Pension plans and social security programmes are alternative (and often complementary) methods of providing income in retirement, and all involve wealth generated by currently productive workers being transferred to retired workers. But the cost of providing $1 of income in retirement is $1, regardless of whether it is financed through a social security programme, an employer-funded pension plan, or private savings. The issues raised by phased retirement are equally relevant regardless of which mechanism is adopted to transfer wealth to retired workers.
Maybe they just need to change to a less physically demanding occupation?
Hammock balancing at union rates?
They already do regulate how many hours you’re allowed to work. I’ve met a couple post-“retirement” guys who work as much as they’re allowed to without losing benefits, because they can’t afford either losing benefits or not working.
Sure guys nearing retirement age are being sought after to get a new profession. They are high on the list. Just walk down to the corner and enter a brand new exciting high tech profession. No problem.
We have lots of unemployment don’t you know. Getting them to retire earlier would open up possibliities for younger people.
What the heck are you talking about?
Your plan is REGRESSIVE!!!, (not progressive).
No, it’s progressive, although it could be regressive if you look at it from the other end. That’s why it made perfect sense to the 20-odd other people who read the OP (even if it was an awful idea).
How about if you simply
-
Let people keep all of their money during their working lifetimes (instead of having it deducted by the government for a ‘pension’ scheme)
-
Let them save or invest it any way they want to
-
Let them retire whenever they want, and spend it any way they want to?
How about that? Then you don’t have to worry about any of this.
We used to do that. We found there were a lot of old people who had bad things happen to them beyond their control( it can happen to anybody), and they were living in abject poverty. Many people thought we could do better by the elders. So we made an attempt to keep old people from living out of garbage cans and eating cat and dog food.
The majority of bankruptcies are caused by illnesses. I suppose you know you are exempt from that , but most of us are not. You can get crippled in a car accident. In a minute, everything changes.
Only in a Libertarian dream world will it work out for all people.
Some countries honor their oldsters. Many in America think once they are old enough to retire they have no value.
Yeah, or freezing to death.
Would it be a good idea for people to work progressively less as they age?
Should we move to a progressive pension age
From 60 you would work four days a week.
From 65 three days a week
From 67 two days a week
From 70 one day a week
And from 72 you retire.
Progressively LESS. Are you joking? Progressively LESS?
That is mighty fancy* “word spin”*
progressively less = REgressive
Anyhoo, Where are the jobs for all these old gray haired feeble limping hard-of-hearing people with cataracts?
Who is going to hire the tens of millions of people who are 60, 65, 67, 70, and 72 years old.
(I know some younger people who are having a hard time finding a job)
Please tell us where all these jobs are, and be specific: give us real names and actual locations of companies ready, willing, and able to hire tens of millions of all these old old fart elderly senior grandpa and grandpa geezers.
…and how much will it cost the companies to buy group employee health insurance for all these 70 year old new hires?
Your idea sounds as REgressive as any regressive idea can be
Definition of Regressive: Relapse to a less perfect state.
Taking away a 70 year old’s Social Security pension and then making him go out and try to find somebody who will give him a job is: REgressive.
Oh. I see.
So your assertion is that Social Security is going to people who would otherwise be destitute? Do I understand that correctly?
Are they collecting welfare, too? I’m a little confused. Perhaps you could help me out.
Let me help you here.
I’ve been pretty much “bankrupt” all my life, by choice. Worked well when I had to and played when I could. In spite of my choosing to paid under the table whenever I could, I payed in enough to retire in 2003 at 62 on $500/mon. With COLA, capped rent and a generous Medicare/Caid, I’m stylin’ now on $700/mo.
Without it? Destitution sounds about right.
So you want means-tested social security, right? Whereas your previous post implied you wanted to scrap social security altogether. Help me out here.
I want it scrapped altogether, since it is a Ponzi scheme. There are no assets. If I was allowed to keep my own FICA contributions, I could purchase actual assets that could provide me with a return and a comfortable retirement.
But when I posited that as a solution, the response was that old people would starve.
So that must mean that SS is supporting the destitute, correct?
Are you implying that SS doesn’t lift the elderly out of poverty? It makes up 40%ish of retirement funds, and for a large number of people is their majority source of income. W/o it the rates of elderly poverty would be far far higher.
Companies are not going to match 100% any pension plan unless the government is forcing them to except in a small minority of jobs (unlike SS which applies to all companies). That is what is great about social security, it forces companies to treat workers well. You pay 6.2% and the company pays 6.2%. There is no ‘we will match 50% of your funds up to 6%, until we decide not to. I hope the market doesn’t collapse 5 years before your retirement’ 401k bullshit. You get a sustainable, reliable pension and your employer is forced to contribute.
It may not mesh in libertarian utopia, but neither did the civil rights act of 1964. In the real world social security is a great achievement, and there is a reason virtually every wealthy nation has a program like it.
You can keep saying that, but there’s no way to prove or disprove your assertion.
Let’s say you retired in 2007, with a nicely balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. Within a year, your stocks would have dropped by as much as 50% and your bonds would be paying about 1% in interest.
You wouldn’t have the chance to sit back and let your portfolio recover, because you’d already be drawing it down to cover your retirement. On the other hand, you might retire next week, and the market might go on a 20-year, no-recession binge. Hooray for you. Meanwhile, the people who retired three years earlier are on a downward slide.
43% of those ages 75 and above earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level- that includes 10% of the population age 65-74 and 17% of those aged 75+ whose total income is below the poverty level. (For ages 65+, the federal poverty level is $10,326 for individuals and $13,030 for couples).
The average SS benefit for retired workers is $1,170.80 per month or $14,049.60 per year. That’s enough to push a household at the poverty level to 200% of the poverty level.
So, the answer to your question is yes. Social Security supports a large number of people who would otherwise be living in poverty.
In many cases, yes, I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that state-funded pension schemes are all that’s between outright destitution for many OAPs, as others have shown.
Yes, I suppose you could. Let’s suppose you used the funds you saved to pay into a private pension. What happens if it goes bust? Destitution?