Let's see if we can meet in the middle, bipartiasian thread

[DEAR_JOHN]

One thing I don't like is people sitting in comfortable offices in a controlled environment telling us at what age we should retire. Republican, conservative, liberal, democrat, none seem to have a clue.

I worked a very physically demanding job spending 30% of my career up on tall ladders, 5% using hooks to climb poles, be it 30 degrees with a wind chill of 15 degrees to 100 degree days with the heat index of 110 degrees. One weekend around Christmas 1989 the temp got down to around 10 degrees and I had a bad water leak at my house, spewing water all over the place and I couldn't tend to it. Lot's of guys had damage from Ike, Harvery, Beryl and couldn't get an hour or so to tend to their homes. We really didn't work in the rain unless it was to get people's lights back on. From 1978 to around 1995 we didn't even have air conditioning in our trucks.

My complaint isn't about my job, but people telling me at what age I should retire. They have no idea about what all we went through from people holding a gun on us to having people put their dogs on us. I still have scars on my hand and thumb from when a pit bull was allowed out of the house and the owner knew I was in his back yard.

Of course if we retire at 63 versus 66, we take a hit on social security. Retirement age isn't a one size fits all.

[adav8s28]

I agree the full retirement age of 66 (the age where you don't take a hit on the benefit you will receive) should not change.

I have only heard Republican Senator Ted Cruz pushing for an increase to 67 or higher.

They need to change the original formulas so the money does not run out in 2035.

[TheDaliLama]

DJ, the libtards here are soooo far left that the middle is somewhere between Joyce Reids butt cheeks.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

DJ, the libtards here are soooo far left that the middle is somewhere between Joyce Reids butt cheeks.

bahahaha

if they were any more far left they'd be .. conservative republicans

who knew?

bahahaaaa

[txdot-guy]

That didn't last long.

[DEAR_JOHN]

I tried.

[Salty Again]

... Then let's carry-off with it, mates.

... Not sure IF you're better off taking the Security benefit
at age 62 or later. ... Reckon that depends on when you choose
to leave yer job... Some people have money in the bank,
while some are at the mercy of government relief.

All the decisions are different as are the reasons for them.

#### Salty

[txdot-guy]

I’ve paid into the system my entire life starting at the age of thirteen. Raising the retirement age at this point is a real punch in the balls. Our choices are either to raise fico taxes or to raise the retirement age. I’m a big believer in the former rather than the latter.

[Salty Again]

... Agreed there, mate... But talking of "changing the retirement age"
and actually having the legislation to do it are two different things.

#### Salty

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

DJ, the libtards here are soooo far left that the middle is somewhere between Joyce Reids butt cheeks.

JFK would be a right wing extremist if he put forth his policies today in the Democrats eyes.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

JFK would be a right wing extremist if he put forth his policies today in the Democrats eyes.

JFK sent the National Guard to University of Alabama in 1963 so that Black students could register for class. Gov George Wallace, Senator Strom Thurmans good buddy, would not let black students register for class. This was almost a hundred years after the Civil War ended. How would what JFK did be considered right ring?
Can you explain that???

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

One thing I don't like is people sitting in comfortable offices in a controlled environment telling us at what age we should retire. Republican, conservative, liberal, democrat, none seem to have a clue.

Yeah. That's definitely a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. If you have a physically demanding job, I don't understand how you can be reasonably expected to do that work in your 60's. In addition, if you don't have a strong union with that job, you don't know whether you are not going to be pushed out due to ageism depending on the company and good luck finding another similar job at that age.

On the other hand, I had an O&G company as a client in Houston years ago. I was brand spanking new to that industry at the time... I noticed that the client's admins of the people I worked with were hardly spring chickens and past retirement age. Well, it turns out those old overly chatty hens were making almost 6 figures with benefits you would not believe which is standard in that industry. The last thing those ladies were thinking about was retirement because of their cake job at a desk and the increased SS payments, added pension and 401K that they would receive when they did finally retire in their 70's.

My point is that I think there should be exceptions based on what you can do and physically what you can no longer do and/or is not good long term for someone to continue doing. Many have a different situation so IMO, it should not be a one size (specific age) fits all. Seems kind of obvious from a practical standpoint to me, but we are talking about the government.

[biomed1]

To Remain On Topic . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Agreed there, mate... But talking of "changing the retirement age"
and actually having the legislation to do it are two different things.

#### Salty

Of course you're right. Changing the retirement age will never get passed. You gotta think all the politicos know that.

So then why campaign on it?

I think those folks think us voters are all stupid.

[eyecu2]

Age of retirement and benefits have always been determined by actuarials, who try to maximize those who are eligible, while putting out a small carrot to keep everyone from claiming at a lower age. Typically those who take retirement at 63-66 make out best if longevity isn't in the genes. My brother retired at 63, and it would take him literally 8 years to have benefitted in waiting. He wasn't a higher wage earner < 100k, and none of us are guaranteed to live beyond a day, including after retirement. If SSI is your only retirement income, it's a different story. If you can spread out some of the savings to span between 63-67, then it's a much easier decision.