Follow
Share

In Ireland the retirement age was 65 years, now it is 66. Any Person born after January 1 1955, the age of retirement increases to 67 years, and Who ever was born after January 1 1961 the age of retirement increases to 68 years. In Europe it is likewise. My Question is when I'm 66 or 67 years of age after working in very physical labour all My Life on building sites, Who would keep Me in employment ? Who would be willing to continue to pay My wages, when I'm all used up ? I am aware that Governments are attempting to ease the pressure on the pension fund, yet many of these Countries have massive unemployment also. Why not reduce the retirement to 60 years, and there would be plenty work for the young unemployed.

This discussion has been closed for comment. Start a New Discussion.

39 Comments

Newest
First Oldest
First
1 2
In the future we may be asked to save more and put off social security-type pension until later. This is because soon 1/3 of the population in the US will be living well beyond 80. We didn't used to expect people to live to 100, but they are now doing it frequently. If people can be kept employed, there will be enough money paid in to keep things going. I wouldn't be surprised that in the future the age will increase to 75 as the target age.

All this is well and good, but they do need to find a way to contain costs. It's hard to encourage people to save when the cost of housing, food, and medical care are so high. A modest house in my area is now going for a half million dollars! Ouch. The price of housing and medical care have far outpaced the average paycheck.

So we're told to save on one side and told to pay on the other. We can certainly get into a crunch.
(4)
Report
I personally did work till age 68 but that was my choice. Just because people are living longer does not mean they are able to continue to work into their 70s.
If the Social security fund had not been raided by a previous Govt benefits would be more likely to continue. the same thing has happened with many private pension funds leaving people who thought they had planned for the future destitute.
Making the rich pay more taxes is not going to solve the problems of the poor.
It is going to take a far bigger effort than that.
(4)
Report
JohnJoe, the national insurance schemes run by both the British and the Irish governments to fund pensions and sickness benefits are soon to be shown for what they are - the biggest pyramid selling scandals in history. So far.
(1)
Report
I think the age should stay at 65, as even though people are living longer, they wouldn't be able to do the same work either due to mobility issues or memory issues.

I am 70 years old and my boss is older... we laugh that between the two of us there is one good brain :P I know of one lady who is in her 80s so works part-time as a receptionist and she loves it, it gets her out of the house. But she isn't the norm.

Too many times I have heard of people being let go due to downsizing and they are in their very early 60's.... health care would be covered under COBRA but that is limited, then what? Buying insurance on he open market is expensive unless one had a poverty type income. Then its years before Medicare kicks in. I took social security at 66 as I wanted to make sure I got some of the money I had put into the system, because at my age I never knew what was around the corner health wise.
(3)
Report
P.S. I am against forced retirement. Back decades ago here in the States, I remember my Dad had to retire at 65 even though he could have easily worked into his 70's. Dad hated that. He did find part-time work to keep him busy.

Now there isn't any forced retirement, but ones job can easily be eliminated due to downsizing. It's usually the older work who has been loyal to a company for 30-40 years who is let go because their salary is high. Companies can bring in a college kid for much less with lesser benefits.
(5)
Report
I haven't had a night of restful sleep in over a year. I've lost weight. I have no doubt that the combination of my stressful job and caregiving for my mother will result in my ending up on disability or very likely dead due to a massive stroke or heart attack by the time I'm 50 (3 more years). So all the money I've put into the system will be used by people that have never worked a day in their lives as they play the system by hiring lawyers to help them falsify applications to receive unearned support.
(1)
Report
babygirlga, no one can obtain Social Security unless they had placed money into the system working at least ten years. Someone born prior to 1929 need less years to qualify.

The only way someone can "play" the system is through identify theft.
(1)
Report
Freqflyer I know several people on SSI Disability that have never worked more than a summer job as a teenager. So where are their funds coming from?
(0)
Report
SSI Disability is totally different as it is funded by general tax revenue, not Social Security taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of fraud in SSI.
(2)
Report
68 plus means I'll be working for 10 more years, and I am pretty sure I can't do my present job at that point.. too many youngsters with way more energy than I! Although at this rate I;ll be dead before then. And ff I know what you mean about one brain.. one of my BFF/coworkers and I joke that she can push my wheelchair and O2 tank, and I'll tell her where we are going and what to do!
(4)
Report
I hope that I live to see a retirement. Would be lovely. I hear after 70 you can work and keep your benefits with no cut off amount. My girlfriend is doing it. She is one happy bird. She is still working and is drawing her social security. I hope and pray I have it in me or have a me when that time comes. Its rough here. Rent is high if you dont own and the cost of living is going up and salaries are the same. They let you go quick and its hard to get on a job with or without pension in late fifties like me. Not to mention that work has always been my escape from my dysfunctional family and the chaos.
(4)
Report
Pushing back the retirement age does make sense if all you are looking at is the fact that people are living longer now, but just because we are living longer doesn't mean people retain the physical and mental resilience to continue in the workplace. What about those of us doing jobs causing physical discomfort in our 50s, how can we be expected to carry on into our late 60s or 70s? How about the computer tech from the days of DOS, can they still compete with someone younger? Can you picture an older roofer or bricklayer? How about the factory worker downsized out of the auto industry and now working the line for barely above minimum wage? Etc etc...
(3)
Report
cwillie, how true about modern tech devices. I remember my boss asking me to answer his smartphone... all I could do was stare at it, had no clue how to "answer it". Give me the old fashioned landlines, PLEASE.

Or if you have a computer problem and get a tech on the phone... they might as well be speaking in Klingon.
(2)
Report
Thank You All for Your input. I do agree with freqflyer though retirement age should be 65 years with the option of continuing to work until 70.
(0)
Report
My dad died at age 60 and my goal was to retire from my stressful job at 55 and do something more fun - now I'm just hoping not to throw my hands up and quit before 59 1/2 - more than 30 years in the same industry and no pension and retiree health benefits would cost $1,000 a month til Medicare kicks in at 65 or until they stop offering that and push retirees off on the exchanges which most doctors won't accept
(1)
Report
I don't think working later is a bad thing if you're healthy. They would have to create more jobs that aren't based on speed/strength. When the full retirement age was 62, the average lifespan was 77 so a 15 year median. I'm guessing that they are trying to get back to the same median.
(2)
Report
You have a good point, Hannah. Just because the government increases the retirement age doesn't mean businesses will. The US is very concentrated on technology now, instead of manufacture. Tech companies want young people who still have the creative daring. Older people tend to get more conservative. Sadly, many tech companies are not stable. They start up, then sell. There are a lot of personnel changes. I often see older tech people who are out of work and trying to be self employed. Tech is fun for younger folks, but can be unkind to the older. I wish the US would bring back some of the craft and manufacturing jobs, instead of putting so many eggs into the tech basket.
(2)
Report
At least the people in education can work as long as they want to. But then most of them opt out of social security. That brings up a bit of a sore point to me. Teachers opt out of SS for most of their working life, then put in a few years before retirement, so get the same benefits as someone who paid in their whole lives. (Maybe it makes up a bit for them getting paid less when they were teaching.)
(0)
Report
Jessie; I'm unsure what you mean by "teachers opt out of SS". I work for the Dept. of Education in NYC and I CAN"T opt out of SS. Are there places where you can? I was unaware of this.
(0)
Report
@babalou Illinois is a state where (at least some) teachers don't pay in. I'm not sure how that works but I used to work part time at hallmark and an older teacher worked part time just to put $ in SS. I'm not aware that they get a full benefit though because I thought it was based on the average life income but I'm not educated in the facts except Illinois does have/had this situation.
(0)
Report
I believe you can work 10 years and be fully vested in SS. I could be wrong there, so don't quote me! In past years teacher retirement age was 55 if they wanted. They were fully vested in the TRS for their states. Then they could take a regular job until they were 55 and retire with SS when they were 65. Many continued in a job in education, but just switched to SS. People in the post office could do the same thing -- opt out during most of their working life, then take a SS-paying job later. People could live their retirement years quite comfortably.
(0)
Report
I just checked and saw it takes 40 quarters of work to be "fully insured" in social security. So 10 years is right.
(1)
Report
Jessie....just FYI....you may be correct about the 10 years to be fully vested in SS....BUT, the amount of your actual benefit/payment is predicated on both your income/SS contributions over the last 10 years of your employment AND your age when you actually apply for SS.....i.e., longer you work, more you make, later you claim SS = bigger monthly SS payment.
Re: contributions to SS and being able to "opt out" during working life....WOW....never heard of that and find it pretty shocking to think that someone working for the gov't could possibly only contribute to SS in their last 10 working years and be eligible for same amount of benefits as myself, contributing to SS for over 30 years, while they were apparently keeping those $$ for themselves.....am I misunderstanding you??
(0)
Report
You're understanding correctly. The amount of the SS check would depend on what their income was during the 10 working years.
(0)
Report
In my opinion, keeping busy is important. Lowering the retirement age may make sense for manual laborers whose bodies have taken a physical toll much greater than their chronological age would suggest. That said, increasing the retirement age for "white collar" workers also makes sense.

A one size fits old retirement age does not make sense to me. A 60 year old farmer has different retirement considerations than a 60 year old accountant, for example.

I think that the income cap needs to be increased significantly for both single people and households. I also think the number of quarters someone needs to be employed needs to be increased significantly for both single people and households. That said, I think the way we define work in this country is warped. Currently, stay at home moms or dads are not included in the definition of work. And neither are family caregivers.

Looking just at retirement age is myopic but that's what I've come to expect from our legislators in Washington, D.C.
(2)
Report
I have a feeling that in the future people in the US are going to have to learn to take care of themselves when they retire. They are going to have to have individual savings. The US has become increasingly less people oriented. The value of money now exceeds the value of people. The young are primped and groomed because they are the future workers and customers. If the older people have to struggle a bit, then so what? They are just consuming resources, anyway.

I have been totally appalled with the treatment of old people in the US. They are cash cows to be overcharged and swindled. You can write your congress people all day about making it illegal to have phone and mail lists that target the elderly. The only protection in place for them is their family, and most of them don't even care. The government won't address the high costs of end of life care, but complains all the time about how Medicaid is driving the country broke. The answer, of course, is to find some way to regulate healthcare and medication costs -- those are the problem. Instead, they want to handle things on the consumer side. All this does is deplete all the resources of people and takes a huge dip into the tax dollars -- 25% the last I heard spent for healthcare.

I do wish countries would go back to caring about their people and less about how much money the companies can make. Hmmm... I sound like the 99% now.
(2)
Report
I agree, I think the income cap needs to be raised. Right now I think when someone reaches a certain income level the Social Security taken out is on that level. Thus if someone is making multi-millions of dollars, the SS is on the very much lower income level. That should be changed, it would help put more $$ in the SS coffers.
(1)
Report
In Texas, it's not exactly "opting out". I have lots of family that are/were teachers. There is a program called TRS, teacher retirement system. Teachers pay into that program instead of Social Security (like the state government workers). Unless they have worked separately 40 quarters for Social Security, they don't get a "full benefit". And under Republican governor Rick Perry, if you get social security and TRS, you don't "double dip" - they reduce the benefit from TRS. used to be that you could get both larger retirements, but not any more.
(1)
Report
Partly I worked to 68 because I needed to get those 40 contributions. Later I found I need not have bothered because I would have got the same amount claiming on my husband which would have been a bigger amount.
I think big wage earners should have to continue contributing all year not just stop when their salary reached a certain level for the year.
another thing that i think should be stopped is teachers being able to save up their sick time and when they retire be paid that amount as if they are still working. I knew one teacher who was paid for an entire extra year. I see no problem in accumulating sick time so it can be used for actual sickness or donated to seriously ill colleagues. Part of my pension comes from the UK and depends on the exchange rate. It is now $200 less a month than a few years ago.
(1)
Report
I also take issue with banking sick time. Sick time is not vacation time. I also take issue with people going to the office when they are sick - keep your germs to yourself, thank you very much. Sick time should be bankable for when there's an illness or family health emergency. It should be shareable in the event a coworker has fallen on particularly hard times. Some companies profess to be "family oriented" but fail miserably in how they treat their employees. Our work culture in America is so warped that people don't take sick time or vacation time because they fear for their jobs. It's crazy.
(1)
Report
This discussion has been closed for comment. Start a New Discussion.

Recent Questions


Popular Questions


Related Questions

Start a Discussion
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter