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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the state retirement age is raised, young people won't find job opportunities.
Moreover, old people do not do good work in many fields. Besides, they would cause trouble to employers, police, and public. Also, they are more vulnarable to catch diseases and ilnesses.
To explain, old people do not tolerate what young people do.
As pointed out by others, can you imagine somebody of 68-70 plus working in hard manual labour, even some cleaning jobs are very demanding and very physical for somebody of this age group. Its alright the government sitting pretty on their big fat salaries and final pensions, they can afford to retire when they wish. Its the normal working man that will suffer as per usual.
I want to retire now at age 53 . I gave this country 35 years of paying high taxes on the money I made, The government would save money buy paying less over the lifetime of my SS benefits then if I was to retire later and seek the larger amounts.. But then that is what they want us to do ,hoping we die out before it happens . I worked all my life and may even continue to do so, but jobs are few ,and the country would benefit from me stepping aside and giving the young and upcoming a chance ..
I really can't understand the logic in raising the retirement age. Isn't it the case that most people over the age of 55 have no direct dependents, therefore, wouldn't it make more sense for the state to top up benefits to them, rather than have young families totally reliant on benefits.
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 .