Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Where did the idea of retiring at age 62 and living off the gov come from
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shoot Summ" data-source="post: 2053076" data-attributes="member: 1055"><p>why pay benefits to those who already have substantial retirement incomes?</p><p>Because they paid more than their fair share into the program, why is it fair to penalize them for planning ahead?</p><p></p><p>Why not limit payouts to those who are truly needy not merely elderly (which isn't the same as needy)?</p><p>Then why does everyone have to pay into the program?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Most are working longer when possible, typically the workplace has been less friendly to "older" workers. I(and my employers) have been paying into this scheme for 35+ years, had those contributions been managed well there would be plenty for me to retire after 50 years of participation. Instead I make sacrifices to take care of it without the payout that I am due, sounds like I should be penalized for planning to take care of myself...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shoot Summ, post: 2053076, member: 1055"] why pay benefits to those who already have substantial retirement incomes? Because they paid more than their fair share into the program, why is it fair to penalize them for planning ahead? Why not limit payouts to those who are truly needy not merely elderly (which isn't the same as needy)? Then why does everyone have to pay into the program? 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? Most are working longer when possible, typically the workplace has been less friendly to "older" workers. I(and my employers) have been paying into this scheme for 35+ years, had those contributions been managed well there would be plenty for me to retire after 50 years of participation. Instead I make sacrifices to take care of it without the payout that I am due, sounds like I should be penalized for planning to take care of myself... [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Where did the idea of retiring at age 62 and living off the gov come from
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
