[Outcast_Searcher]

You can't institute "Medicare for all" without having people coming into the Medicare system start to pay Medicare taxes.

Yup. I really like the idea of letting people 55 and over into Medicare, which some politicians have endorsed. (Good place to start. If it works there, then further expansion could be considered).

HOWEVER, as someone who could benefit from that, I would want to be charged the FULL cost differential, so as not to screw up Medicare for people 65 and over. (The reason we have so much debt is to many voters AND politicians want something for nothing, IMO).

Now, then an interesting question would arise. Would the additional cost be more or less than the nearly $1000 I now pay for my private, grandfathered policy? I'd need to know what the figures are likely to be, before deciding what to do.

But all the lefties I hear talking about it want it to be "free" or some token cost, and of course, NOT A WORD about how it would be paid for.

[Cog]

People forget that Medicare isn't exactly free to the recepient. You are charged for Part B supplemental and have to purchase Part D drug policies yourself. Those go up in price every year. Unless you want to be out of pocket for what basic Medicare doesn't cover. My older sister and her husband are out about $600/month for full coverage.

Oh and Medicare doesn't cover dental. You will be out of pocket or have to purchase a policy for that too.

[Newfie]

I’ve advocated reducing the retirement age to 55. Here’s my reasoning.

There are only so many jobs in the marketplace, after that we have come up with fake jobs that don’t contribute to the economy such as TSA. We are always worried about under employment, having folks retire at 55 would free up jobs for younger folks. Industry does this having early retirement programs.

I don’t think the economy can tell the difference between a person with a TSA job and someone who is retired. It’s just shuffling money around.

But there is a difference between a guaranteed annual income and early retirement. With retirement one has the sense that they have done their duty, have contributed to the economy, and are now being recognized for those efforts. So they can exit the work force with dignity.

Also, by 55 a significant portion of the workforce is already on some form of “assistance”, usually disability of some type. It’s been a long while since I looked it up but it’s somewhere around 30%. So that portion of the population is already been “retired” from the rat race.

On the other side, it would make room for young folks to move into the workforce, into better paying jobs earlier. Yes you loose some experience but you also pick up some fresh ideas and energy.

[Cog]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

[vtsnowedin]

The young employees need the experience of working for and alongside the older workers for those ten years before they get the job thrust on them solo. There are always a long list of things they you need to know that they couldn't teach them in school and don't show up in a google search.

[Cog]

Along with what VT just posted, there are contracts with a lot of profits built into them. There are also huge downside liability risks if you screw them up. A seasoned hand can make sure you maximize profits and minimize downside risks. With an experienced professional you can give the simple guidance. Here was the guidance given to me as a project manager: "Make the company money and don't F this up." Can't do that with an inexperienced person

[Plantagenet]

... reducing the retirement age to 55.

The new Congress is far more likely to "fix" social security by raising the retirement age.

The Congress has already raised the retirement age once, and raised taxes, and eliminated various strategies that let people boost their social security checks. But it still isn't enough to make the program whole. Without new money (or new cuts) SS benefit checks will have to be cut drastically about a decade out.

Another SS fix will have to be done in the next 10 years or so. This next Congress would be a good time for that to happen, because you have to have "bi-partisan" buy in on the cuts so no one party gets blamed, and with the Ds controlling the house and Trump in the White House the stage is set for bi-partisan cuts to SS. They'll call it reform, but it will be cuts and tax increases.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

The same things as kids without jobs. Doesn’t fix a problem, just moves it.

But then again, fewer people would mean higher employment.

[Outcast_Searcher]

People forget that Medicare isn't exactly free to the recepient. You are charged for Part B supplemental and have to purchase Part D drug policies yourself. Those go up in price every year. Unless you want to be out of pocket for what basic Medicare doesn't cover. My older sister and her husband are out about $600/month for full coverage.

Oh and Medicare doesn't cover dental. You will be out of pocket or have to purchase a policy for that too.

Yes, if you know old people, you'll generally know that the idea that Medicare would be free is a big lie. But for a couple age 65 or older, getting quality medical care for $600ish a month is still a HUGE discount vs. the market.

At 59 (and with a history of good health, re medical expenses), my expensive private policy has a large deductible, doesn't cover stuff Medicare does, has MUCH large co-pays than Medicare for many things, etc.

And dental is very expensive. So, since I take care of my teeth, I don't have dental insurance, since it (considering what it covers) wouldn't be worth it, given the premiums.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

That's an excellent point. It's hard enough to get people to save "enough" to retire securely at 65. To also fill in an extra 10 years WITHOUT any SS income just isn't going to happen in the US for the vast majority of people -- not without some significant cultural/educational changes. And those take time to become effective, where saving is concerned.

[vtsnowedin]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

That's an excellent point. It's hard enough to get people to save "enough" to retire securely at 65. To also fill in an extra 10 years WITHOUT any SS income just isn't going to happen in the US for the vast majority of people -- not without some significant cultural/educational changes. And those take time to become effective, where saving is concerned.

I don't think they will ever get to zero SS checks. They might get down to just dividing up what is coming in from those employed between the recipients and that might be two thirds of present benefits. They also might get around to taxing the output of AI robots that have replaced human workers.

[Newfie]

Taxing AI robots! What a terriffic idea.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

That's an excellent point. It's hard enough to get people to save "enough" to retire securely at 65. To also fill in an extra 10 years WITHOUT any SS income just isn't going to happen in the US for the vast majority of people -- not without some significant cultural/educational changes. And those take time to become effective, where saving is concerned.

I don't think they will ever get to zero SS checks. They might get down to just dividing up what is coming in from those employed between the recipients and that might be two thirds of present benefits. They also might get around to taxing the output of AI robots that have replaced human workers.

Sorry I was unclear. I never said or implied anything about zero SS checks. I'm saying that from age 55 to age 65 (for simplicity -- actually let's say to SS retirement age, or a minimum of age 62 for reduced benefits) -- for an early retiree, there IS a significant gap where they get no SS, since they're too young. Those X years are more expensive for the retiree with no SS income, in addition to being extra retirement years to plan for.

That's all I'm saying.

...

It seems to induce lots of anger whenever I say it, but I think some kind of robot tax is eminently sensible, and one of the best ways to deal with automation's financial impact on peoples' incomes as the transition (whether long or short) occurs. So you'll find me in full agreement on the idea of a robot tax. (Now the specifics on how such a tax should be implemented -- I'm sure that could be a horrendous political hotbed. But that doesn't make it an invalid or unfair idea, as long as the income tax pays for most of the budget. Income produced by robots is still income.)

[vtsnowedin]

Since most people do not have pensions anymore and must rely upon 401k or IRA plans to retire. What are they supposed to live on if they retire early? Giving up on 10 years of tax free growth in retirement funds is costly

That's an excellent point. It's hard enough to get people to save "enough" to retire securely at 65. To also fill in an extra 10 years WITHOUT any SS income just isn't going to happen in the US for the vast majority of people -- not without some significant cultural/educational changes. And those take time to become effective, where saving is concerned.

I don't think they will ever get to zero SS checks. They might get down to just dividing up what is coming in from those employed between the recipients and that might be two thirds of present benefits. They also might get around to taxing the output of AI robots that have replaced human workers.

Sorry I was unclear. I never said or implied anything about zero SS checks. I'm saying that from age 55 to age 65 (for simplicity -- actually let's say to SS retirement age, or a minimum of age 62 for reduced benefits) -- for an early retiree, there IS a significant gap where they get no SS, since they're too young. Those X years are more expensive for the retiree with no SS income, in addition to being extra retirement years to plan for.

That's all I'm saying.

...

Perhaps I should clarify my personal point of view. I worked for state government for a little over thirty years between 1975 and 2006 paying in to a fixed benefit retirement plan. I took quite a hit of penalties for not being sixty years old but because of creditable overtime and leave balances I still came out with fifty percent of my meager base pay. Then of course they changed the thirty year old rules on health care expenses and started whittling away at my retirement checks.
But never mind that, I worked at least part time every year sense I "retired" and some years made more money part time then I ever did full time.
When I reached age sixty two in 2017 I started drawing SS at the reduced rate. (about 75% of what I would get if I had waited until full retirement age. ) But job prospects keep popping up and this year I came up against the earnings limit for SS which is $17044 this year and got whacked for what is in effect a fifty percent additional tax on your income over the limit.
It makes no sense as both I and my employer are paying in on every dollar I earn so why are they discouraging me from paying more into the fund?
So you see I worked from 51 to 62 without any SS check, just the state retirement.
Most of the companies had 401ks etc. for the time I worked for them but I wasn't with any one of them long enough for them to amount to anything.
I must say triple dipping until you get up to the SS limit is a fine thing for me and the fed and state tax departments.

[lpetrich]

After some commentators at Fox News spent some time discussing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's shoes, AOC tweeted

No, no es amor / Lo que tú sientes, se llama obsesión

She followed up with

(For our monolingual friends, just play Mariah Carey’s “Obsessed” here instead)

When someone joked that Fox News would need to hire a translator, she tweeted

Don’t worry, Fox News has made it clear that they are far superior to + more intelligent than me, who they’ve called a “little, simple person.” So I’m sure catching up to me in spoken languages shouldn’t be a problem for them.

One down. Just a few more to go! :D