Jerry Eichenberger
Serious Thumper
   
Offline

2006 S40. OEM windshield, saddle bags, Sportster
Posts: 2919
Columbus, Ohio
Gender:
|
BG -
You are right about the retirement age and longer life expectancy now.
In fact, when SS was devised in the 1930s, it was a scam - the required retirment age of 65 actually EXCEEDED the life expectancy in those days, 80 years ago.
Then at some point a long time ago, the ability to take reduced benefits at age 62 came into being. That ought to be totally eliminated now, except for SS disability, of course.
If the retirement age were simply raised to about 67 or 68, with no ability to take reduced benefits at any earlier age, the problem is solved, but few politicians can vote for that out of fear of voter rebellion.
If we really went back to the original concept, the retirement age would be in the late 70s or early 80s, about a year of two beyond normal life expectancy. Think of trying to get that one past the voters today.
Personally, I think all forms of pensions - SS, civilian gov't, military, corporate, school teachers, etc. ought to kick in no earlier than age 65, and probably later. We should encourage people to stay gainfully employed throughout most of their 60s, as that was like telling someone 80 years ago who was just 50 to keep working.
I think retirement, on any pension, in one's 50s is silly. Again, true disability is a totally different matter - I'm talking here about normal retirement for a healthy person.
Even for a person who has done manual labor, the mid 50s retirement is about what age 70+ was like in the 1930s. As I grew up in the construction industry, I saw the changes from true digging of ditches by a crew of workers to digging them with backhoes.
I sit here and sometimes wonder what it would be like to be retired with no job to occupy my mind or time - a horrible thought to me.
|