Repubs want to raise retirement age to “5 minutes before death”; democrats want to steal our 401Ks. Does it get any better than this?
[center]
[/center]
[i][b]Photo above[/b] – Jeff Bezos and other gazillionaires are funding startups to extend the human lifespan to 100. But does anyone want hundred-year-old guys running Amazon, Tesla, and in the White House?[/i]
Okay first off – nobody actually knows how high republicans want to raise the retirement age. At least, if anyone does, they're not saying. But they do claim that – whatever the new retirement age turns out to be – it's going to save the government $1.5 trillion. But that's over 10 years. And that couldn't possibly be just straight lining $150 billion each year. It'll start way lower, and then – if there are no more medical advances extending the human lifespan – this plan might possibly start make sense at the end. See link at bottom.
Related news - several billionaires are funding startups to extend the human lifespan to 100. At least for themselves. If the whole world lives to age 100, and needs 10 pills a day, exoskeletons just to walk, and exotic radiation treatments, it's going to cost about $1.5 trillion a minute to deliver all that.
I don't really care if Bill Gates wants to live to 100. If he can pay for it, then sure. Just don't include it in Medicare Part A, paid for by the existing programs. That will bankrupt both Medicare AND Social Security.
So the republican proposal – to save $1.5 trillion, later, maybe - is just an election year campaign stunt. At least until someone can also tell us what age we have to keep working til. THEN the screaming and yelling can start. Will men get to retire 3 years earlier than women? They die 3 years earlier. There are a lot of interesting questions which could derail this proposal without a bill ever coming to a vote.
Today's republican press release is every bit as unserious as the Democrat proposal (earlier this week) to make 401K's illegal, and use our retirement accounts to "rescue" social security.
So at last we have a choice! Work until death or, have all our savings confiscated by the government. Why can't it be both at the same time, though? Let's not rule anything out, at this stage.
At the risk of telling congress (and the presidential candidates) what they already know, let me remind everyone of the following:
- Barring another pandemic, American lifespans will keep increasing.
- Longer lifespans mean higher Medicare and Social Security expenses.
- Requiring old fogies to stay on the job means that Gen X, Y and Z people won't get promotions. They might have keep living in their parent's basements. No wonder young people hate the GOP.
- If we DO have another pandemic, then Medicare and other health costs will go over the moon again. During covid 19 we had to spend Trillions just to prevent riots. Oh wait, my bad . . . we did have those, on January 6th.
- I'm personally uncomfortable with a ruling class that is nearly 2 decades past retirement. They already need extraordinary medical care. This strikes me as some sort of conflict of interest, when debating retirement policy.
I might sign up for a higher retirement age if someone puts an actual number on the table. I might also agree to pay more in health insurance premiums to cover for my medical expenses as the lifespans increase. I might even allow robots to care for me in a hospice as I lay dying. But none of this is going to come cheap. And both parties are flipping us the bird, and insulting our intelligence, about the money involved.
I'm just saying . . .
[b][u]GOP Faces Backlash for Proposal to Raise Social Security Retirement Age Amid Fiscal Concerns (msn.com)[/u][/b]
What no one talks about is how much money the government SAVED in not paying further Social Security benefits to all of the elderly who died of Covid.
@SusanInFlorida [quote]I'm personally uncomfortable with a ruling class that is nearly 2 decades past retirement. They already need extraordinary medical care. This strikes me as some sort of conflict of interest, when debating retirement policy.[/quote]
I seriously doubt the age of our political leaders has much to do with making choice about Social Security or Medicare.
There are still plenty of old staunch conservatives in Congress, just as there are many old staunch Democrats. And they're on the opposite side of Social Security and Medicare issues.
You bring up some valid questions.
One thing you left out is raising the minimum wage. Helping workers make a living wage reduces their dependence on government assistance and increases the amount of money they would contribute to the Social Security and Medicare funds.
Another is getting working undocumented immigrants a legal status helps insure they are paying taxes, while at the same time likely increases their wages.
It's not just whether Americans will live longer. It's about the quality of life as they live longer. Lower what Medicare pays for prescription drugs not only would help Medicare, it would help seniors afford the medication that might stop them from ending up in the emergency room. Helping insure that people get proper medical care for conditions before they spiral brings down overall costs.
If you disagree with some aspect of what she said, why not state which ones and why instead of dismissing everything out of hand? Oh, I know why. THAT would take using your brain instead of making a dismissive remark.
@beckyromero I agree but in all fairness, our brains are getting very tired. . Like you, I’ve spent my entire life fighting for what’s fair in an unfair world. It’s mostly on you now with a few unsolicited comments like this coming your way!
Based on the amount of progress and wealth the retirement should be being lowered along with the hours making fulltime employment. But we don't run things on what it is right, fair, equitable, and moral. We run on wage slavery to feed the investors.
Want to generate $1.5 trilllion? Tax billionaires fairly. Tax hedge funders. Tax the useless unemployed 5% at the top.
