It is becoming clear that most people do not save enough for retirement. and SS is strained beyond its limits 9as people live into their 80’s). my question; if the average lifepan could be shortened 9by activities such as smoking, eating fast food, and drinking to excess), would this solve the retirement problem? A few years ago, the Czech government did a study, which indicated that heavy smokers are an asset to the pension system-they contribute more in taxes, and take out less 9because they die early)-what is the optimum solution to this? :o
Why get the government involved, when corporations are already doing their part by making their full time employees work lots of overtime, i.e., sitting at their desk all their waking hours, getting no exercise, eating junk lunches, etc.? Works for the corporate pensions, such as they are, works for Social Security – it’s a regular win-win. Unless of course you’re talking about human beings and their families, for whom it’s a lose-lose situation. But as we all know, corporations are anti-human and anti-family overall, so it doesn’t matter.
Trouble is, smokers don’t just politely drop dead (well, some do). A lot of them get cancer and demand expensive treatments, using up hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care in the final months of their lives.
Clearly, the government should be encouraging retirement activities like no-net tightrope-walking, which in addition to being a good workout and fun to watch, tends not to leave the unlucky in lingering pain for very long.
A few years ago when tobacco taxes were raised in Germany, this was dicussed extensively in the German media. Apparently smokers die so much earlier that they save money anyway.
Well, the government already enourages people to join the Army. And once in you’re encouraged to live a healthy lifestyle, except when getting shot at.
It would also solve our impending Social Security and Medicare problems caused by our graying population. The only problem with the government encouraging death by unhealthy lifestyles is that it’s monstrous.
Some governments encourage ten monstrous things before breakfast, so that’s no big deal.
It may not be a big deal, but it’s still a good reason it shouldn’t be a policy. It’s using passive eugenics to save money.
is pressing the <shift> and the <9> keys at the same time to make a “(” a dangerous activity that you are trying to avoid in order to increase your life expectancy? 
Not said to insult Ralph, but one big problem I have with people complaining about overpopulation, too many long-living senior citizens, etc., is that they themselves seem loath to volunteer to help reduce the people glut. 
Seriously: Attack the problem, not the symptoms. Everyone has a right to live as long as they can with what resources they have or can reasonably obtain. (The last clause is intended to neatly sidestep a hijack into, “What healthcare should be made available to all?” and similar questions.)
Social Security was never intended as a substitute for private pension plans for those who can afford them. Rather, it was a “safety net” for people who had aged beyond working years and who did not have pensions. The trick is to reduce or remove the entitlement piece of it, and do that in a way that does not destroy older people’s retirement plans. If you’re 30 today and due to vest in a pension plan that will give you a reasonable income when you’re 65, you don’t need Social Security.
It was originally a tax on all workers with proceeds used to help the aged poor. Revert it to that, on the installment plan, so the guy who expects to retire next year with SS can do so, but the guy ten years from retirement will get a reduced benefit, and the guy 25 years from retirement can make private plans. Then leave it in place as what it was designed for: necessity-level stable income for the aged poor, widows, and orphans.
And you’ve solved the “retirement problem” quite simply. Granted there will be some difficulties in funding the “Baby Boomer bulge” – so repair the problems caused by raiding the lockbox. I leave that to the board’s economic pundits to define how best to do.
Please look at you keyboard. See the key that has “(” on the top and “9” at the bottom? These characters are not interchangeable. Are you saving your “(s” for retirement, in order to conteract possible depletion by SS? Do you think you can cash them in, perhaps for 1/10 cent apiece?
Ten Monstrous Things Before Breakfast = Band Name! 
Seriously, though, what are you talking about here?
Well, aside from slipping in a classical literary reference, my point was dismissing something as “monstrous” is no guarantee that somebody somewhere isn’t working toward it, whether they realize it or not.
It’s not important.
When I first read ralph’s post I rejected it on the obvious moral grounds. Then I began having second thoughts.
All governmens are incompetent at much of what they do, and the federal government particularly so. The military invades Iraq as part of the war on terrorism and end up creating a breeding ground for terrorists. An expensive effort to reduce illegal immigration from Mexico actually increases the number of immigrants. And so forth.
The government is particularly incompetent at social engineering. For instance, one study found that the “Think, don’t smoke” ad campaign actually led to increased teenage smoking.
So if the federal government sets out to encourage smoking, unhealthy eating, and hard drinking, it might lead to a decrease in those activities.
Hey, it’s worth a shot.
When a doctor I know began to study lung cancer, the professor gave a little speech. He explained that lung cancer was actually good for society because:
-
The disease usually strikes after the patient’s most productive years.
-
Treatment is usually rather short, compared to many other disease.
-
Lots of savings in pensions & other funds never paid.
This was in Sweden.
I’ve GOT the solution! After people retire, we supply them with rich, fat-laden dinners (at government expense); we also provide free cigarettes, and free alcoholic drinks. The combination rapidly thins out the elderly population, whilst the tax revenue (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) replenishes the treasury!
Given the option between being dead or spending years in a granny farm sitting thee waiting for the Grim Reaper to come calling, give me the former any day. Just give me a reasonably healthy three-score-and-ten and anything beyond that’s a bonus. I have no children - though I have a nephew and niece, both of whom I love dearly - and a few thousand years ago, at 40, I’d be classed as an old man.
You may have solved the whole social security problem!
(And surprisingly few seniors will complain).
You, like Pat Robertson?
Ahhh, they’re 9via’s “unhealthy lifestyle” “Death Rays”.