Where did the idea of retiring at age 62 and living off the gov come from

[Street Rat]

Ok, you're not really living off the gov., you paid in to SS and yeah, I would want to retire as well and get my money back which was stolen, but before they passed Social Security, who got the impression that you should be able to retire, that we were "entitled" to retire and most likely bring in more than you paid in during your younger years. I'm sure I may be late to the party, but I'm pretty sure it's just another way of the government controlling the people. I have been thinking about this since our pastor mentioned it one day, and it's been bothering me a little ever since. It's the same way I'm starting to feel about paid holidays, just another form of gov control over the subjects.

 

[harley128]

Don't where the idea came from, but in my case it's kinda looking like a bad idea right now!

 

[Blinocac200sx]

Well the idea was originally that it was for widows, and the age they gave it to ya at was normally the age at which your husband would die. Since women tended to stay at home at a higher rate back then, these widows tended not to have jobs. But ultimately the progressives pushed the idea to everybody, so they could get grandma and grandpa hooked on the government teet, and then work their socialist mitts on down to the kids and grandkids.

 

[berettaman]

Ponzi went to prison,FDR perfected the scheam by legitimizing it.Calling it social security with all the protections/amunity of the government.

 

[donner]

Yeah and weekends, 40 hour work weeks and child labor laws are just another way 'the man' sticks it to us!

 

[Billybob]

Ok, you're not really living off the gov., you paid in to SS and yeah, I would want to retire as well and get my money back which was stolen, but before they passed Social Security, who got the impression that you should be able to retire, that we were "entitled" to retire and most likely bring in more than you paid in during your younger years. I'm sure I may be late to the party, but I'm pretty sure it's just another way of the government controlling the people. I have been thinking about this since our pastor mentioned it one day, and it's been bothering me a little ever since. It's the same way I'm starting to feel about paid holidays, just another form of gov control over the subjects.

It's my understanding people used to work until they couldn't work anymore. It's also my understanding that family took care of their own more in the past so most of the elderly who couldn't work were cared for/supported by family and not alone as so many are now.

 

[mugsy]

Yeah and weekends, 40 hour work weeks and child labor laws are just another way 'the man' sticks it to us!

Cute Donner - but an all to typical non-response to a serious question.

How was it computed that if the entire population kept retiring, i.e. ceasing to produce income and basically expecting it to be provided by government, at 62 that such was a sustainable system? I'll tell you how - lifespans were assumed to be shorter which reduces total payout requirement AND more importantly there was an assumption that birth rates would be relatively constant thus ensuring that the retiree population would remain relatively small compared to the productive population. However as we went from a pyramid to something more like a cylinder the burden of old people retiring early and living longer has become too great so...

Cut benefits or
Maintain benefits but restrict the eligible population or
start benefits later (which is already happening)

 

[Billybob]

Yeah lets cut benefits to the old who can't help being old but keep paying benefits for people having kids who can't afford them.

 

[mugsy]

Yeah lets cut benefits to the old who can't help being old but keep paying benefits for people having kids who can't afford them.

Yeah, you're right that is the only alternative - there is nothing else possible. Did it hurt punching that straw-man?

There are many alternatives with better results - for example, why pay benefits to those who already have substantial retirement incomes?
Why not limit payouts to those who are truly needy not merely elderly (which isn't the same as needy)?
Why not accept the reality that since most people live longer, healthier lives (increasingly after eschewing raising children who would have supported them in their later years either directly or indirectly) that they must work a few more years before expecting any government financial aid?

You may have better ideas than those I listed but the Ostrich plan isn't the one I want in place when I hit 70.

 

[Cedar Creek]

WTF!!! I am 62, draw SS + 2 other retirements and interest from investments. Am I an enemy of the people for working hard and playing by the rules? And what kind of preacher would even be talking about **** like that?



Cedar Creek