how the feds can fix everything

how the feds can fix everything

A lot of people like me seem to be getting these letters from the feds that
say they can retire at 62 and get 1600 dollars per month for like or 65 and
get 2000 dollars per month for life.

That is an awful lot of debt for the feds to take on because everybody lives
to 88 or longer.

The dollars amounts per month do not seem unreasonable in terms of what
anything costs these day but the ages are way entirely to optimistic.

Before these baby boomers start retiring in large number and emptying the
public trough the feds should act instantly to raise the ages to 67 for
partial benefits and 72 for full benefits.

Then the feds can do more useful things with the money that has been
earmarked for this giveaway than to just give it away to people who should
be working.

That is a very elegant solution for the problem of the increasing national
debt and would not cost anything to implement.

Re: how the feds can fix everything

On Jun 26, 4:26 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox,net > wrote:
> A lot of people like me seem to be getting these letters from the feds that
> say they can retire at 62 and get 1600 dollars per month for like or 65 and
> get 2000 dollars per month for life.
>
> That is an awful lot of debt for the feds to take on because everybody lives
> to 88 or longer.
>
> The dollars amounts per month do not seem unreasonable in terms of what
> anything costs these day but the ages are way entirely to optimistic.
>
> Before these baby boomers start retiring in large number and emptying the
> public trough the feds should act instantly to raise the ages to 67 for
> partial benefits and 72 for full benefits.
>
> Then the feds can do more useful things with the money that has been
> earmarked for this giveaway than to just give it away to people who should
> be working.
>
> That is a very elegant solution for the problem of the increasing national
> debt and would not cost anything to implement.

RB, unless you work under the table, you have been paying into that
program (Social Security) FOR years (pretty big chunk of bucks from my
paycheck, trust me!) So, it is NOT a giveaway as many in the GOP
would have you believe. And contrary to what alarmists would have you
believe, that money, is (or used to be at least!) in a whole separate
trust fund from the general funds that "run" this country.
Sandy, THT

Re: how the feds can fix everything

On Jun 26, 6:09 am, "Sandy, THT" <sandrabrown ...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 4:26 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A lot of people like me seem to be getting these letters from the feds that
> > say they can retire at 62 and get 1600 dollars per month for like or 65 and
> > get 2000 dollars per month for life.
>
> > That is an awful lot of debt for the feds to take on because everybody lives
> > to 88 or longer.
>
> > The dollars amounts per month do not seem unreasonable in terms of what
> > anything costs these day but the ages are way entirely to optimistic.
>
> > Before these baby boomers start retiring in large number and emptying the
> > public trough the feds should act instantly to raise the ages to 67 for
> > partial benefits and 72 for full benefits.
>
> > Then the feds can do more useful things with the money that has been
> > earmarked for this giveaway than to just give it away to people who should
> > be working.
>
> > That is a very elegant solution for the problem of the increasing national
> > debt and would not cost anything to implement.
>
> RB, unless you work under the table, you have been paying into that
> program (Social Security) FOR years (pretty big chunk of bucks from my
> paycheck, trust me!)  So, it is NOT a giveaway as many in the GOP
> would have you believe.  And contrary to what alarmists would have you
> believe, that money, is (or used to be at least!) in a whole separate
> trust fund from the general funds that "run" this country.
> Sandy, THT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sandy, I hate to tell you this, but that money is only in a separate
trust on paper; the feds have been raiding that trust for years to pay
for other things.

And, RB, for your information, many people who want to retire at 62 or
65 and collect Social Security, as they are entitled to, have already
paid into it for 40 years or so. Of course, there are many others who
collect it who don't need it - including some of my former employers,
who already take home a couple hundred thousand a year in retirement
benefits from private plans, and STILL collect Social Security. I
think that is a travesty, regardless of how long they've been
earning. Don't get me started.... ;-)

N.

Re: how the feds can fix everything


"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:8920cee2-6290-4c70-a4a3-6892f499ee06@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
On Jun 26, 6:09 am, "Sandy, THT" <sandrabrown ...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 4:26 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A lot of people like me seem to be getting these letters from the feds
> > that
> > say they can retire at 62 and get 1600 dollars per month for like or 65
> > and
> > get 2000 dollars per month for life.
>
> > That is an awful lot of debt for the feds to take on because everybody
> > lives
> > to 88 or longer.
>
> > The dollars amounts per month do not seem unreasonable in terms of what
> > anything costs these day but the ages are way entirely to optimistic.
>
> > Before these baby boomers start retiring in large number and emptying
> > the
> > public trough the feds should act instantly to raise the ages to 67 for
> > partial benefits and 72 for full benefits.
>
> > Then the feds can do more useful things with the money that has been
> > earmarked for this giveaway than to just give it away to people who
> > should
> > be working.
>
> > That is a very elegant solution for the problem of the increasing
> > national
> > debt and would not cost anything to implement.
>
> RB, unless you work under the table, you have been paying into that
> program (Social Security) FOR years (pretty big chunk of bucks from my
> paycheck, trust me!) So, it is NOT a giveaway as many in the GOP
> would have you believe. And contrary to what alarmists would have you
> believe, that money, is (or used to be at least!) in a whole separate
> trust fund from the general funds that "run" this country.
> Sandy, THT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sandy, I hate to tell you this, but that money is only in a separate
trust on paper; the feds have been raiding that trust for years to pay
for other things.

And, RB, for your information, many people who want to retire at 62 or
65 and collect Social Security, as they are entitled to, have already
paid into it for 40 years or so. Of course, there are many others who
collect it who don't need it - including some of my former employers,
who already take home a couple hundred thousand a year in retirement
benefits from private plans, and STILL collect Social Security. I
think that is a travesty, regardless of how long they've been
earning. Don't get me started.... ;-)

N.

I agree with everything you said there. But retirees can feel just as
entitled at 67 as 62 and have five more years to build their retirement nest
egg because the cost of everything seems to be going up in the long term and
people are living longer all of the time.

It would save the feds a huge fortune on the SS and Medicare entitlement
programs.

There are just to many Baby Boomers and they are living too long for the
costly entitlement programs to start at the tender age of 62. People can
still retire at 62 if that is their goal, they just cannot dip into the SS
and Medicare trough until they are at least 67.

Re: how the feds can fix everything


"RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox,net > wrote in message
news:1hO8k.5699$_T7.3321@newsfe08.phx...
>
>
> I agree with everything you said there. But retirees can feel just as
> entitled at 67 as 62 and have five more years to build their retirement
> nest egg because the cost of everything seems to be going up in the long
> term and people are living longer all of the time.

The FEDS don't really care if, or when you retire. They've already drafted
their 'pay_back' schedules - and that is why at 62, it's less monthly than
at 65.
>
> It would save the feds a huge fortune on the SS and Medicare entitlement
> programs.

No. It may afford (pardon the term) the FEDS to pocket more of what they
pilfered during the 40 years or so that any citizen paid into it (security
pension) - but it's not "saving" the FEDS anything. Yes ..... medicare costs
may be reduced (I doubt you're familar with some demographic stats that are
out there - but the earlier you retire, the longer you live. Unfortunately,
for those retiring at 65, the longevity numbers are NOT in their favour
..... and the FEDS know that).
>
> There are just to many Baby Boomers and they are living too long for the
> costly entitlement programs to start at the tender age of 62. People can
> still retire at 62 if that is their goal, they just cannot dip into the SS
> and Medicare trough until they are at least 67.

These numbers, tables, pension top ups etc. have been a long time in the
making. If the FEDS identified a away to keep more of it ... believe me,
they have implemented it. Governments do not easily part ways with their
coffers (Americam military excepted).

>

Re: how the feds can fix everything

> may be reduced (I doubt you're familar with some demographic stats that are
> out there - but the earlier you retire, the longer you live. Unfortunately,

Are you sure about this? I happen to know one group - retired IBEW
members in a large metro area - which specific-to-the-group statistics
say that the majority of retirees die within 4 months of retirement.
Seems odd, doesn't it?

OTOH, the feds have collected billions from people who will never
collect a dime of it - because they've already died. But I'm sure the
feds' actuaries have it all figured out already.

According to an article at this week, I'm in the "lucky few"
generation - between the "greatest" (WWII) and the Boomers. I'm past
the age of voluntarily collecting SS benefits and am working full
time, so we'll see how lucky I turn out to be. ;-) I will say that I
wouldn't trade my teen-age years in the 50s for anything. It was such
a great time to be growing up.

N.

Re: how the feds can fix everything





Nancy,



Here's the Boeing Study numbers:



Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
retirees of Boeing Aerospace.

Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
Age at
Retirement Average Age
At Death
49.9 86.0
51.2 85.3
52.5 84.6
53.8 83.9
55.1 83.2
56.4 82.5
57.2 81.4
58.3 80.0
59.2 78.5
60.1 76.8
61.0 74.5
62.1 71.8
63.1 69.3
64.1 67.9
65.2 66.8

Re: how the feds can fix everything

On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> Here's the Boeing Study numbers:
>
> Dr. Ephrem  (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
> following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
> retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
> retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
>
> Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
>   Age at
>       Retirement Average Age
>       At Death
>       49.9 86.0
>       51.2 85.3
>       52.5 84.6
>       53.8 83.9
>       55.1 83.2
>       56.4 82.5
>       57.2 81.4
>       58.3 80.0
>       59.2 78.5
>       60.1 76.8
>       61.0 74.5
>       62.1 71.8
>       63.1 69.3
>       64.1 67.9
>       65.2 66.8

Re: how the feds can fix everything

On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:


Wow those are some pretty dramatic numbers. I'm retired from theUSAF
and plan to take early retirement from the USPS next Nov 2009 after I
reach the minimum retirement age (56) I'll take a 35 % penalty for
early retirement but It will be worth being able to travel to VA and
CA to see the grandkids whenever we want or for special events in
their lives. I wonder how much the life expectancy after work drops
because of no hobbies or interests outside of work?


Mark Solie

Re: how the feds can fix everything

On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> Here's the Boeing Study numbers:
>
> Dr. Ephrem  (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
> following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
> retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
> retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
>
> Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
>   Age at
>       Retirement Average Age
>       At Death
>       49.9 86.0
>       51.2 85.3
>       52.5 84.6
>       53.8 83.9
>       55.1 83.2
>       56.4 82.5
>       57.2 81.4
>       58.3 80.0
>       59.2 78.5
>       60.1 76.8
>       61.0 74.5
>       62.1 71.8
>       63.1 69.3
>       64.1 67.9
>       65.2 66.8

Those are pretty astounding figures. Maybe it has something to do
with working at Boeing. ;-) I would think that there might be a
correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
for other things in their lives.

N.

Re: how the feds can fix everything


"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:d263fb73-a2c7-4b86-8004-b3145c4417c3@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> Here's the Boeing Study numbers:
>
> Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
> following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
> retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
> retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
>
> Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
> Age at
> Retirement Average Age
> At Death
> 49.9 86.0
> 51.2 85.3
> 52.5 84.6
> 53.8 83.9
> 55.1 83.2
> 56.4 82.5
> 57.2 81.4
> 58.3 80.0
> 59.2 78.5
> 60.1 76.8
> 61.0 74.5
> 62.1 71.8
> 63.1 69.3
> 64.1 67.9
> 65.2 66.8

Those are pretty astounding figures. Maybe it has something to do
with working at Boeing. ;-) I would think that there might be a
correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
for other things in their lives.

N.

===========================================

I think it has a lot to do with job stress and the toll it takes over a long
period. Job stress is more than just a mental issue.

Re: how the feds can fix everything

"armpit" <armarmpitpit@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:B--dnXnwgtURm_jVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@giganews,com ...
>
> "Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:d263fb73-a2c7-4b86-8004-b3145c4417c3@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Nancy,
>>
>> Here's the Boeing Study numbers:
>>
>> Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
>> following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
>> retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
>> retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
>>
>> Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
>> Age at
>> Retirement Average Age
>> At Death

>> 53.8 83.9
>> 55.1 83.2

> I would think that there might be a
> correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
> older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
> and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
> for other things in their lives.
>
> N.
>
> ===========================================
>
> I think it has a lot to do with job stress and the toll it takes over a
> long period. Job stress is more than just a mental issue.

...and it's cumulative and accelerates post 55 or so?

--
Tom in Bristol...trimmed the list to bracket when I pulled the pin...11
years ago, so - 17 or 18 years left to go!




----== Posted via Pronews,com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http :// www .pronews,com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Re: how the feds can fix everything

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:10 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Nancy,
>>
>> Here's the Boeing Study numbers:
>>
>> Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the
>> following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at
>> retirement. The study was based on the number of pension checks sent to
>> retirees of Boeing Aerospace.
>>
>> Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement
>> Age at
>> Retirement Average Age
>> At Death
>> 49.9 86.0
>> 51.2 85.3
>> 52.5 84.6
>> 53.8 83.9
>> 55.1 83.2
>> 56.4 82.5
>> 57.2 81.4
>> 58.3 80.0
>> 59.2 78.5
>> 60.1 76.8
>> 61.0 74.5
>> 62.1 71.8
>> 63.1 69.3
>> 64.1 67.9
>> 65.2 66.8
>
> Those are pretty astounding figures. Maybe it has something to do
> with working at Boeing. ;-) I would think that there might be a
> correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
> older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
> and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
> for other things in their lives.
>
> N.

That may be true. There's a lot more to do when a retiree is younger.

But I suspect that there may also be a longevity contribution related to
getting rid of the daily stress of working. Even the commute to/from
the job may take its toll. Its one thing to drive (or walk) to the golf
course or the fishing stream, another to drive to the job.

From a personal perspective, my blood pressure has dropped a lot and I
have a lot more opportunity to exercise on a daily basis since I
retired. I make my own schedule and have pretty much gotten rid of all
the stress I had during my working years. I think that has to count for
something.

Peaceful Bill (retired at 57)

Re: how the feds can fix everything


"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:d263fb73-a2c7-4b86-8004-b3145c4417c3@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...

Those are pretty astounding figures. Maybe it has something to do
with working at Boeing. ;-)

Nope .............. there have been several studies asking the same
question, drawing same conclusions ..... SINCE the Boeing study.

I would think that there might be a
correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
for other things in their lives.

Whatever the rationale/reason for the correlation ................ i.e.
physio or psycho - logical, ............... the numbers are telling us
something

N.

Re: how the feds can fix everything


"Rod's work news" <rod.gramlich@ualberta.ca> wrote in message
news:g431h0$iji$1@tabloid.srv.ualberta.ca...
>
> "Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:d263fb73-a2c7-4b86-8004-b3145c4417c3@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
>
> Those are pretty astounding figures. Maybe it has something to do
> with working at Boeing. ;-)
>
> Nope .............. there have been several studies asking the same
> question, drawing same conclusions ..... SINCE the Boeing study.
>
> I would think that there might be a
> correlation between the possibility that the people who retire at an
> older age don't have anything to look forward to in their retirement,
> and the ones who retire younger, do so because they have some passion
> for other things in their lives.
>
> Whatever the rationale/reason for the correlation ................ i.e.
> physio or psycho - logical, ............... the numbers are telling us
> something
>
> N.
>

It tells me something that has nothing to do with psychobabble. It tells me
that if a worker knows that they have COPD or diabetes or anything else
seriously wrong with them they may as well work as long as they can drag
themselves to work rather than risk going belly up copaying for their own
medical care. In fewer words, sick people cannot afford to retire. And if
a person spent 30 years consuming booze and ciggie butts and made themselves
sick over it they may not be able to retire on the nest egg side. It is
sort of a Darwin thing.