1. Where did your likes go? Please Read This Thread »

Life expectancy was 61.7 years when Social Security was passed in 1937 !

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by The Sausage King, Dec 17, 2016.

  1. The Sausage King Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Social Security Act was passed in 1935 guaranteeing retirement pensions to all Americans over the age of 65. Sounds like a good deal — except for the fact that the average American life expectancy back in '35 was 61.7 years.

    http://www.newsmax.com/ArmstrongWilliams/Social-Security-life-expectancy/2013/11/19/id/537472/

    Here's the thing, times change and so must the laws. Today the average life expectancy is 78.74 years. We need to start making it culturally norm to retire at 70, and we need to move Social Security benefits up to 70 as well. There is no way we can sustain this current system.
     
  2. JaneJanes Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Life expectancy is so skewed because they take into consideration infant mortality, which was much greater in the 30's than it is today.
     
  3. Renard Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    160
    Other western countries have ~65 retirement age. So no, I don't see why the US should have 70. By the way, said other western countries have single payer healthcare, cheap education, maternity and paternity leave, worker protection laws, cheap daycares and a ton of other goodies you could only dream of. So cut out the "We can't afford it" crap. You can afford it if you choose to make space in the budget for it. Politicians are well-paid puppets, they don't care about you, they're retiring in luxury.
     
  4. The Penetrator Green Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Croatia
    i dont see how can a 70 year old be a productive worker, no matter what the job is...

    Future is supposed to be easier for the people, do less work not more, in my opinion retirement age shuold be 60, and noone shuold work more than 6-8 huors per day...

    Were not here for the system, the system is here for us...
     
  5. Lead /Led/ like the panda Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    37,825
    Likes Received:
    364
    Location:
    Around Pittsburgh
    I think you technically can do 62 but you agree to less benefits if you wait to 65. That may just be for the current generation of baby boomers and it phases out after that. Maybe I'm think it the opposite way. It might be if you wait to 67, it a higher payout
     
  6. Gandhi War Room Deep State Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20,129
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    MTL in ORLANDO
    It would be interesting to see average life expectancy at 65 over time. That would take out the noise here.
     
  7. JohnnySagebrush Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    2,018
    Likes Received:
    2
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

    Look at life expectancy at 20 to take infant mortality and childhood disease out of it.
     
  8. ookii Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,903
    Likes Received:
    17
    If only the government pays back the 1.35 trillion surplus that was funded for the war in iraq and tax cuts for the rich, then you can bring up rehauling social security
     
  9. Sounds like a government tax scam.
     
  10. Gandhi War Room Deep State Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20,129
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    MTL in ORLANDO
    Good chart but I would just at look at age 65 to how much longer we get benefits now than when the program started. Definitely living longer than when the program started. 6 years more.
     
  11. panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    38,346
    Likes Received:
    114
    From what I understand, once you account for infant mortality and war, human life expectancy hasn't changed much for thousands of years. In regards to things SS, I think that matters since deaths to war or infant mortality aren't removing the portion of the population that was paying into SS anyway.
     
  12. Thepaintbucket Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    14,604
    Likes Received:
    74
    SS wouldn't be in such bad shape if the US government wasn't borrowing from the funds for the past few decades.
     
  13. ChoppyChoppyPeePee Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    32,526
    Likes Received:
    178
    There were also 22 workers for every retiree back then. Now it's less than 3 to 1. :eek:
     
  14. ChoppyChoppyPeePee Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    32,526
    Likes Received:
    178
    Or give incentives to bring back the well over $2 trillion stashed overseas.
     
  15. Gandhi War Room Deep State Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    20,129
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    MTL in ORLANDO
    Maybe but that chart seems to say life expectancy at 60 has climbed like 5 years since 1935, and that's not war or infant mortality, or am i reading it wrong?
     
  16. HomerThompson Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    41,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    See, social security has increased lifespan in America by 17 years! The system works!
     
  17. IppoMakanuchi Double Yellow Card Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why even have a retirement age anymore, most of my generation will literally work until the day they die.
     
  18. HomerThompson Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    41,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    Or we could throw all those tax cheat pieces of shit in jail and MAGA!
     
  19. HomerThompson Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    41,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Terror Lake
    I saw it the same way, roughly 6 years difference. So, a retirement age of 67 would be equivalent to 61 when SS started. I think it should be 65 with the max allowed benefit right away. Seems reasonable. If everyone on the right is so worried about it, then they shouldn't have been so against the death panels. :eek:
     
  20. TheFirstEMP Overdone and dry! Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    14,827
    Likes Received:
    243
    I plan to retire by 55. And I don't expect big daddy government to take care of my personal responsibilities that most people today don't.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.