Thread: Social Security: To shore it up, raise the retirement age

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5714a6.htm

* Per 1,000 live births for each group: infant (age <1 year), neonatal (age <28 days), and postneonatal (age 28 days to <1 year).


From 1940 to 2005 (most recent data available), infant, nenonatal, and postneonatal annual mortality rates in the United States declined substantially. The infant mortality rate decreased 85%, from 47 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 1940 to 6.87 in 2005. During the same period, substantial changes also occurred in the neonatal rate, which decreased 84%, from 28.8 to 4.54 deaths per 1,000 live births, and the postneonatal rate, which decreased 87%, from 18.3 to 2.34 deaths per 1,000 live births.

SOURCE: Kung HC, Hoyert DL, Xu J, Murphy SL. Deaths: final data for 2005. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2008;56(10). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf.

The U.S. population didn't double for 1930 to 1950.
The number of people 65 or over almost did.
Every new medical cure or treatment increases the life expectancy and the number of people collecting S.S.

You can retire at any age you want.
I retired at 61.
You just can't collect S.S. until 62.
With a life expectancy of 77.9 years that is 16.9 years of expected retirement for me.
But my mother is already 90 and has been collecting S.S. since 65.
Most of her relatives live to be over 100.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The U.S. population didn't double for 1930 to 1950.
The number of people 65 or over almost did.
Every new medical cure or treatment increases the life expectancy and the number of people collecting S.S.

You can retire at any age you want.
I retired at 61.
You just can't collect S.S. until 62.
With a life expectancy of 77.9 years that is 16.9 years of expected retirement for me.
But my mother is already 90 and has been collecting S.S. since 65.
Most of her relatives live to be over 100.

It is simply not true that the number of people 65 and older increased by almost double during that time period. Simply not true. And we are not talking about YOUR retirement, we are talking about the honesty in government with regard to holding up their end of an agreement THAT THEY FORCE ALL AMERICANS TO PARTICIPATE IN FOR THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFE. They are not holding up their end of the deal. And it really does not matter how long YOUR relatives live...we are not talking about your relatives. We are talking about the general population.

Originally Posted by redpony353

It is simply not true that the number of people 65 and older increased by almost double during that time period. Simply not true. And we are not talking about YOUR retirement, we are talking about the honesty in government with regard to holding up their end of an agreement THAT THEY FORCE ALL AMERICANS TO PARTICIPATE IN FOR THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFE. They are not holding up their end of the deal. And it really does not matter how long YOUR relatives live...we are not talking about your relatives. We are talking about the general population.

Feel free to talk about whatever you want, and I likewise can do the same.
End of discussion. All you ever want to do is argue, and I'm not into that.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by redpony353

It is simply not true that the number of people 65 and older increased by almost double during that time period. Simply not true. And we are not talking about YOUR retirement, we are talking about the honesty in government with regard to holding up their end of an agreement THAT THEY FORCE ALL AMERICANS TO PARTICIPATE IN FOR THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFE. They are not holding up their end of the deal. And it really does not matter how long YOUR relatives live...we are not talking about your relatives. We are talking about the general population.

Feel free to talk about whatever you want, and I likewise can do the same.
End of discussion. All you ever want to do is argue, and I'm not into that.

It is called "debate" If you are not into debating then don't get started.