Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-20-2014, 02:49 PM   #21
Full time employment: Posting here.
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 688
The statement " we are living a lot longer than ever " gets tossed around quite calously these days. Over 50 years ago the life expectany of a man in 1960 was 66.6 and now its 76 in the US for a man. Thats signifigant, but not huge. If full SS retirement payments are geared to pay out at 67 now that accounts for a 10 year retirement before death. In 1960 you would have died first! Obviously major adjustments have been made, hence the health of SS is not bad, but some adjustments to perhaps how COLA is factored need to be made to keep it sustainable beyond 2033.
__________________

__________________
Ohio INTJ ENG ER Hopeful
Al in Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-20-2014, 03:27 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
first of all, life expectancy depends on current age, it's not the same number for everyone

second of all, it's not thrown around callously, it's fact - you may want to check out the latest mortality study done by the society of actuaries at www.soa.org for some light reading

IMO, we need to move away from the age 65 paradigm, sooner rather than later
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 03:36 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
0% interest rate annuities approximate life expectancies and they vary greatly between older and newer mortality tables
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Retirement Age Hike?
Old 03-20-2014, 04:02 PM   #24
Full time employment: Posting here.
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 688
Retirement Age Hike?

You have to talk in terms of average baseline actuarial age values, the facts if which I stated from current SSA actuarial tables.
__________________
Ohio INTJ ENG ER Hopeful
Al in Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 04:04 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,099
do you have a link to said tables?

or are those the ones used to calculate post 70.5 distributions?
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 04:06 PM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 534
I hate that they call the age at which you receive benefits 'retirement age'. As if living off of savings simply can't be done, even for a few years between your working life and your benefit collection age.
__________________
jon-nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Retirement Age Hike?
Old 03-21-2014, 09:15 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Retirement Age Hike?

"The statement " we are living a lot longer than ever " gets tossed around quite calously these days. Over 50 years ago the life expectany of a man in 1960 was 66.6 and now its 76 in the US for a man. Thats signifigant, but not huge. If full SS retirement payments are geared to pay out at 67 now that accounts for a 10 year retirement before death. In 1960 you would have died first! Obviously major adjustments have been made, hence the health of SS is not bad, but some adjustments to perhaps how COLA is factored need to be made to keep it sustainable beyond 2033."

What was the life expectancy in 1936(?) when SS began?

Seems like your statement above argues the age for receiving full benefits should be 75.

Unfortunately, most people expect SS to support them in their old age. That doesn't seem possible.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 09:43 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post

What was the life expectancy in 1936(?) when SS began?
See post 7 where I quote some information from SS itself.

I short, in 70 years the increase in 70 years the increase in life expectancy for 65 year olds has only been 5 years for males and 5.6 years for females.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:14 PM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 610
I just hope that young people continue to not vote and that the older folks get to elect our "officials". I'm only 49 so my viewpoints my be skewed by my wisdom or lack thereof, but from where I sit, there is plenty of money floating around to give our senior citizens a reasonable standard of living in their mid-60's and beyond. Let's face it, very few employers, either corporate or small business, want a 60+ year old on the payroll. I can certainly understand the reasons behind this. I'm an engineer by trade, but I definitely don't have the desire or energy that a 25-35 year old has. It's just nature taking its course. For many reasons, an employer would be much better off with the younger specimen.

I also subcribe to modern money theory in that we are a sovereign money nation and have no limit on the amount of money that the government can "print". Even if it was limited, I can't see how it's better for a civil society to spend billions and billions of dollars on advanced military equipment that senior military don't want or need, while providing a poverty level existence for our seniors. It's a matter of choice; do we want our 65-85 year old to have some dignity and contribute to our economy, or do we want all the younger workers, whether engineers, programmers, doctors, lawyers, etc; to live a top 2% standard of living on the world stage. When you think about it, that's where all the money is going. To the suburban dream homes with two $40K cars in the garage and $10K annual vacations to the yucutan peninsula. This all boils down to political fanfare and unfortunately people just don't get it.

There is so much more that I could add, but in the interest of brevity, I'll stop here.
__________________
NanoSour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:30 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Of course longer life expectancy also means more people in retirement. We need to also consider the number of people simply living to 65 or whatever. That bottom of the age range is what will be soaking up most of the benefits, since there are fewer and fewer people at the older ages. The shape of that curve will make a difference in the cost of benefits.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2014, 10:38 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
If they increase the retirement age they also need to 1.) adjust traditional working systems to allow older people to continue working - especially true in the more physical jobs, and 2.) toughen up enforcement of age discrimination laws. Otherwise they will simply transfer the payments from the SS system to the welfare systems.
Age discrimination law enforcement?
__________________
ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 06:36 AM   #32
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
Of course longer life expectancy also means more people in retirement. We need to also consider the number of people simply living to 65 or whatever. That bottom of the age range is what will be soaking up most of the benefits, since there are fewer and fewer people at the older ages. The shape of that curve will make a difference in the cost of benefits.
The bottom line is that there aren't enough jobs to go around already for people *under* 65. (And if you qualify that with "good" jobs, even fewer still.) And when you are over about 50 (40 in some industries), your job prospects already suck even more in terms of keeping your job and finding a new one if you lose it.

As the population grows AND gets older, and the growth rate of decent jobs remains flat to negative, we will necessarily have tough choices -- either raise the retirement age because the working people can't afford the higher cost of supporting more retirees..... or *lower* the age because we need to get more people out of the work force, and perhaps reducing the number of people who *need* jobs could help the wage stagnation problem.

These are both legitimate concerns, but unfortunately they seem to work against each other.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 07:32 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al in Ohio View Post
You have to talk in terms of average baseline actuarial age values, the facts if which I stated from current SSA actuarial tables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
first of all, life expectancy depends on current age, it's not the same number for everyone

second of all, it's not thrown around callously, it's fact - you may want to check out the latest mortality study done by the society of actuaries at www.soa.org for some light reading

IMO, we need to move away from the age 65 paradigm, sooner rather than later
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
"The statement " we are living a lot longer than ever " gets tossed around quite calously these days. Over 50 years ago the life expectany of a man in 1960 was 66.6 and now its 76 in the US for a man. Thats signifigant, but not huge. If full SS retirement payments are geared to pay out at 67 now that accounts for a 10 year retirement before death. In 1960 you would have died first! Obviously major adjustments have been made, hence the health of SS is not bad, but some adjustments to perhaps how COLA is factored need to be made to keep it sustainable beyond 2033."

What was the life expectancy in 1936(?) when SS began?

Seems like your statement above argues the age for receiving full benefits should be 75.

Unfortunately, most people expect SS to support them in their old age. That doesn't seem possible.
As I have posted in other threads, average life expectancy numbers make it sound like people you know today are living 40+ years longer than people you might have met in 1900. But that is not accurate unless you think of people you might have met as including new born babies. Babies born today are much likelier to live than babies born in 1900. But once you get through childhood you can expect maybe twelve or thirteen more years. And if you reach that magical age of 60 like many of us here you can expect to live 6 or 7 more years than your 1900 peer. Here is a link to a chart that shows life expectancy by age over the years. The key for social security is life expectancy at the age of retirement coupled with the population of working stiffs vs retirees. There are certainly problems with SS but everyone who has analyzed it has found that we are facing something like a 25% shortfall. Chained CPI would help a bit. Extending the top end for contributions would help more. Adding in a change to 68 or 70 for full retirement and maybe 64 for early retirement would solve it. It doesn't make sense to move the early retirement age up a lot because despite the hoopla about life expectancy there are still a ton of unhealthy (but not totally disabled) people who struggle to work in their 60s. In fact, with obesity and diabetes that problem may be getting worse rather than better.

__________________
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 12:10 PM   #34
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 610
This argument about lower numbers of worker supporting greater numbers of elderly/retirees is inconsequential.

DIAGRAMS & DOLLARS: modern money illustrated (Part 1) | New Economic Perspectives

DIAGRAMS & DOLLARS: modern money illustrated (Part 2) | New Economic Perspectives

After reading these you should see this is nothing more than a decision our elected politicians make on how they will spend the monopoly money. Nothing to do with life expectancies, SS tax rates, etc. All that is distraction.
__________________
NanoSour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 01:44 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
The bottom line is that there aren't enough jobs to go around already for people *under* 65. (And if you qualify that with "good" jobs, even fewer still.) And when you are over about 50 (40 in some industries), your job prospects already suck even more in terms of keeping your job and finding a new one if you lose it.

As the population grows AND gets older, and the growth rate of decent jobs remains flat to negative, we will necessarily have tough choices -- either raise the retirement age because the working people can't afford the higher cost of supporting more retirees..... or *lower* the age because we need to get more people out of the work force, and perhaps reducing the number of people who *need* jobs could help the wage stagnation problem.

These are both legitimate concerns, but unfortunately they seem to work against each other.
As I said before, if SS keeps making benefits available anywhere from 62 to 70, changing the "retirement age" has nearly the same effect as simply raising or lowering the benefit amount. It's just called something else that sounds a little better. And age is just a red herring in that case.

Certainly we could make retiring early more or less attractive by changing the age 62 limit or biasing the early benefits a little higher.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2014, 02:04 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
See post 7 where I quote some information from SS itself.

I short, in 70 years the increase in 70 years the increase in life expectancy for 65 year olds has only been 5 years for males and 5.6 years for females.
Informative post, Katsmeow, thanks, I missed it when you initially posted it. OK, so life expectancy once SS payments begin has risen since the 1940s, but by only a few years.
__________________

__________________
GrayHare is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Preventing a hike in cable (triple bundle) bill noelm Other topics 30 09-19-2012 08:47 PM
Yet another HI premium hike. Anyone else? Zoocat Health and Early Retirement 11 07-08-2011 06:29 AM
Anthem huge rate hike free4now FIRE and Money 21 05-03-2010 06:35 PM
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 02:47 PM
ObamaCare's Worst Tax Hike. Disappointed FIRE Related Public Policy 81 03-30-2010 01:58 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:47 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.