Amazon.com Widgets
  • Country bankrupted otherwise

    People are living about 18 years longer since we passed Social Security in 1935 and 8 years longer since we passed Medicare in 1965. The average lifespan has increased from 61 to 79 since 1935, but we kept the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare set to 65 all this time, only recently adjusting it to 67 for Social Security. That means we are paying for 16 more years of Social Security and 8 more years of Medicare per person than the systems were designed to sustain.

    Currently we are spending over 50% of the U.S. Budget on healthcare and retirement. Social Security alone is 20.85% of the budget ($732 billion). Medicare is another 14.31% ($502 billion). Section 550 Health, including Medicaid, is 10.25% ($360 billion). Federal employee retirement and disability is 3.50% ($122 billion). There's also veteran healthcare, 1.43% ($50 billion). There's also section 601. Put it all together and it's around $1.8 trillion per year, and over 50% of the U.S. Budget.

    We need to address entitlement and military spending if we are to get our budget deficit under control, and free up money for U.S. Job creation. Americans are going to have to accept that, they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

  • We cannot, as a capitalist society that is based around individual achievement, defend preventing a citizen of the United States from working.

    My argument is exactly that. We are a capitalist society. We, by definition of being capitalist, support and encourage individual achievement. If we prevent a full citizen of the United States from working towards their own ends, then we are inhibiting their constitutional right to life, liberty, and happiness. We cannot defend forcing a person into inactivity for the rest of their life. I, for one, want to be allowed to continue for as long as I wish in whatever I choose to do, and hope that the rest of America will agree with me by the time that it becomes an issue.

  • The retirement age should be raised so that the burden of pension on our economy will get reduced

    already we know that our country's growth rate or what we call in economic termology is GDP is increasing at a snail's pace so if the retirement age is raised say if the limit has extended upto 65 or say 70 years then the number of years for which he/she will get money in form of pension will be reduced as during that period government is providing money for no work in return and it is a complete loss for the economy.Also i would like to put light on the fat that since the living standard of middle class indian have raised as compared to past so life expectancy has also climbed up and today in this modern era we can easily keep our mind and body fragile for more than 60 years so that we can dedicate ourselves to our job.I would also like to put forward some more points that there are a number of servicemen who after retiring in other companies or get self employed and still get the luxury of pension along with their earnings and so if they can work for their own personal benifits then they can work for more number of years as a servicemen

  • Yes, the retirement age should be raised to take the pressure off social security and the budget deficit.

    The Social Security system is in disarray, and it is threatening to go bankrupt. An increase in the retirement age, and the associated age at which Social Security payments begin, would take the pressure off the spiraling budget deficit. As medical care has gotten better, people are living longer, so an increase in retirement is appropriate because people can be productive workers longer.

    Posted by: SlyHymie
  • People are living longer and retiring early is putting a strain on retirement funds.

    Since people are living much longer today, it makes good sense to increase the retirement age. When a great number of people retire early, it puts a great financial strain on our retirement systems. The longer people work, the more funds will be available to help support the retirement system. Since people are healthier longer, it seems wise to me for them to be productive members of the work force longer. Not only does it help the retirement systems, it also benefits the retiree with a larger income when he or she eventually retires.

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Retirement should be raised, and then gradually abolished. There is no need to force people to leave work when they are healthy and able.

    All you really have to do is look at photographs of people from previous times -- aging has been slowed by changes in health habits, peacetime lifestyles, and improved medical care. We don't need to retire healthy people at the prime of their lives, with so much additional experience as well as potential gifts for society. It's like throwing away half of a human life and sends the wrong message to young people, who resent paying for the play lifestyles of hale and spry old people for a decade or two while they pay the tax bill for it.

    Posted by: groovybox
  • I agree with state retirement age being raised because it will reduce the burden to the state budget.

    In order to raise state retirement age, state residents will need to work longer into their lives. This has a two fold impact on the community. First, the labor supply increases, thereby providing more inexpensive labor to companies. Second, by retiring later, the payouts on Social Security and other retirement programs come later, thereby saving the taxpayer money in the long run. It also aids in balancing the budget.

    Posted by: IeonBauer
  • I think the retirement age should be raised simply because people are now living longer and are in better health as they age.

    I'm in favor of raising the retirement age because people now live longer, and are typically in better health as they age. In addition, to better personal health in the aging population, our Social Security System is already heavily burdened, especially with the Baby Boomer Generation coming to the retirement age. It would be preferable for people to be able to retire early; however, at this point it doesn't seem economically feasible.

    Posted by: WackyDel
  • Yes, the state retirement age should be raised because people are more productive at retirement than they used to be.

    State retirement ages can be very controversial. Young people looking for jobs probably feel the retirement age should stay the same, but employers know that those people have abilities they will not find in a new young employee and it will cost them to train new employees. The employee of retirement age is an asset to most companies, unless it is a very physical job. Experience is worth a great deal, and should be utilized.

    Posted by: BMaritza
  • If a state has a set retirement age, not based on years of service, lower than 68 then yes.

    Most states I believe base retirement on years of service to the state. If a state does have a set retirement age, then they should review it based on up to date life expectancy charts. People are living longer, and staying healthy longer. A retirement age set to young could bankrupt states in the future.

    Posted by: 5h035Bow
  • Work till you drop

    No no no working after 65 is madness the Manuel worker such as I Can not just keep going on and on eyes fail as well as body joints and memory for gods sake we no it's a money grabbing scheme we are not daft the government just imposes it we follow (sheep) enough said .

  • The retirement age should not be raised because many elderly need benefits as soon as they qualify for them.

    Elderly people often get the short end of the stick. When the retirement age is raised, you are telling millions of people that they can not receive benefits for a few more years. Some elderly people do not have the option of working as many are partially disabled or do not qualify as being disabled, even though they might as well be disabled. When these elderly people began working some 50 or so years before their retirement day, they were promised a social security fund. By raising that age, everything that they have worked for will be taken away from them for a few more years, even though they paid into the system all of those years. You should never yank the carpet out from underneath our elderly like that as retirees deserve respect as well.

    Posted by: R3ubHockey
  • Raising retirement ages do nothing for productivity.

    The state retirement age should not be raised because it will not save money nor will it increase productivity of employees. In fact just the opposite is true - as elderly employees struggle with health issues the costs will eventually land in the lap of government that needs to pay benefits. Raising the state retirement age behooves no one.

    Posted by: ThegaXen
  • I do not believe the state has the authority to impose minimum retirement ages.

    The state's authority to mandate the minimum retirement age is questionable to me. If a person has the desire to retire early then they should also have the freedom to pursue their desire assuming that it does not harm another person, and I do not see why it would. Also, age is a very relative quality and one person at age 65 may be very different from another person at age 65.

    Posted by: Wynn354
  • The retirement age should not be raised.

    I do not believe that the retirement age should be raised. I already think that the age is too high. People work hard all of their life. I believe that the retirement age should be 55 years old when you are considered a senior. The retirement age definitely should not be raised.

    Posted by: barbiegirll
  • A big No

    Don't increase the retirement age. We have such talented youth. We need to use the strength of our brilliantly qualified youth. Also the elderly people suffer with health issues. Thus they are a mere burden on the economy. The government has to pay for their health issues. Elderly should rest after 60 and spend quality time with their families so as to enjoy the rest of their life. Its enough working for them till 60.

  • Workers at Retirement Age Need to Make Room for Younger People seeking Work

    As it is the job market is very sluggish and nobody wants to leave their jobs. Because of that workers do not have upward or even lateral mobility and the situation is worse for the unemployed who are shut out completely. It's time for people age 62 or older to make way which would help stimulate the job market.

  • Not breaking news

    Governments have known for 30 years about the retirement bubble resulting from the baby boomer generation. Why is this now a crisis? We have all paid our taxes for a lifetime. Now we are demonized and told that our life savings have been spent. Not good enough. We need some creative thought not tired generation bashing propaganda. How about investing in Aussie intellect and endeavour instead of selling off the farm.

  • Heart operations paid by government

    I am nearly 60 years old. I gave up my job as a legal secretary to look after my blind mother (due to diabetes) six months ago. She had a heart operation 4 years ago at age 83. That operation was paid by taxpayers and so will her pension for the next 10 years! I am saving the govt $4,000.00 a week (I am on carer's pension) by looking after my mother. I sold my house as well. She would not go into nursing home (they don't get cake or chocolate!). If she lives a few more years I will be 63. Who will employ me???? You need to work on the ageing population the govt is paying for to have heart operations. You spend up to $250K on the operation and they live another 10 years on pension (another $200K). You need to look at making pensioners pay for private health insurance. My mother gets all her medication free (this would normally cost around $500/month). That's another $6,000.00 per year of tax payers money. You will eventually end up with a huge population of elderly people when the baby boomers reach 67. Most are obese and are having heart operations now, so they will live another 20-30 years on the pension! I think you need to work on the future obese population, the ones in their 20's and 30's who will cost the taxpayers heaps of money with their heart problems and diabetes. Good luck! I will not be having the same operation. I will be quite happy to die at age 83 if I live that long!

  • No Way, No Way!

    I work in a factory and at age 53 already suffer from back issues that has caused nerve damage, I also suffer from osteoarthritis, which neither affliction runs in my family. I'll never make it to retirement age at this rate, maybe that's what the state is after, death before retirement, after all the money has to come from somewhere to support the ones that have never worked a day in their lives.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.