until, say, 35 years old when they can seriously contribute to retirement savings. So, from 35 to 65, that's 30 years and they expect to live off those savings for 15 years when they reach 65. That's working two years for every year off. How many people can work two years, take a year off, work two more years, take another year off...and maintain anything that resembles a decent lifestyle?
 
apple0154 said:
No more than welfare recipients.

My point was more to address the constant doom and gloom we hear about retirement. "How will one maintain their lifestyle?" "What will you do?"

My question is, "What lifestyle?" The four-bedroom home? Going sailing on the week-ends? If one can raise the mast and navigate the choppy waves they can get their ass out of bed in the morning and go to work. If they can stand in line for over an hour at an airport waiting to board a plane they can stand behind a McDonald's counter and flip burgers. If they can walk along a beach they can walk the neighbor's dogs along a street and make a few bucks.

This idea of retiring at 65 when in good health is a whacky idea. How many people can reasonably save enough money to live 15 years, from 65 to 80, without working?

Very few people work all their life at one company and contribute to a pension plan. Many marry, have kids, buy a home....most are trying to make it day to day until, say, 35 years old when they can seriously contribute to retirement savings. So, from 35 to 65, that's 30 years and they expect to live off those savings for 15 years when they reach 65. That's working two years for every year off. How many people can work two years, take a year off, work two more years, take another year off...and maintain anything that resembles a decent lifestyle?
Click to expand...
Plenty of people seem to manage it now. I would know, since I drink with them when I'm not in class.
 
apple0154 said:
The way I see it is if someone requires more than just the basic food, shelter and medication....if someone desires money for travel and recreational activities....they are capable of working.
Click to expand...
So in other words people shouldn't need to work. I mean if I have a house, and enough food and medicine to live, why would I really NEED to work? Oh sure I suppose I could if I wanted to have some nicer things. But I've already got a car and all my utilities paid for (afterall, if I have no transit, how I am going to get the food or medicine that's provided for me). I can live a mediocre existence and contribute nothing whatsoever.
 
King of Guns said:
So in other words people shouldn't need to work. I mean if I have a house, and enough food and medicine to live, why would I really NEED to work? Oh sure I suppose I could if I wanted to have some nicer things. But I've already got a car and all my utilities paid for (afterall, if I have no transit, how I am going to get the food or medicine that's provided for me). I can live a mediocre existence and contribute nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Exactly... hell, I bet 90% of the young people in Seattle would quit their jobs. Being poor is trendy here. People actually brag about how they're broke, and yet, $12 martinis don't seem to be a problem.
 
King of Gods said:
Exactly... hell, I bet 90% of the young people in Seattle would quit their jobs. Being poor is trendy here. People actually brag about how they're broke, and yet, $12 martinis don't seem to be a problem.
Click to expand...
Oh i'm sure people would still work, but they wouldn't be looking very hard for new jobs. Why should they? No need to survive so I can take my time until I can get the job I want, making as much as I want. Until then I'll just sit at home, maybe work under the table for some booze money, unless the current food stamp system stays in play, then I can buy booze as much as I want.
 
King of Guns said:
So in other words people shouldn't need to work. I mean if I have a house, and enough food and medicine to live, why would I really NEED to work? Oh sure I suppose I could if I wanted to have some nicer things. But I've already got a car and all my utilities paid for (afterall, if I have no transit, how I am going to get the food or medicine that's provided for me). I can live a mediocre existence and contribute nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I was referring to retired folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top