Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie should have taken my advise and pushed 50yr age for SocSec (Original Post) CK_John Apr 2016 OP
We should have both! Silver_Witch Apr 2016 #1
Well the actuary came out and said last year, according to the number of jobs in the U.S. ViseGrip Apr 2016 #2
How do we pay for this fantasy? taught_me_patience Apr 2016 #3
Lots of Billionaire MOney Out there liberalmike27 Apr 2016 #5
Tax that other guy nt firebrand80 Apr 2016 #6
That would really drain the trust fund KingFlorez Apr 2016 #4
It wouldn't force people to retire at that age TexasBushwhacker Apr 2016 #8
Personally liberalmike27 Apr 2016 #7
 

Silver_Witch

(1,820 posts)
1. We should have both!
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:18 AM
Apr 2016

Then both the young and the old are helped and mostly Americans caas a who!eis helped.

 

ViseGrip

(3,133 posts)
2. Well the actuary came out and said last year, according to the number of jobs in the U.S.
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:21 AM
Apr 2016

retirement age should be 55.

But there are no jobs for the 55 yr olds. There are no jobs for the 62,63,64,65,66, and now 67 year olds. They cant' raise the age, and they know this. They'd have to kill all trade plans fast. That won't happen. Bernie's plans are paid for with taxes.

Soc. Sec. is paid by those in the workforce. You want to take out 50-67 year olds? 17 years of working people? We can't raise it one year according to the number of jobs. 50? Not enough people working, making enough money to fund Soc Sec for all 50 and older.

liberalmike27

(2,479 posts)
5. Lots of Billionaire MOney Out there
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:05 PM
Apr 2016

IF someone can spend a billion dollars on an election, to skew government to their advantage, then we've found a great source of taxes.

Why do we worry so much about the percentage removed, instead of how much folks have AFTER taxes?

TexasBushwhacker

(20,205 posts)
8. It wouldn't force people to retire at that age
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:15 PM
Apr 2016

It would just allow them to if they wanted. It would still be financially advantageous to continue working.

Furthermore, if we at least had a public option for healthcare and allowed people to buy in to Medicare, many 50+ folks may want to wind down and work less than 40 hours per week. I'm 59 and have been allowed to continue Medicare because I was disabled for 2 years. That allows me to be self employed or to work for smaller companies that don't offer health insurance. It saves me hundreds per month.

liberalmike27

(2,479 posts)
7. Personally
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:09 PM
Apr 2016

I like the idea of a BMI (Basic Minimum Income). It pays every working age person an income suitable to live on, including rich people. Any money you earn, is on top of that.

This allows us to get rid of the Trust Fund problem, because in truth it all goes into the general fund anyway. The "Trust Fund" is just a number, around 2.5 Trillion now wasted to military interventions over the last 36 years. It gets rid of SS, and Welfare, Food Stamps, probably most of the prison population after a while, because much of crime is based on people having a financial problem of some sort. It allows folks to go back to school, perhaps in-between jobs to retrain. IF folks want to take a little vacation between jobs, or have time to reevaluate, or volunteer in-between jobs, they can.

The boost in "demand" would be tremendous.

It solves a lot of ills, if people can just tweak their minds away from the constant din of brainwashing against it.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie should have taken ...